Maximum Heart Rate Zones....

[RegG]

I know this has probably been done to death elsewhere but.....

Until now, and since getting a Garmin last year, I have used the calculation of "220 - age" to get the maximum heart rate. However, in this weeks Cycling Weekly pull out guide to sportives, it suggests this formula for calculating your max heart rate: Men 214 - (0.8 x age) or women 209 - (0.9 x age)

Based on the first formula (i.e. 220 - age) my max heart rate would be 157 bpm. Using the CW formula it is 163.6.

Which formula should be used or does it not matter to that extent as both are only a guide perhaps?

 

[ianrauk]

They are both arbitrary guides.
If you really want to find out your max heart rate. Go get it measured properly.

 

[Yellow Saddle]

Calculating your MHR by subtracting your age from a number is calculating your weight by adding your age to a number. It will be accurate once in every so many hundred people measured - like my non-working mantelpiece clock that's accurate twice a day.

If you really care about the number and have plans for doing something meaningful with it, have it measured in a stress test. It isn't a particularly nice procedure. Unfortunately even that isn't enough. You will then also have to have your lactate threshold measured so that you can work with the numbers.

 

[S-Express]

Which formula should be used or does it not matter to that extent as both are only a guide perhaps?

All depends how serious you are about having an accurate number, as opposed to a complete guess. If you want an accurate MHR from which to calculate training zones, then a properly conducted MHR test is worthwhile. MHR testing is not pleasant though, but then neither is serious HII training. LTHR testing is another alternative, from which you can also calculate training zones.

As Yellow Saddle says, using a theoretical MHR calculation is a bit pointless though - a bit like having a watch set to the wrong time of day.

 

[screenman]

I can work out my shoe size by deducting 52 from my age number.

That 220 rubbish would give me 159, I see 175 when testing myself, done properly I would suggest it would be closer to 180.

 

[Big T]

I'm 57 and my max HR is 185, seen during a Wattbike max sprint session. According to the formula my max is 163, so it's way out.

 

[Colin_P]

Use the garmin itself to determine your max HR.

Go balls out as many or on as many rides / sprints / hills whatever and note it down. I'd say an averaged max over a minimum of ten rides is sufficient.

The excepted formulas are very crude and not worth bothering with.

Me personally, at the age of 46, with damaged heart muscle and taking a massive daily dose of beta blockers have a max heart rate of 118, I used the garmin to determine this. As a result I cycle slowly but steadily but can still do the hills but really really slowly.

Periodically re-test your max HR as it might change.

 

[Racing roadkill]

It's all about POWWWWWWWERRRRR, these days.

 

[Colin_P]

It's all about POWWWWWWWERRRRR, these days.

But only if you are quite mad, have a credit card and don't tell the Mrs. Those pedals cost more than a few quid.

 

[Racing roadkill]

But only if you are quite mad, have a credit card and don't tell the Mrs. Those pedals cost more than a few quid.

Very true that.

 

[Tin Pot]

But only if you are quite mad, have a credit card and don't tell the Mrs. Those pedals cost more than a few quid.

It's like you are a fly on my wall three weeks ago..!

 

[Tin Pot]

I know this has probably been done to death elsewhere but.....

Until now, and since getting a Garmin last year, I have used the calculation of "220 - age" to get the maximum heart rate. However, in this weeks Cycling Weekly pull out guide to sportives, it suggests this formula for calculating your max heart rate: Men 214 - (0.8 x age) or women 209 - (0.9 x age)

Based on the first formula (i.e. 220 - age) my max heart rate would be 157 bpm. Using the CW formula it is 163.6.

Which formula should be used or does it not matter to that extent as both are only a guide perhaps?

As others have said, all the formulas are horseshit. They are entirely made up with no basis in science..! There is much pseudoscience in the world of exercise.

 

[Colin_P]

It's like you are a fly on my wall three weeks ago..!

I take it you are up early every morning then? To intercept the post and hide the CC statement

 

[Alan O]

According to the 220 thing my peak HR should be 162. Today, on a fairly relaxed 12.5 mile ride my HR reached 164, and I was nowhere near pushing as hard as I could.

Alan

 

[screenman]

I would not like to pedal to my max on anything other than a turbo, having done quite a few the experience is quite unpleasant, I would not be safe on the road for a few minutes afterwards.