Might I damage my heart

[old bell]

In my quest to get fitter and now that I am wearing a HRM I find that in my mid week 9 mile sprint circuit my heart rate is over 90% of its maximum for 2/3 of the ride and quite often over 95%.
I do this several times a week and have probably been doing it for a year or so.
However, I am trying a bit harder now but don't want to overdo it especially as I am in my 60s.

On the basis that I have been doing it for a while is OK to continue or should I ease off to reduce the chance of causing a problem.

 

[Crackle]

If this is your theoretical maximum i.e. the 220-age one, then it's safe to say you can probably ignore it. According to that formula my max is 171 but in actuality it's 191 on a bike. Unless you do a ramp test (google it), you won't know your actual max HR, so just take the highest you've seen and add some beats, is the usual advice.

Your HR monitor is very good for monitoring if you are overdoing it. If you check your pulse in the morning, a low pulse may be a sign of fatigue and a higher one than normal, a sign of illness, same on the ride.

Provided you don't have any other symptoms from your riding, it's unlikely you need to ease off but you might want to vary your effort over your rides, longer slower, shorter faster kind of thing, certainly all the training advice is to mix up your riding.

 

[Herzog]

In my quest to get fitter and now that I am wearing a HRM I find that in my mid week 9 mile sprint circuit my heart rate is over 90% of its maximum for 2/3 of the ride and quite often over 95%.
I do this several times a week and have probably been doing it for a year or so.
However, I am trying a bit harder now but don't want to overdo it especially as I am in my 60s.

On the basis that I have been doing it for a while is OK to continue or should I ease off to reduce the chance of causing a problem.

9 miles at 90 - 95 %...wow. As Crackle suggests, I think the max figure may be out. Can you speak (single words/sentences/mumbles/dribbles) at all during the ride (indicative of how hard you are going)?

 

[Ian H]

The standard age-related calculation is a very rough estimate and almost certainly (for fear of being sued) on the safe side.

 

[VamP]

While all the above is true and some good advice there (except Ian H - as the age calculation is not an estimate but rather a statistical average - the point about it's inaccuracy for each and every individual still holds) nobody has answered the OPs question regarding potential damage to his heart.


As long as your heart does not have anything wrong with it already, it is safe to take it to the max. You will not damage it. However, given your age, it would be worth considering having your heart checked out for potential defects before continuing with your activity. Even if you are probably not taking it to 95% daily.

 

[old bell]

Thanks for your advice. I agree with your comments about maximum heart rate and while I have never done a physical test to establish it, I have taken the highest theoretical maximum based on 3 different calculations (There is 10 beats difference between the three).

My general feeling is that if I was going to have a problem it would have shown up by now, but if I do start getting any side effects I will seek proper advice.

As to whether I can speak when my heart is beating so quickly, the answer is only in the first three minutes or so.

 

[Red Light]

According to that formula my max is 171 but in actuality it's 191 on a bike.

According to the formula I am 21

 

[VamP]

According to the formula I am 21

See conversely, the formula is within 2 beats of my actual. However, the point has been made and it's clear that it represents a statistical average and may be wildly out for the individual. None of which means anything, beyond highlighting the need to work out your own HRmax by direct measurement IF you want to use HR monitoring for training purposes.

It is certainly incorrect to apply the formula in reverse and try to interpolate any meaning for your age (biological or otherwise) or health. There is no value in and of itself in having a high or a low HRmax as compared to the rest of the population. I am sure you know that.

 

[Crackle]

Yeah sorry, Old Bell, I didn't answer your question because I misread it, Vamp has though.

90% for 9 miles, really, blimey! Even if you're out by a few beats, that's very good. Personally I just stick with the 'slow' part of the training.

 

[Arsen Gere]

Dunno if it helps but I sometimes push myself to the point where my vision starts to go and fingers start to tingle. There is no pushing yourself beyond that point because you fall over as you start to lose consciousness. Thats where I find my max hr.
I found by trial and error that I could max out my heart rate one day and the next day it would not go back to the same level so rest between trials.

It's easier to find your max running than cycling. Just using your legs won't max out your heart, you need to use your upper body too. In order to get your heart to respond you need to get the blood moving round your body, this done in combination with your heart and the muscles which pump the blood back, so cadence as a role to play here. Pushing big gears won't do it, unless you are riving and tearing with your upper body and the cadence is high enough.

I came back to cycling after a 25 year lay off (51), in the first year my max was 161, verfied by running hill repeats, the next year it maxed at 164 and this year it looks like it's 167. It's not supposed to be trainable.

The Sunderaland park run has an uphill finish. I was experimenting using the natural resonance in running to keep my HR high without going lactic and went all out at the finish to hit 167. Here is an example in this link. I was so knackered at the finish I could not find my garmin to press the stop button for a few seconds. I was doing 96% of my max for 20 mins .

http://connect.garmin.com/activity/158623856

I have an ectopic heart rate, it loses the plot now and again but it does not stop me using it to the max.

I also compliment this with long slow rides of 6-8 hours.
Being fit and being healthy are not the same thing. You need rest too. If I were you I'd mix it up so you have the aerobic capacity to support your all out efforts and don't get bored.

Doing all out efforts for long periods of time is where damage is likely to occur, but it is a temporary effect.
http://www.nhs.uk/news/2011/12December/Pages/endurance-exercise-short-term-heart-damage.aspx

You are not alone, Cammish worried about his heart for a bit.
http://www.planet-x-bikes.co.uk/new...e/2011/04/08/my-hardest-ever-interval-session


HTH

 

[HLaB]

According to the formula I am 21

It was my 18th birthday at the weekend

 

[henshaw11]

as the age calculation is not an estimate but rather a statistical average

Statistical guesstimate might be a better description - this paper has some background:
http://www.cyclingfusion.com/pdf/220-Age-Origins-Problems.pdf

 

[Crackle]

It was my 18th birthday at the weekend

Again!

 

[VamP]

Statistical guesstimate might be a better description - this paper has some background:
http://www.cyclingfusion.com/pdf/220-Age-Origins-Problems.pdf

Very interesting.

Thanks for sharing.

 

[fossyant]

My general feeling is that if I was going to have a problem it would have shown up by now, but if I do start getting any side effects I will seek proper advice.

I was going to add the same thing - how active have you been in the past though ?

I've been asked recently due to shoulder surgery and I said if my heart wasn't good, I'd be dead by now