On Jun 9, 9:56*am, Choppy Warburton wrote:
I've always used the old 220 - age formula to calculate MHR. * *Based
on my age it would be 170 and I've been training by that standard for
some time now.

Last night I got ****ed at this guy trying to ride faster than me and
broke my training pace for several 3 minute intervals. *I thought I
saw 179 on the HRM but actually had valid periods of 185-186 during
these efforts.

Being faster is normally the best revenge but finding out my MHR is 16
years younger than I am felt even better.

This page says I have the heart of a 30 yr old.

http://www.brianmac.co.uk/maxhr.htm

So I am feeling really good about that.

Anyone else have some input on this subject? *Thanks

220 minus your age with an estimated standard deviation of ~10 bpm
means its not a very useful statistic.
95% of 20 year olds would have a max HR between 180 and 220. 30 year
old between 170 and 210 etc.
Not a reliable method of measuring exertion as it can vary so much
depending on temperature, hydration, training state etc.
In my lifetime, I've never seen anything above the 160s. Generally
athletes have lower max HR than sedentary people but can pump more
blood per beat.
I'm not sure that having a higher max HR means anything significant.
Phil H