Max heart rates and age

On Jun 10, 5:07*pm, ilan wrote:
That statistic has too high variance to be meaningful in any single
case. The best method is to do your own max heart rate test, a 5
minute maximal effort (noting that max heart rate may appear after the
effort), and work from there.

However, this misleading statistic is remarkably persistent. I had a
stress test where the doctor (he told me he was one after I started
telling him he was ignorant) stopped because I reached 220-age, and
wrote in his report that I was at the "acme of effort." Nothing could
persuade him that my max was actually at least 18 beats higher,
including (a) I had seen that 2 weeks before on my heart rate monitor,
(b) that what he stated was my maximum was actually my aerobic
threshold heart rate and I could maintain that rate for at least 30
minutes, and the best argument (c) I was having a normal conversation
with him at my supposed maximal heart rate.

My big mistake there was paying him for the consultation. Afterwards,
I had a laugh about it with the doctor who referred me and who worked
in the same medical sports center, Dr. Gerard Porte.

By the way, real sports medicine doctors report that max heart rates
in the 180's for racing cyclists in their 60's is not at all unusual.

In the other direction, there was a 30 year old female grad student
racing at Stanford whose maximal heart rate was about 170, and she had
previously been a speedskater. Add to that the fact that women
generally have higher max heart rates.

Max heart rate is different for different sports. Running should give
you a higher max than cycling. Personally, I saw a slightly higher
value roller skating.

Max heart rate can decrease with increased fitness. The highest I ever
saw was 204 when I started riding again seriously and used a heart
rate monitor for the first time. After a year of training and much
improved fitness, I never went above 195 ever again. Since then, it's
decreased to about 187 in 15 years, but gets that high only when I am
less fit.

I talked to a guy in August 2002 who was good friends with Azevedo,
and he told me that Beloki's heart rate was 230 when he attacked
Armstrong (which happened only once in that Tour de France).

Finally, one thing which I never quite figured out. As your max heart
rate goes down, is the top end cut off, or does the whole system shift
with the shifted max?

-ilan

I think it becomes compressed, you max reduces and your min increases,
speaking from my own experience.
The biggest decline in endurance performance, IMO, with advancing age
is due to a decrease in cardiac output. Also, your doctor running the
test was doing it using a health and not a fitness protocol. Once you
got to 220 minus your age, test over, no bradycardia or signs that you
were about to keel over. You shouldn't take such pleasure in deflating
others with different perceptions in real life; save it for rbr.
Phil H

On Jun 11, 2:48*am, Phil H wrote:
On Jun 10, 5:07*pm, ilan wrote:









That statistic has too high variance to be meaningful in any single
case. The best method is to do your own max heart rate test, a 5
minute maximal effort (noting that max heart rate may appear after the
effort), and work from there.

However, this misleading statistic is remarkably persistent. I had a
stress test where the doctor (he told me he was one after I started
telling him he was ignorant) stopped because I reached 220-age, and
wrote in his report that I was at the "acme of effort." Nothing could
persuade him that my max was actually at least 18 beats higher,
including (a) I had seen that 2 weeks before on my heart rate monitor,
(b) that what he stated was my maximum was actually my aerobic
threshold heart rate and I could maintain that rate for at least 30
minutes, and the best argument (c) I was having a normal conversation
with him at my supposed maximal heart rate.

My big mistake there was paying him for the consultation. Afterwards,
I had a laugh about it with the doctor who referred me and who worked
in the same medical sports center, Dr. Gerard Porte.

By the way, real sports medicine doctors report that max heart rates
in the 180's for racing cyclists in their 60's is not at all unusual.

In the other direction, there was a 30 year old female grad student
racing at Stanford whose maximal heart rate was about 170, and she had
previously been a speedskater. Add to that the fact that women
generally have higher max heart rates.

Max heart rate is different for different sports. Running should give
you a higher max than cycling. Personally, I saw a slightly higher
value roller skating.

Max heart rate can decrease with increased fitness. The highest I ever
saw was 204 when I started riding again seriously and used a heart
rate monitor for the first time. After a year of training and much
improved fitness, I never went above 195 ever again. Since then, it's
decreased to about 187 in 15 years, but gets that high only when I am
less fit.

I talked to a guy in August 2002 who was good friends with Azevedo,
and he told me that Beloki's heart rate was 230 when he attacked
Armstrong (which happened only once in that Tour de France).

Finally, one thing which I never quite figured out. As your max heart
rate goes down, is the top end cut off, or does the whole system shift
with the shifted max?

-ilan

I think it becomes compressed, you max reduces and your min increases,
speaking from my own experience.
The biggest decline in endurance performance, IMO, with advancing age
is due to a decrease in cardiac output. Also, your doctor running the
test was doing it using a health and not a fitness protocol. Once you
got to 220 minus your age, test over, no bradycardia or signs that you
were about to keel over. You shouldn't take such pleasure in deflating
others with different perceptions in real life; save it for rbr.
Phil H

Actually, I was trying to figure out with Porte whether the machine
turned itself off at 220-age or whether the guy did it himself. Sorry,
but the doctor was incompetent because he refused to explain his
protocol, clearly because he didn't understand it. He was carrying out
a scientific procedure so has a responsibility to explain it, it's not
a matter of perception. Oh, and anyone in a position of authority who
is incompetent definitely needs deflating.

-ilan

"Choppy Warburton" wrote in message
...
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

214- (.8*age) tends to give more realistic numbers than 220-age. For fit
people, max heart rate doesn't decline as rapidly as the 220-age
calculation suggests.

For myself, I find my max heart rate runs higher during the summer, as I
get near my best shape, but there's more to it than that. I also find I
have more "control" over my heart rate when I'm in shape. It will
respond more appropriately to effort, ramping up evenly. When out of
shape, it will climb very quickly and plateau at a lower level (and
resist coming down from the plateau for a longer period of time after
I'm no longer pushing as hard as I can.

Presently I'm 55 and find it difficult to see something beyond 172, but
that should gradually start to rise. Last summer my peak was 177. I can
sit at 164 for 20+ minutes.

But does it matter? Racing was in another life, but I take "training
rides" seriously. Guess I'm still trying to find out if I'm a has-been
or never-was, although what anything in the present would have to say
about something years past is a darned good question.

Time for my son to take over. http://youtu.be/nJi8cZBPxuA

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 17:48:39 -0700 (PDT),
Phil H wrote:
On Jun 10, 5:07*pm, ilan wrote:

...I had a stress test where the doctor (he told me he was
one after I started telling him he was ignorant) stopped
because I reached 220-age, and wrote in his report that I was
at the "acme of effort." Nothing could persuade him that my max
was actually at least 18 beats higher, including (a) I had seen
that 2 weeks before on my heart rate monitor, (b) that what he
stated was my maximum was actually my aerobic threshold heart
rate and I could maintain that rate for at least 30 minutes,
and the best argument (c) I was having a normal conversation
with him at my supposed maximal heart rate.

My big mistake there was paying him for the consultation.
Afterwards, I had a laugh about it with the doctor who referred
me and who worked in the same medical sports center, Dr. Gerard
Porte.

...your doctor running the test was doing it using a health
and not a fitness protocol. Once you got to 220 minus your age,
test over, no bradycardia or signs that you were about to keel
over.

Sounds suspect to me. Isn't the purpose of a stress test to look
for malperfusion at high effort, as an indicator of MI risk? If
the high end of possible effort isn't evaluated, it doesn't seem
they've done a meaningful test.

--
Theodore (Ted) Heise Bloomington, IN, USA

On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 21:10:26 -0700,
Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
"Choppy Warburton" wrote in message
...

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.

214- (.8*age) tends to give more realistic numbers than 220-age.
For fit people, max heart rate doesn't decline as rapidly as the
220-age calculation suggests.

For myself, I find my max heart rate runs higher during the
summer, as I get near my best shape, but there's more to it than
that. I also find I have more "control" over my heart rate when
I'm in shape. It will respond more appropriately to effort,
ramping up evenly. When out of shape, it will climb very quickly
and plateau at a lower level (and resist coming down from the
plateau for a longer period of time after I'm no longer pushing
as hard as I can.

Is that really "control"? Sounds like better performance, but
still involuntary.


Presently I'm 55 and find it difficult to see something beyond
172, but that should gradually start to rise. Last summer my
peak was 177. I can sit at 164 for 20+ minutes.

Yeah, I'm about the same. Another type of variability I see is
that after a few days off a hard effort will give me a noticeably
higher max than I can get the day after a hard ride--something
like 10 bpm. For example, last Friday after four days off I saw a
MHR of 172 bpm during a 50 mile ride on the tandem with my wife.
The next day we did 40 miles and I saw a max of 152, despite a
similar level of effort.


But does it matter? Racing was in another life, but I take
"training rides" seriously. Guess I'm still trying to find out
if I'm a has-been or never-was, although what anything in the
present would have to say about something years past is a darned
good question.

Same here. Dammit.

--
Theodore (Ted) Heise Bloomington, IN, USA

In my 20's I used to run at 188 -193 for 51-54 minutes when I time
trialed. My physiologist liked more than anything to see these steep
recovery curves where the BPM shot up from 110 -190 and went down
almost as quickly. I had a resting heart rate that was in high 20s
typically. 24 years later my RBR fatty heart barely get's down to 50
during sleep.

In article
,
ilan wrote:

Oh, and anyone in a position of authority who
is incompetent definitely needs deflating.

Agree. I bitch slapped a couple rent-a-cops yesterday.
They finally had to belt up and walk off while I ragged on
them to their backs. Real policemen you can hold a
conversation with.

--
Old Fritz

In article
,
ilan wrote:

Finally, one thing which I never quite figured out. As your max heart
rate goes down, is the top end cut off, or does the whole system shift
with the shifted max?

I guess that there are other bottlenecks in the system,
and increased pulse rate has no more benefit, plus a
fit person pumps more blood per heart beat than a less
fit person.

--
Old Fritz

"Anton Berlin" wrote in message
...


In my 20's I used to run at 188 -193 for 51-54 minutes when I time
trialed. My physiologist liked more than anything to see these steep
recovery curves where the BPM shot up from 110 -190 and went down
almost as quickly. I had a resting heart rate that was in high 20s
typically. 24 years later my RBR fatty heart barely get's down to 50
during sleep.

Curious what you weighed back then. Most of the bean-pole climbers I
knew tended to have somewhat-higher resting heart rates.I don't think
mine was ever lower than the upper-30s.

These days, I pay a lot more attention to how quickly it recovers, and
the heart rate during the first half hour or so of a ride is a strong
indicator of my general health (when I'm not at the top of my game, it
"idles" higher than it should, and in fact when I'm going to come down
with a cold in a day or two, it will "show up" that way very
consistently.

I realize that power is the in thing these days, and sometime I'll give
it a try (waiting for the vaporware pedal version to appear), but there
have been a number of rides where watching my heart rate made a big
difference in performance. Most notably was my climb up Haleakala 5
years ago, where I discovered that, once above 8500ft, I couldn't let it
get above 155 because it would quickly head up from there until I had
nothing left, and recovery took *forever.* Keeping it at or below 155
and I could move at a good clip, but push beyond and boom. I suppose I
could have done the same thing with power, finding an output that was
sustainable rather than heartrate.

Getting back to that really low resting heart rate of yours back in the
day. Nice to know you had something in common with the early EPO dopers
and their sludgy blood. :-)

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

On 6/12/2011 2:06 AM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:


I realize that power is the in thing these days, and sometime I'll give
it a try (waiting for the vaporware pedal version to appear), but there
have been a number of rides where watching my heart rate made a big
difference in performance. Most notably was my climb up Haleakala 5
years ago, where I discovered that, once above 8500ft, I couldn't let it
get above 155 because it would quickly head up from there until I had
nothing left, and recovery took *forever.* Keeping it at or below 155
and I could move at a good clip, but push beyond and boom. I suppose I
could have done the same thing with power, finding an output that was
sustainable rather than heartrate.


Mike,

The biggest problem with HR only is that, and I'm sure you discovered
this, it lags behind the effort by some amount of time. This time can
often vary but the bottom line is that your relative exertion will swing
back and forth as you attempt to "zero" in on your HR number.

Power doesn't lie and it reacts quickly. As an example if I'm on the
trainer and I can produce 247 Watts at a HR of 157 the 247 Watts will
usually produce the same HR unless outside influences are affecting your
HR such as a large group etc. But even better, if you know you can
sustain 247 Watts for 1 hour then uphill/downhill/headwind/tailwind
doesn't matter. 247 Watts is always 247 Watts.

The Vaporware Pedal system may have some problems even if it ever makes
it to the market.

Problem 1) Wrong choice of pedals. They appear to be ignoring one of the
mainstream pedal systems in use today. From a marketing standpoint
that's pretty stupid.

Problem 2) Even worse ...... Rumblings indicate that you might be tied
to a Polar Display. Which means that it will not be ANT+ and compatible
with other, much more commonly used systems.

These two items suggest that even if it makes it to the market it will
soon go the way of the DoDo Bird or "Drug Free Professional Cyclist" and
become extinct.

I gave up on this product and went with PowerTap and a Quarq on two
different bikes.

Regards

Bill





--

William R. Mattil

http://www.celestial-images.com