UKC

I'm 45 and have just started running properly. Using the rule of thumb for HR max of 220-age gives me a theoretical HR Max of 175. On a 45 minute run last night, according to my HR monitor, at some point, I peaked at 219bpm and had an average of 159bpm. If I can get so far over the 175 figure, what does Max HR actually mean ?

In reply to paul walters:

It means what it says, but...

1. That rule of thumb is totally unreliable.
2. Your 219 peak is almost certainly just a rogue-reading spike from poor contact etc.

In reply to paul walters:
220 minus your age is complete bollox. I don't know any reasonably fit person that this applies to. The most accurate way to find your max HR rate is to do a Ramp Test. For cycling this means after a proper warm up ride up a steep hill too fast to make the summit and keep going until you pass out with red mist in your vision. For me this is 186, and I'm 55.

Alternatively an approximation is the maximum effort you can exert over a sustained period without going into oxygen debt is around 85% of max HR

In reply to paul walters: MRH is not really a useful physiological indicator for training and the formula is even less useful. Even heart rate itself is only useful as a proxy for other physiological factors.

If you want to train usefully with heart rate, have a google for lactate threshold heart rate.

In reply to Oujmik:

But better than Max Head Room?

In reply to paul walters: Thanks for the replies. I've had a 219 reading off this monitor once before, but put it down to a rogue. There was one point on my run where I was gasping for breath on a steep hill, and when I saw the 219 again when I downloaded the info, I wondered if I'd hit it then.

In reply to paul walters: Earlier today I beasted myself up a long hill on my usual route, sprinting up it as fast as I could for as long as I could. I kept a continuous watch on my HR Monitor, and it peaked at 184bpm when I was running..... at the top I was forced to stop as I could hardly breath (no red mist though), and when I was putting the computer back on my wrist noticed it had leapt to 197bpm. Not exactly a ramp test, but as close as I could get without facilities. Any thoughts on 184bpm as a HR Max for a 45 year old? BTW, I don't class myself as particularly fit.

In reply to paul walters: 197 is not unheard of. Mine has hit 194 a few times @ 45 years old. You need to look at the values either side of the reading on a PC. Assuming you can download the data from your watch.

In reply to paul walters: 194 could be your max. Max HR is not as good a fitness indicator as your minimum resting heart rate

In reply to paul walters: Why do you care what your max heart rate is? What are you trying to get from it?

In reply to paul walters:

From what I remember of HRM training, your heart rate at low pace is slightly irregular, but, as it rises from exercise, it reaches a point above which it is exactly regular - this is something like 80% of your max heart rate (but you'll need to check the figure).

This is how some of the higher end HRMs (used to?) calculate max heart rate.

In reply to Martin1978: Hi Martin. Not sure what I'm really aiming at. Just had this inkling that I should be running at 75%-85% of HR Max, which, if my theoretical max was 175bpm (220-age), then my average rate should be 139 (for 80%). My actual average is more like 160bpm, which would mean I was running (or cycling) at around 91% of that max figure. Acknowledging that HR Max is bollox (as clearly obvious from the above replies), I wondered what my max actually was. If I walk, run or ride at 139bpm, I feel barely taxed at all. I can't possibly be that fit. BTW, my resting heart rate is around 60bpm.
Of course, all this depends entirely on the accuracy of my HRM!

In reply to paul walters:
I'm surprised no-ones mentioned working heart rate. Take your min from your max to get this maximum range and then apply percentages to that.

So 180-60 is working heart rate of 120. 80% of this is 96 which would make 80% heart rate of 156.

I have always had a horrifyingly low max heart rate. I have to be virtually on my knees with blinding lights before I hit 170, yet I can a half marathon with it at 165. More specific aerobic training has seen it go up a little and I can get it to 172-173 now but still nowhere near my theoretical. (I'm 31 so it should be 189. In fact, I've been running seriously 6 years and it's always been 170 so 20-25 bpm below the theory)

I wouldn't worry too much, but use working heart rates.

In reply to paul walters: Your max and min heart rates have no bearing on how fit you are. They only indicate how big your heart is. The bigger your heart the slower it has to pump to get the required volume of blood around your body.

WHR is useful to indicate how hard you are working on a particular session.

The true indicator of your fitness is how quickly your heart rate returns to normal after exercise.

In reply to DancingOnRock: agree.. I don't think it matters at all, mine hits just over 160 in hill reps.. so its a low max heart rate, others 200+, it doesn't mean anything at all.

In reply to Eric the Red: That makes more sense as it puts my "usual" rate when I'm running at about 159-160 (if I use 184 as a max and 80%), which is about right if I think objectively about my state..... able to talk when I'm running, but still slightly breathless.

In reply to paul walters:
I know it does.
You're welcome.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

Not strictly true. It is an indicator of efficiency. You'll see your resting heart rate decrease the fitter you become. This isn't because your heart is getting larger, but it (and teh rest of your CV system) is getting more efficient.


This is a good indicator, and is based on efficiency of the CV system also.

In reply to Martin1978: But you get huge variations.. so yes the lower the better for that one person.. but a low heart rate doesn't mean you are fitter than a person with a higehr heart rate.. it's like Vo2 max, which is a very good estimator of fitness, yet elite marathon runners have had VO2 maxes in the 60's.. well below max range tested which is low - mid 90's..

In reply to paul walters: Working heart rate is useful to use, and if you see your max heart rate go above your calculated max hear rate I'd use that figure in the calculation.

I would treat you 219 with suspicion though. It is most likely caused by some external interference with the HRM.

In reply to IainRUK:

Agreed:

"You'll see your resting heart rate decrease the fitter you become."

In reply to Martin1978: That 219 reading was almost certainly a rogue spike. Incredibly, a colleague of mine frequently cycles through my town (despite living 20 miles away !) and says that he often gets suspicious readings on a particular route. Between us, we've narrowed it down to a single section of road, and when I have time, I'm going to walk along there and see what's about that might cause the spike.
Thanks for all the replies. I feel better informed now

In reply to paul walters:

Spike could be caused by phone line, electricity pylon etc.

If you get regular 'unexplained' spikes I'd get yourself checked out at the Dr.