Max HR Query

abcdggs

Not sure if this has been discussed before if it has links would be much appreciated. Meant to ask this on saturday after my spin but forgot. On looking at my hrm after the spin it said i had a max hr of 214. firstly i know this is fairly high but is it likely it is a hrm glitch? secondly is there a limit to hr max?
Thanks

TinyExplosions

abcdggs wrote: »

Not sure if this has been discussed before if it has links would be much appreciated. Meant to ask this on saturday after my spin but forgot. On looking at my hrm after the spin it said i had a max hr of 214. firstly i know this is fairly high but is it likely it is a hrm glitch? secondly is there a limit to hr max?
Thanks

Basically speaking, there isn't a max heart rate, it's different for each person. If you got up to 214, then you got up to 214, and I wouldn't worry overtly about it.

The rule of thumb states that it should be in the region of 220 - your age, but that's clearly not going to be the case for everyone.

I'd not worry about it, but I ain't a doctor, so don't sue me if my advice is wrong!

niceonetom

214 would be a pretty high max (though some people are capable of it) so my suspicion would be that it's a glitch. All hrms occasionally give anomalous readings - poor skin contact, battery dying, interference from other devices etc.

If 214 seems a total outlier then I'd dismiss it.

If you want to know your maxHR just try to stay with a much strong group on a climb, hold the wheel until you wake up in a hedge then review the data in your hrm.

TinyExplosions

niceonetom wrote: »

If you want to know your maxHR just try to stay with a much strong group on a climb, hold the wheel until you wake up in a hedge then review the data in your hrm.

Or get chased by a great big dog... worked for me!

Did it feel like you were going that hard? 214 is perhaps possible but you would be at the stage where you're drooling on the bars but no longer care. My polar has given me crazy readings in the past due to poor skin contact- even said 312 at one point! The highest accurate reading I have seen is 196, which fits exactly with the 220-age thing for me. That was sprinting up Patrick's hill and it certainly felt like a maximal effort.

DirkVoodoo

If it's a spike sitting amongst a series of 180s, I would probably ignore it. If you are consistently hitting in or around 214 when giving it socks, then maybe it is your max.

Try a few maximum efforts on climbs like Tom says. The more drool and nausea the better.

Try not to die.

kennyb3

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

The more drool and nausea the better.

Try not to die.

Dont forget snots, if you havent snots rolling out of your nose you aint working hard enough

abcdggs

Yeah it sounds like a mistake to me. from what i remember even on the hardest climb i was probably only 180 or so... Would be nice to be able to see the info collated to distance so i could figure out where i was when i hit that. Is this possible with a polar cs200?

mtbireland

Don't dismiss it as a monitor glitch. It's not that high either that I would really worry about it. Can you recall the part of the spin where the 214 was recorded and how you felt? So many factors here could have an impact on something like this happening such as your level of fitness, your weight, how much training you do, how hard you were going out the time, do you drink a lot, smoke>???? the list goes on.

I used to get palpations when I was racing. Could see my heart beating through my jersey and what felt like a million beats a minute. I went to Trinity for testing were it was dismissed as me just not training enough or my jersey being too tight. Nothing showed up during any tests there.. so I was sent to Tallaght for some tests and nothing showed up there... But I knew myself there was an issue and that running on a threadsmill for ten minutes was not going to make the problem happen. So I got a monitor to wear for a weekend and went out on a spin and managed to have a small episode. My heart rate was hitting 276 during it. Anyway long story short it was caused by an electrical problem where the wall of the heart was too thin... very quick operation where they scar the outside of the heart to stop the charge arcing out and I was good as knew...

I guess my point is though that if you didn't notice it when on the bike then it might not be a problem. As Dirkvoodoo said what were the other readings like around the spike... have you a graph you can post?

Lumen

The problem with max HR, even if you decide on the right protocol to calculate it, is that it isn't that useful.

According to Coggan, lactate threshold HR (which is more useful) is about 94% of VO2Max HR, although he expresses it as a range. I think this is because VO2Max decreases towards threshold with age.

I hit 190bpm once last year when I was more unfit, but this year I rarely see it go over 185bpm for the same perceived effort.

AstraMonti

Lumen wrote: »

I hit 190bpm once last year when I was more unfit, but this year I rarely see it go over 185bpm for the same perceived effort.

Doesn't that simply mean that you can hit 190bpm this year and actually be faster?

Lumen

AstraMonti wrote: »

Doesn't that simply mean that you can hit 190bpm this year and actually be faster?

I don't think I can hit 190bpm this year. I hit 186bpm in the club hillclimb TT and almost passed out afterwards.

I reckon my plumbing has improved more than my muscles have.

edit: maybe we should do Kippure again before the summer's up?

abcdggs

Unfortunately i don't think my hrm will be able to supply any sort of graph. Looking into it at the minute but it seems polar just don't like mac's. I don't think i was close to hitting my max HR at any stage and it was a matter of only after the spin going through spin summary on the computer that i noticed the 214 so i have no idea where the computer is suggesting this number. I think my options at the moment are try and figure out how to get the information off the computer and onto my laptop or dismiss it and try see what i can get on another day.

levitronix

I ve only hit my max a few times , but i ll go close to it quiet a lot trainnig just messing around sprints and on climbs, raced on sunday and hit 184, my max is 191 .. but loads of times i seen glitches saying 240 hr

levitronix

Lumen wrote: »

I don't think I can hit 190bpm this year. I hit 186bpm in the club hillclimb TT and almost passed out afterwards.

I reckon my plumbing has improved more than my muscles have.

edit: maybe we should do Kippure again before the summer's up?

Good idea on another boards hill climb !!! i ll second that

abcdggs

So i got the info on my laptop but there doesn't seem to be any way of seeing where i was when i hit 214 or even what my hr was over the ride in graph form... this may have to do with the computer not recording enough info

Lumen

What's the file format?

abcdggs

Lumen wrote: »

What's the file format?

I don't know, according to finder the file isn't there...

papac

214 bpm , while a high maximal, is not that weird-depending on your age.

I could hit that easily on a bike in my late twenties/early thirties.
I'm forty five now and can get over 200 on a treadmill. 197 is the highest I have seen recently on a bike.

Its worth noting that at these BPM s I am way beyond the pain threshold, feel like death is imminent, and cannot see properly.

Under normal hard training- really hurting I would only see 180 s on hrm.

Don't be hasty in dismissing 214.
As Lumen says though, Max HR is a limited tool.
220 minus age is bollocks.

rp

I used to often get anomalies like that in Europe, when I rode over/under a railbridge with an electric train running. I've had it a couple of times in traffic here, prob. a car dodgy alternator or something.

niceonetom

Lumen wrote: »

I don't think I can hit 190bpm this year. I hit 186bpm in the club hillclimb TT and almost passed out afterwards.

I reckon my plumbing has improved more than my muscles have.

I've never heard of training lowering maxHR. Maybe you're just, yunno, being a wimp.

I've been hitting higher numbers in race finishes than I thought I was capable of a few years ago, so either I'm getting younger (220 - age) or training has raised my max (or my willingness to achieve it).

For those of us without powermeters (i.e. the vast majority here) HR is the best we've got.

OP
AFAIK the polar CS200 can only provide max and avg values for HR, speed etc. It can't graph them over time, so there's no way to know when that 214bpm happened. You'll just have to compare it to your normal readings when deeply suffering and see if you're close - if not then dismiss it as a glitch.

abcdggs

niceonetom wrote: »

OP
AFAIK the polar CS200 can only provide max and avg values for HR, speed etc. It can't graph them over time, so there's no way to know when that 214bpm happened. You'll just have to compare it to your normal readings when deeply suffering and see if you're close - if not then dismiss it as a glitch.

That's exactly what i wanted to know, thanks a million.

Lumen

niceonetom wrote: »

For those of us without powermeters (i.e. the vast majority here) HR is the best we've got.

There are similar issues. How do you know what power to target? By testing yourself. Exactly the same with HR, except that you're measuring indirect effort rather than direct output.

niceonetom

Lumen wrote: »

There are similar issues. How do you know what power to target? By testing yourself. Exactly the same with HR, except that you're measuring indirect effort rather than direct output.

Yes, HR would seem to have the benefit of being a fairly static scale. My max has changed but only by a few bpm, and the zones I try (badly) to train within are only effected by a similar margin. Target power would seem to vary a lot more during a year and from year to year - an 'output' supposed to be at threshold would change a lot more than the BPM 'input' I think of as threshold.

The constant need for testing would annoy me too, at least unless I was seeing real monthly increases in the numbers... I'm probably not anal/geeky enough to use a PM properly...

I do want a power meter, but measuring 'indirect effort' isn't quite on a par with consulting tea leaves either.

Lumen

niceonetom wrote: »

I do want a power meter, but measuring 'indirect effort' isn't quite on a par with consulting tea leaves either.

FWIW, you brought up PM not me.

I'm genuinely interested in HR training zones and related issues, not trying to put it down.

Beasty

niceonetom wrote: »

I've never heard of training lowering maxHR. Maybe you're just, yunno, being a wimp.

I've been hitting higher numbers in race finishes than I thought I was capable of a few years ago, so either I'm getting younger (220 - age) or training has raised my max (or my willingness to achieve it).

My highest recorded HR was hit in a race this year - 186. Last year I was in the low 180s a few times when commuting, but this year I am commuting harder (by reference to the powermeter) and faster and my highest HR on the commute is 176 - I guess the point is that my max HR has probably not reduced, but it's a damn site harder getting to it.

niceonetom

Lumen wrote: »

FWIW, you brought up PM not me.

\/ \/ \/ \/ \/

Lumen wrote: »

The problem with max HR, even if you decide on the right protocol to calculate it, is that it isn't that useful.

See, I read the second quote above as:

Lumen wrote:

I've spent a LOT of money on some funky cranks and I need to justify that somehow.

Probably my issue though.

Lumen

Lumen wrote:

The problem with max HR, even if you decide on the right protocol to calculate it, is that it isn't that useful.

niceonetom wrote: »

See, I read the second quote above as "I've spent a LOT of money on some funky cranks and I need to justify that somehow."

No, I should have emphasised the max bit. Training levels are most usefully expressed (IMO) as a % of lactate threshold (HR, power, whatever), not max.

edit: and furthermore I resent (in a good natured way, obviously) the implication that I'm disqualified from all discussions of HR because I own a power meter.

niceonetom

Lumen wrote: »

No, I should have emphasised the max bit. Training levels are most usefully expressed (IMO) as a % of lactate threshold (HR, power, whatever), not max.

Genuine question:
Why?

Lumen wrote: »

edit: and furthermore I resent (in a good natured way, obviously) the implication that I'm disqualified from all discussions of HR because I own a power meter.

I didn't intend to imply any such thing. I just meant to nip any "heart rate raining is old hat, just get a PM" stuff in the bud. Apparently I was that bud, so apologies all round for that. I just intended to point out that the PM stuff is a bit niche still. Your input is always appreciated, Lumen. You know that.

niceonetom

I found this interesting.

See attachment.

amjon.

Every HR monitor I have used occasionally records some pretty bizarre readings. At the moment it takes my one about 20 minutes to "calm down" and start reading correctly, before this it can read up to 240 bpm during the warm up ( haven't gotten even close to 190 for a couple of years)

SubLuminal

Could just be that you have a high heart rate range? As I sit here now and count mine over a minute it's 48 bpm but I've seen it go to something like 227 when I was much younger and much fitter running long distance hooked up to a machine to see how high things would go. Carrying a bit of a beer belly now but I think my average is about 180 or 190 when i'm working hardish on a bike so 217 isn't necessarily crazy or a mistake or anything bad/wrong..

niceonetom

amjon. wrote: »

Every HR monitor I have used occasionally records some pretty bizarre readings. At the moment it takes my one about 20 minutes to "calm down" and start reading correctly, before this it can read up to 240 bpm during the warm up ( haven't gotten even close to 190 for a couple of years)

That sounds like a skin contact issue - it starts working properly once you've got enough sweat to ensure it's reading properly.

Try licking the contacts before putting it on. Or use water if you're squeamish.

SubLuminal

Or just do a warm up before you put it on

72hundred

papac wrote: »

220 minus age is bollocks.

I love how the internet is full of experts.

niceonetom

72hundred wrote: »

I love how the internet is full of experts.

(220 - age) is bollocks though.

Lumen

niceonetom wrote: »

Genuine question: Why? [threshold HR not max hr]

Short answer: because that's how Coggan defines his training levels.

Long answer...

The basic contradiction in any kind of zone-based training programme is that whilst slow training prioritises different adaptations to fast training, physiological response is continuous. Since any racing cyclist ought to be doing a variety of riding (recovery, LSD, tempo, threshold, anaerobic), does it really matter whether a given ride is (for instance) at the high end of tempo or the low end of threshold? Surely just ride until you're a bit knackered, rest and repeat? The argument for zones seems to boil down to finely balancing training workload and recovery - by avoiding the deadzone between LSD and tempo you can do both time in the saddle and high intensity without overtraining. This is only an issue if you're training at your limit of recovery, which most of us aren't.

That aside, if you're going to accurately target zones, the zones that really matter are sub-threshold. In those zones, it can be difficult to tell how hard you're riding, as it depends a lot on freshness. Once you go over threshold, you're into sprint training or just "ride balls out until you've exhausted your anaerobic capacity", and you don't really need any kind of electronics.

In order to be accurate about sub-threshold zones, you need to know your threshold. This is pretty easy to do, just ride for an hour as hard as possible and take the average HR/power (or minor variations of this).

If you instead calculate threshold indirectly from max HR, you're introducing a big margin of error right at the outset, because different riders have significant differences between threshold and max HR. Untrained riders have a big gap, youngish elites have a small gap; as we get older the gap narrows as VO2Max drops steadily towards threshold, which is why old guys are much better at TTing than bunch racing. Additionally, VO2Max depends on muscle recruitment, so you may get different numbers in and out of the saddle.

Anyway, that's what I reckon. I could be completely wrong.

Beasty

niceonetom wrote: »

(220 - age) is bollocks though.

No it's not, it's simply that my heart is only 2/3 the age of the rest of my body:)

RobFowl

niceonetom wrote: »

(220 - age) is bollocks though.

It's accurate when used on large population cohorts but not that accurate when used on individuals especially when used for specific training reasons.

niceonetom

Thanks for that Lumen. I can see the logic of using LT as the datum and calculating everything as a % of it. Unfortunately I'm sort stuck in a loop - what I think of as my threshold I've determined from what I think is my maxHR so, even if I start using %LT I'm still really using maxHR as the reference. I did the last 25TT at avg93% of 'max' which feels like the limit, but it's hard to know.

I'm more familiar with Freil's zones than Coggan's. There's a bit of disparity there. If I switch to Coggan's method it basically means I haven't been digging deep enough thus far in TTs etc....

Did some of that "ride balls out until you've exhausted your anaerobic capacity" stuff earlier. Hard. My anaerobic capacity needs work.

It's all so complicated. There's a lot to be said for just riding the bike.

papac

72hundred wrote: »

I love how the internet is full of experts.

Thanks-Its good to be appreciated.Makes those long hours of research seem worthwhile.:)

RobFowl

niceonetom wrote: »

Thanks for that Lumen. I can see the logic of using LT as the datum and calculating everything as a % of it. Unfortunately I'm sort stuck in a loop - what I think of as my threshold I've determined from what I think is my maxHR so, even if I start using %LT I'm still really using maxHR as the reference. I did the last 25TT at avg93% of 'max' which feels like the limit, but it's hard to know.

There's a fait bit of published work which suggests that to ride at >92% of your threshold is not possible unless you are an elite rider (definitions vary but top national or international level seems the minimum).
For most riders using HR zones tt'ing at 85% seems more realistic.
That said power monitors don't lie as much as HR monitors.
Try getting a proper lactate threshold test done at DCU or trinity ideally and work from there.
Getting a decent coach even for a few consultations is well worthwhile.
Aiden Hammond from Orwell is one of the best in this country so why not start there.

papac

RobFowl wrote: »

It's accurate when used on large population cohorts but not that accurate when used on individuals especially when used for specific training reasons.

So in the context of individuals training by max hr it is a very poor indicator. In my case its off by 20+ beats. Bollocks to that.

niceonetom

RobFowl wrote: »

It's accurate when used on large population cohorts but not that accurate when used on individuals especially when used for specific training reasons.

It's a bit like trying to establish how tall you are by finding out the average correlation between shoe-size and height in the entire population and then measuring your foot.

RobFowl

papac wrote: »

So in the context of individuals training by max hr it is a very poor indicator. In my case its off by 20+ beats. Bollocks to that.

Thats pretty much accurate.....

It's useful as a guide to the general public when trying to get sedentary peole active but of questionable benefit for people training to compete at domestic/regional level competition.

niceonetom

RobFowl wrote: »

There's a fait bit of published work which suggests that to ride at >92% of your threshold is not possible unless you are an elite rider (definitions vary but top national or international level seems the minimum).
For most riders using HR zones tt'ing at 85% seems more realistic.
That said power monitors don't lie as much as HR monitors.
Try getting a proper lactate threshold test done at DCU or trinity ideally and work from there.
Getting a decent coach even for a few consultations is well worthwhile.
Aiden Hammond from Orwell is one of the best in this country so why not start there.

So that would suggest that my max is significantly higher than I've been thinking... which feels unlikely.

Or I'm actually I'm elite rider and no one's noticed... which feels even less likely.

The testing is something I've been putting off for a while. Coaching would be great, but I'd really want to get to a certain level without it to feel it's at all justified. Aidan Hammond has been recommended to me before, he clearly knows what he's at.

papac

niceonetom wrote: »

The testing is something I've been putting off for a while. Coaching would be great, but I'd really want to get to a certain level without it to feel it's at all justified.

I used to feel like that but have come round to the opinion that its actually early in training that most advantage can be gained by being as scientific as possible. I am planning testing soon and looking into power meters and I am really crap.

IM0

abcdggs wrote: »

Yeah it sounds like a mistake to me. from what i remember even on the hardest climb i was probably only 180 or so... Would be nice to be able to see the info collated to distance so i could figure out where i was when i hit that. Is this possible with a polar cs200?

dont know, but it is with a polar S720i - which is a generation...or 3 before basically it downloads to software [polar precision performance]and you get a graph readout MUCH better than training peaks can give, they both have their advantages though.

BryanL

niceonetom wrote: »

So that would suggest that my max is significantly higher than I've been thinking... which feels unlikely.

Or I'm actually I'm elite rider and no one's noticed... which feels even less likely.

QUOTE]

Sorry Tom,

But it means your drugged off your face:eek::eek::D

Or maybe just maybe, your not drugged off your face but riding at a heart rate you can sustain for the TT but your power would be dropping over the whole TT.
It's most likey that dropping your heart rate by a small amount would increase your average speed for the TT
Bryan

code-monkey

I use a Garmin 405 and I regulary and consistantly hit the 200 mark and even hit 205 on sunday. It freaked me out a little at first since I am 30, but it seems to be all good. Oddly I don't suffer from the effects of lactic acid so I use the hrm to limit my output generally trying to keep it down to 160 on flat, 170-180 at pace and 190 on a climb. I definitly could push past 205 but wont be doing it intentionally any time soon.

Anyway its a long way off Ryder Hesjedals max of 169
http://connect.garmin.com/activity/40911227