Max Heart Rate

dekbhoy

so i plan to base my training in the new year based on Max HR percentages.
I have read various ways of calculating my max HR eg. minus your age from 210. For me that is 183. I would class myself as been quite fit having completed my 4th DCM in october. I have never got my HR anywhere near 183 in fact the highest i recorded was 172 after a 5km race recently in which after getting across the line i was completely fecked and just couldnt have ran any harder. would it be safe to say this is my Max HR or do i need to do anything with that number....
thank you

rom

You can't use a formula. It is not accurate. You need to have it tested in a lab test or there are certain session that you can do to test it.

gerard_65

Take 172 as your max.
You could wear a heart rate monitor, find a hill and sprint up it a few times until you feel your about to see your last meal.

inigo

My max hr in a Parkrun I run flat out was 189 towards the end when I tried to catch the guy ahead of me. It was also 189 at the end of an uphill km preceded by 45 min of easy pace running. Well it be safe to assume my max hr is 189? It seems high compared to the op's and many others I've seen. What would be the implications of a high vs low max hr?

TFBubendorfer

inigo wrote: »

My max hr in a Parkrun I run flat out was 189 towards the end when I tried to catch the guy ahead of me.

I got my highest HR reading in 10 years of running when chasing a guy at the end of a 5k. You scenario was very similar so I'd say it's a pretty good guess that 189 is your max HR, or at least very close.

dekbhoy

inigo wrote: »

My max hr in a Parkrun I run flat out was 189 towards the end when I tried to catch the guy ahead of me. It was also 189 at the end of an uphill km preceded by 45 min of easy pace running. Well it be safe to assume my max hr is 189? It seems high compared to the op's and many others I've seen. What would be the implications of a high vs low max hr?

The general calculation is not as I said above 210 - age but 220 minus age. I'm 37 so hence mine as a rule of thumb would be 183. I was literally flat out when I recorded that 172 I will do it again on a treadmill over the coming days . AFAIK the fitter you are the lower your max HR Will be obviously included in that would be history weight age etc.

Ososlo

dekbhoy wrote: »

The general calculation is not as I said above 210 - age but 220 minus age. I'm 37 so hence mine as a rule of thumb would be 183. I was literally flat out when I recorded that 172 I will do it again on a treadmill over the coming days . AFAIK the fitter you are the lower your max HR Will be obviously included in that would be history weight age etc.

No! The fitter you are the lower your resting heart rate will be. Max heart rate has nothing to do with fitness (it is what it is), but you do lose a beat per minute each year (off your max hr) AFAIK.

inigo

rom wrote: »

You can't use a formula. It is not accurate. You need to have it tested in a lab test or there are certain session that you can do to test it.

This is one of the reasons why I was asking. I'm 42, 220-42=178, which is quite different from the 189 I've seen on the field. Am I yet another case/living proof that the 220 rule should not be relied upon?

ger664

Sprinting at the end of a 5K will give a fairly accurate measurement. Or sprinting up a sharp incline also works. The 220 rule is crap. If it was true then I would be in my late 20's again. Last reading was 192 last may and I'm not anywhere near 28.

inigo

ger664 wrote: »

Sprinting at the end of a 5K will give a fairly accurate measurement. Or sprinting up a sharp incline also works. The 220 rule is crap. If it was true then I would be in my late 20's again. Last reading was 192 last may and I'm not anywhere near 28.

Maybe that's what the 220 rule is for! A measure of how young and fit and healthy we really are?!? :cool: Sorry dekbhoy!