Whats your Min and Max Heart rate

Vincenzo Nibbly

nialljf wrote: »

is a higher or lower max HR good or is it all a sign of individual physiology?

No :-)

My understanding is - Your Max HR is your Max HR and it cannot be altered by training. However, it tends to dip in most people as they age.

What can be trained is the stroke volume of your heart - in other words, the volume of blood it can push out per beat.

Peterx

nialljf wrote: »

is a higher or lower max HR good or is it all a sign of individual physiology?

I don't think it matters much, your max is your max, much like your height it lessens slightly as you age.

What is a good sign of fitness is how fast your heart rate comes back down again after a hard effort. Cycling is brilliant for seeing this as typically you go balls out on a climb and then stop pedalling on the descent so should be able to see the HR drop.

coddlesangers

46, Resting heart rate (just now in work) 56
Max 195 (tested in UCC a few years ago)
Am i dead yet?

ford2600

TheBlaaMan wrote: »

Yeah, a very interesting raf indeed, thanks for the link. The old "everything in moderation" adage keeps coming up, doesn't it.........especially for those of us the wrong side of 40.

Some of the comments after the article were also very interesting - notably the suggestion that evolution doesn't really concern itself about what happens to the body once you have matured, bred and reared your offspring, that it is really only interested in getting you to that stage to ensure survival of the species and after that, well.......it doesn't really matter.

http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(12)00473-9/fulltext

Interesting review, has been posted here before I think

Puggy

Peterx wrote: »

I don't think it matters much, your max is your max, much like your height it lessens slightly as you age.

What is a good sign of fitness is how fast your heart rate comes back down again after a hard effort. Cycling is brilliant for seeing this as typically you go balls out on a climb and then stop pedalling on the descent so should be able to see the HR drop.

Not to sure about the balls out bit, but if it makes you faster...

RobFowl

On average your max HR will decrease with age, usually (but not always) by about 1 beat per year.
This is complicated here by older cyclists who may have never reached their max or had it tested before taking up cycling....

Peterx

Puggy wrote: »

Not to sure about the balls out bit, but if it makes you faster...

marginal gains..

Dermot Illogical

49, Max unknown. I'd be afraid to try find out.
Resting this morning was 41 (Fitbit Charge HR), but should drop a bit once I get fit again.

macnab

RobFowl wrote: »

This is complicated here by older cyclists who may have never reached their max or had it tested before taking up cycling....

Good point

dastardly00

We now have a sample size of almost 50.

RobFowl

Great graph, looks like 220-age not too far off.
Suspect skewed upwards as cohort here more active and fitter almost by definition.

ford2600

RobFowl wrote: »

Great graph, looks like 220-age not too far off.
Suspect skewed upwards as cohort here more active and fitter almost by definition.

Regular training will lower rhr. Insofar as I know it'll have no effect on maximum; so cohort is irrelevant?

An infinite number of lines will fit that noise just as well or better

RobFowl

ford2600 wrote: »

Regular training will lower rhr. Insofar as I know it'll have no effect on maximum; so cohort is irrelevant?

An infinite number of lines will fit that noise just as well or better

Regular training doesn't affect max HR but I suspect more active cyclists will reach a max while sedentary individuals will not ( not an evidence based opinion though).
The 220-age is actually +/- 20 which makes the distribution here look more "normal"

Heres a paper which examines it http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17468581

Peterx

Nice graph, can you also put in a line of best fit for the data points? Please and thank you. It would be interesting to see how it differs from the 220-age line.

Age: 41
Min : 46
Max: 191

Beasty

Peterx wrote: »

Nice graph, can you also put in a line of best fit for the data points? Please and thank you. It would be interesting to see how it differs from the 220-age line.

Age: 41
Min : 46
Max: 191

Maybe remove lenny and fat bloke as they are skewering the results - a pair of outliers:pac:

btw dastardly, there should be a 187 aged 55 in there (you may have misinterpreted an earlier post;))

dastardly00

Peterx wrote: »

Nice graph, can you also put in a line of best fit for the data points? Please and thank you. It would be interesting to see how it differs from the 220-age line.

Done!

dastardly00

Beasty wrote: »

btw dastardly, there should be a 187 aged 55 in there (you may have misinterpreted an earlier post;))

Oh Sorry Beasty I had you down as 85 not 55, so you weren't showing up on the graph :pac:

fat bloke

Beasty wrote: »

Maybe remove lenny and fat bloke as they are skewering the results - a pair of outliers:pac:

btw dastardly, there should be a 187 aged 55 in there (you may have misinterpreted an earlier post;))

It's a funny one for me. I did the club hill climb last Thursday and I was a minute and 17 seconds faster than the last time I did it, which was in 2013 and I was in good nick then. So a massive time difference for me in a sub 5 km climb. I'm probably 4 kilos lighter now though than three years ago, but the HR's are interesting too. In 2013 my max on the hill climb was 162 I think (and it really was a true max, I was in serious respiratory distress at the finish!), whereas this year my max was 157. I hope my max doesn't keep dropping year on year at that rate or I won't be able to get out of bed without redlining! :eek:

I do notice however how compact my HR jumps are compared to others when training - like a jump in pace could have a colleagues HR jump 20 points, whereas mine will jump 5 - so the relative percentage increases are similar.

I kinda get more value out of individual bpm's than most cos they're so concentrated. Like at 148 I know I'm not so bad yet, but at 152 I know I'm on borrowed time!

I must measure my low properly, maybe wear the garmin strap to bed or something and trace it through the night and check it in the early morning.

Peterx

Thanks Dastardly.
The R squared value is pretty low, as you'd expect with that scatter of points.

It does show that even in a relatively homogeneous data set (internet cyclists in this case) the variation is so large that there isn't any real value in using any particular line/equation an so 220-age is as good as y= -0.54x + 209, depending upon the person. For me the best fit line is pretty close to 191.

220-41=179
y = 187

Beasty

Excellent - even if I follow the rate of declien on the "best fit" line I've another 335 years to go before it hits zero. Should be longer as I'm above that line


:pac:

fat bloke

Beasty wrote: »

declien

The signs are many and varied.

Max Rockatansky

My max heart rate as a 53 year old is 201, does that mean it was 231 when I was 23?

Dermot Illogical

I just found a way to extract my HR data from Fitbit (http://www.squashleagues.org/fitbit/ accesses the API and is free to use), so I pulled out the data from 1st August until today.
Age 49, Min is 36, Max is 176. Max should go higher as I haven't gone all out.

robyntmorton

Age 29
Absolute minimum recorded HR 34
Normal RHR 48-52
Max HR 200-205
Absolute maximum recorded 224 (suspected spike)

Notes: I'm relatively unfit, having been laid up late 2013 - mid 2015 with kidney issues. On anti hypertensives, which reduce the strength of contraction of the heart muscles, which may cause skewing of my figures.

Civilian_Target

How are you measuring?

Last time I was measured was at the doctor's office, and it was 48.

JK.BMC

Age 39 Resting = 45-48 Max= 182 (in lab testing) very rarely hit the max

Miklos

I've only started using a HRM this summer so still sort of getting my head around my max etc. I started off with the usual age minus 220, which gave me 192. Then I went out on a spin and was pushing hard on the Featherbeds and hit 195, and just last Sunday I was giving it a bit of gas going up the Glenmalure side of Shay Elliot and hit 198. Is my max HR slowly rising with my fitness or what is it?

NeedMoreGears

It looks like the Boards formula of 209.5 - 0.54Age is close to some other ones out there.

Londeree: 206.3 - 0.77Age

Miller: 217 - 0.85Age

Barry: 214 - 0.5Age - 0.11Weight

Inbar 206 - 0.685Age