Max HR Test

drogdub

Looking for a bit of advise. Did the Max HR Test (Conconi one) on the turbo trainer. Max HR I got was 161. Kept it going for a while got very tired but probably could have kept going.. I stopped when the HR started going down, I got a bit disheartened as I felt I had got my Max HR and wasn't going to achieve anything from continuing. Does this sound like I did it properly? It did plateau at around 146-148 just before it rose up to 161 is this my HR treshold? Thnaks for any advise

foxer3640

Any time I've hit my max heartrate its been on a climb. Find a steep bit of road, get warmed up and then attack the climb with everything you've got. When you think you're fried ramp it up some more. That's how I find my max hr.

purple cow

foxer3640 wrote: »

Any time I've hit my max heartrate its been on a climb. Find a steep bit of road, get warmed up and then attack the climb with everything you've got. When you think you're fried ramp it up some more. That's how I find my max hr.

Rule of thumb is 220 minus age (I think). I'm 41 and max I've hit is 181

Leroy42

Op, doesn't sound right, you shouldn't be able to hold max for any more than a few seconds.

Getting your max HR is a very difficult exercise. It wont be something that you'll want to be repeating in a hurry.

I would find it impossible to get max on the turbo, self preservation would kick in.

As mentioned, probably the best place is a steep climb, particularly if it is towards the end of an overall climb. Put in a big effort on the climb and then give it everything on the steep bit. Ideally you'll want your HRM to record max HR as it will be difficult to read out a such a max effort.

When you've done that, try it again a bit later to see if there was anything left. I reckon I've hit max only a handful of times in the last few years. Got close a few times but actually hitting it is rare.

In terms of HR threshold, this is in theory the max HR you can sustain for a continuous 1 hour effort. Above brings you into the 'red' and will lead to fall off in performance, below means you are using less than you've got and so saving for later.

220 minus age is worthless, nothing more than a quaint bumper sticker. Best way to gauge your HR zones is to test like you have done and review the results after a few

Beasty

purple cow wrote: »

Rule of thumb is 220 minus age (I think). I'm 41 and max I've hit is 181

And the guy who came up with that formula acknowledged it's inaccuracy and was surprised when it suddenly became treated as a standard basis for estimating Max HR. Based on that formula I'm at least 20 years younger than my birth certificate indicates:D

The only way I've ever estimated my Max HR is by seeing what I can hit. I've been getting to the same figure pretty much ever since I started checking around 6-7 years ago, but I might only hit it once a year. The forumula does indicate a drop off as you age, which so far I've not really experienced, suggesting to me my actual max may be a little higher than I have recorded. One thing I have seen which supports the argument I've never recorded my true max is it's reckoned people can typically get a few bpm higher through running than by cycling

Lusk_Doyle

Beasty wrote: »

One thing I have seen which supports the argument I've never recorded my true max is it's reckoned people can typically get a few bpm higher through running than by cycling

That's interesting. I can't recall what my max has been while running. I must check it some time. 205 while on the bike was my max. Could I get above that while sprinting up a hill? Eek, I'm not sure that I'd like to find out!

mossym

running typically is a bit higher than cycling, as you're utilising more muscles and your pushing the entire weight of your body, my easy running zone goes to 159, that's well into hard cycling efforts for me. max hr is 193, measured running, i couldn't get close to that on a bike

mossym

Leroy42 wrote: »

Op, doesn't sound right, you shouldn't be able to hold max for any more than a few seconds.

Getting your max HR is a very difficult exercise. It wont be something that you'll want to be repeating in a hurry.

max hr can be sustained for longer than that, it's your power output that will go down, but the stress on the body will keep the hr higher.

lennymc

my max running was 166, my max on the bike was 162. Drogdub uphill giving it everything will give you a good indication of your max. You are close enough to me - I have used tulleyesker hill as a good place to gauge performance and get baselines. You should be nice and warmed up in advance, start at the petrol station on the left, go nice and steady and gradually ramp up the pace. It's about 6 - 7 minutes to the top, so you should have lots of time to build up to absolutely flat out.

Leroy42

mossym wrote: »

max hr can be sustained for longer than that, it's your power output that will go down, but the stress on the body will keep the hr higher.

Really. I wasn't aware of that. What sort of time frame are we talking? 10's of secs, a minute? Longer?

I have only hit what I can assume is my MaxHR on a small number of occasions and each time it was a very brief (few seconds) before starting to decrease. Obviously it stays very near MaxHR for some time as the body then needs time to recover and unless you actually stop is still having to push.

Getting back to OP, what is the value of knowing the MaxHR? I understand the value based on the literature but actually recording it is a very difficult undertaking and in my view knowing your THR is far more important than knowing MaxHR. Obviously there would be some relationship between the two but instead of using MaxHR to calculate THR I would have thought it better to use data from a number of rides to ascertain the THR as an actual rather than a calculated.

I gauge my THR from looking back on data from previous rides. One ride, or segment, will not give the answer, but taken over a number of rides a clear THR can be seen. I know from that number that if I push past it I will be going into the red and thus cannot sustain that level indefinitely. (or at all!)

G1032

Beasty wrote: »

The only way I've ever estimated my Max HR is by seeing what I can hit.

This it how I'm measuring my max HR.
The max that my Garmin HRM has ever showed me is 189.
Maybe I should go for a run up a steep hill and see what it gives me

Eamonnator

lennymc wrote: »

my max running was 166, my max on the bike was 162. Drogdub uphill giving it everything will give you a good indication of your max. You are close enough to me - I have used tulleyesker hill as a good place to gauge performance and get baselines. You should be nice and warmed up in advance, start at the petrol station on the left, go nice and steady and gradually ramp up the pace. It's about 6 - 7 minutes to the top, so you should have lots of time to build up to absolutely flat out.

Not meaning to be personal, but for one of such tender years, your max seems to be quite low. Is there a reason for this? Is everybody different? Is it good to have a high max?, is it good to have a low max?

Once, while cycling slowly out of my estate, I was chased by a huge german shepherd, It frightened the absolute living bejaysus out of me. When I got home, I checked my Garmin. For a few seconds, my heart went up to 224 bprm.

lennymc

HR can vary quite a bit. I've seen a low of about 39 bpm once.

mossym

Leroy42 wrote: »

Really. I wasn't aware of that. What sort of time frame are we talking? 10's of secs, a minute? Longer?

I have only hit what I can assume is my MaxHR on a small number of occasions and each time it was a very brief (few seconds) before starting to decrease. Obviously it stays very near MaxHR for some time as the body then needs time to recover and unless you actually stop is still having to push.

i'm basing that on personal experience, and it's on running, but that's the only place i can hit max hr, but pushing hard at the end of a race i hit my max hr, kept pushing, pace was falling off but hr stayed at max.

i couldn't hold my max effort for more than a few seconds, but after that continuing to push as hard as possible even though output is falling off held hr at max. couldn't tell you how long for, but more than a few seconds. i wouldn't think for very long though. it's not a comfortable place to be

Ryath

Eamonnator wrote: »

Not meaning to be personal, but for one of such tender years, your max seems to be quite low. Is there a reason for this? Is everybody different? Is it good to have a high max?, is it good to have a low max?

That's why the 220- age can be so off. One lad I know who is a year or two younger than me has a max of 170 or so and he's a sub 10 ironman so he knows how to push himself. Max I've hit is 198 first time I went out with the A group a few years ago and tried to stay with them going up a fairly decent sharp hill. Felt like someone had stood on my chest and I wasn't right for the rest of the spin. Would hit mid 190's at end of a hill climb or sprinting but I've never felt that sensation since. 36 last June and only hit 193 in the club league hill climb. It's been a poor year on the bike for me though. Have averaged 181 for an hour in a club race and resting heart rate was down to very low 40s a bit over a year ago when I was properly fit. Checking now it's about 50:(

Eamonnator wrote: »

Once, while cycling slowly out of my estate, I was chased by a huge german shepherd, It frightened the absolute living bejaysus out of me. When I got home, I checked my Garmin. For a few seconds, my heart went up to 224 bprm.

That may have been just a erroneous spike is it a garmin hrm? Some people get very poor readings with spikes for the first few minutes wearing them. Different clothing can effect it to due to static. Wetting contacts before putting it on can help. It has only happened to me a few times running.

dragratchet

had my vo2 tested in hospital a while back which included a max heart rate reading which came out at 187, that said ive quite consistently pushed on beyond that in the past to the likes of 194 bpm and once to over 220 (though i did collapse in that case)

so whats the story here.. a medical test says 187 is your max.. do i literally understand that my heart will not go higher and the other two readings i mentioned are wrong, or it will go higher but not in a safe or sustainable manner?

Taxuser1

having done the threshold test as a young fella, a twenty something year old and now a mid 30s cyclist, the link to age can be used but not as a definitive guide. fitness is almost certainly the only true guide. that aside, I would be panic stricken if I saw my heart rate going over what I perceive to be my maximum which ironically should increase the pulse and heart rate even more so :-)

as we all know, take 6 weeks off in the close season (racing) and your resting heart rate increases substantially if you do nothing at all and for a myriad of other factors in life - caffeine intake, sickness, inhalors and medication. your maximum certainly reduces also if doing nothing, like any muscle.

looking at my past results, I was 200 max as an A1 18 year old when racing, down to 183 max mid summer last year as a 37 year old, barely back on the bike 3 months post long term injury (and ex smoker) i'm working it back up gradually but it's an interesting slow burner - i'm looking forward to seeing what I can get it to this year with more riding/racing.

Inquitus

• Max HR declines with age
• Max HR is pretty irrelevant, knowing it enables the calculation of training zones etc, but a high Max HR is no better or worse than a lower Max HR
• Resting HR is an indication of fitness and will come down as fitness improves
• 220-Age is nonsense
• If you train and race with a HRM your max HR is likely the highest you have seen
• Mine is @ 199 and only generally seen in a race or on a short sprint interval on the steep part of a climb
• LTHR is the HR you can expect to maintain for an hours even effort
• LTHR can be trained
• With LTHR you can both move the needle with regards to improving it by a few bpm, and also work it from the other end and increase the power you can put out at LTHR

Beasty

Eamonnator wrote: »

Once, while cycling slowly out of my estate, I was chased by a huge german shepherd, It frightened the absolute living bejaysus out of me. When I got home, I checked my Garmin. For a few seconds, my heart went up to 224 bprm.

Seen mine spike at over 200 a few times, but it's always relatively early in a ride/on the trainer when I'm not even particularly warmed up - I've simply put it down to the HRM (and it's happened with more than one) to settle down and ignored those readings

Beasty

Inquitus wrote: »

• LTHR is the HR you can expect to maintain for an hours even effort

With most road racing your HR will inevitably be going up and down regularly as you push on then take a rest. TTs are different though and you can push to your LTHR over say a 25 miler. I know if I'm hitting 175 or so on the trainer or road it's a real effort (although I equally know I can get it a few bpm over 180 if required, but only for a very short period). When I'm doing a 25 mile TT though I know I can get into the low 170s after maybe 15-20 mins then keep it in the range 170-173 pretty much for the rest of the distance. Yes it's bloody hard work, but it is sustainable.

uphillonly

Iniquitus sums it up well, although I'm quite happy to stick with the 220 formula as it halve's my age. My max HR has dropped about 2bps in 5 yrs. 202 to 200.

I've had a couple of lab tests including the ramp tests which see your max if you are prepared to nearly blackout.

I get to max or very close by the end of Tabata intervals on a turbo or even a gym bike. 10 min warm up. 20s all out, 10s rest - repeat 6-8 times. Very short & very painful.

I've found hill climbs have to be short, 3-5 mins to get close to max, otherwise you naturally pace it a bit.

Agree with Leroy - Threshold is the important figure, although as power user I run it off watts rather HR. FTP is my best measure of fitness improvement.

Best thing about hitting max is the endorphin rush afterwards.

nordicb

I think having a lunch and then running up the hill will bring your heart rate close to max Done that, learned not to

Daroxtar

Ya, I don't know about that 220 - age figure. I'm 39 and very often hit 195-200 when going flat out on the turbo. Now I'd be like jelly getting off after it but the HR is usually well below 100 within 5 minutes of stopping the workout. I've seen 212 once for a second but that might have been a dodgy reading. I have seen even higher when out on the road but I'm pretty sure my HR monitor is picking up interference from passing traffic as it rocketed up from 140 to 190 on a descent when some cars passed me....Excuse for a new toy methinks

Beasty

Daroxtar wrote: »

Now I'd be like jelly getting off after it but the HR is usually well below 100 within 5 minutes of stopping the workout.

Seen mine go from about 100 to over 170 in a minute (on a 1km TT on the Wattbike). Also seen it go from over 160 to around 100 in about a minute ....

Alek

Also seen it go from over 160 to around 100 in about a minute ....

Your heart rate recovery rate is very good then.

Seen mine go from about 100 to over 170 in a minute

98 to 170 in 2 minutes (~183 max). I wonder if this depends of the extra oxygen capacity of your blood? And if it is important?

Lusk_Doyle

Ryath wrote: »

That may have been just a erroneous spike is it a garmin hrm? Some people get very poor readings with spikes for the first few minutes wearing them. Different clothing can effect it to due to static. Wetting contacts before putting it on can help. It has only happened to me a few times running.

I got one similar like that in Poland when passed so close by a car at speed. I was barely moving at the time so I disregarded it as my max heart rate.

bbolger

Agree that it's far easier to get a higher max HR with running.
The 220 rules states my max should be around 180.
Max hit has been about 185 on the bike, rare that I get near 180 though - maybe I'm not suffering enough...

I can get 190+ running.

Resting HR is about 40 (which I've been told is pretty low), took it last year, must check again.

Beasty

Alek wrote: »

Your heart rate recovery rate is very good then.

It didn't have much to do at the time, as I was unconscious (the reduction to nil that followed a few minutes later was a bit disconcerting, although I'm pretty sure/hopeful now that's probably as a result of someone moving my bike):pac:

Usually I can get it down by 30-40 in a minute and 50-60 within 2 minutes without much of a problem

XtotheZ

hr massivly depends on fitness, fatigue, caffine etc when I done my first session last winter I hit 215 and wasnt gassed at all, just morbidly unfit. However in the junior nats a month and a half earlier my max was 191 (55kph uphill into a headwind after following a move), I was buckled and I think it was my highest hr I hit for the entire summer.

foxer3640

My max hr is 202. I've seen it on the garmin a couple of times at the end of a tough climb where I sprinted to the top. I'm 43 years old. I would be at blackout stage when I hit this number.

drogdub

Thanks for replies. Lenny, I'll give Tuleyesker a go. Leroy, I want to get my max HR to try to get more focused training rather than just getting miles in. If I had the money for a power metre I'd probably spend it on upgrading my drive train or something. Will try to work out my threshold too.

JK.BMC

Max HR is an interesting topic. It isn't much of an indicator of anything in particular, but I believe it reduces with age.

My impression is that it is quite difficult to obtain unless it involves a real life genuine all-out effort, as opposed to a 'test' or just randomly sprinting up a hill. You really need to feel like you are riding in order to feed your family, or as mentioned above, there is an angry mutt chasing you. Tough to replicate outside race conditions for me.

220 minus age is rubbish.

I have a cycling max of 179, though 182 in a running test/race(for the reasons mentioned above). LT is c.162-164.

I remember coming across some data on the great classics rider JA Flecha and he had fairly similar numbers. If ever we needed evidence that numbers mean nothing, well there ya have it!

68 lost souls

I've seen 205 a few times but spiked to 212 on the Turbo going flat out. If say that was pretty damn close to max as I was near passing out at that stage.

Beasty

Hit 182 for 10s+ tonight and averaged 180 over 80s - part of a 10 minute TT on the Wattbike when I averaged 173. My max recorded is 186, and has been there or thereabouts for a few years

dermabrasion

Some really good points above, but I just wanted to make a couple of comments just for safety.
The heart is not like an engine. There is not a linear relationship between HR and cardiac output at higher-end heart rates. The stroke volume (i.e. the amount of blood ejected per heart beat) will decline at very fast heart rates as the time for diastolic filling of the ventricle decreases, as will the contractile force. Also, at fast HR's, the ability of the heart to relax and fill properly is diminished. The blood supply to the coronary arteries occurs during diastole, so if diastole is short, oxygen delivery to the heart will be a rate limiting step resulting in the heart limiting itself to how fast it can go. In heart disease, this will lead to ischaemia and be perceived as angina. There is more to this, and it is very dependent on how fit you are and to some extent how fit you have been, but in essence:
1. Caution on targeting a HR as a training goal. Just get to know your own zones. Steadily, over time.
2. There is wide inter-individual variability in HR, as it is only part of the story. Oxygen delivery is the actual key to performance (Oxygen delivery [DO2] is cardiac output [C.O.] x how much oxygen is in the blood. Cardiac output is the heart rate x the stroke volume. There are several aspects which factor into the stroke volume (the amount of blood ejected per heart beat). We cannot measure stroke volume on a bike. But the point is...its complex!
3. Changes to cardiac performance should be gradual, especially of MAMIL's.
Sorry about this.

Lusk_Doyle

dermabrasion wrote: »

Some really good points above, but I just wanted to make a couple of comments just for safety.
The heart is not like an engine. There is not a linear relationship between HR and cardiac output at higher-end heart rates. The stroke volume (i.e. the amount of blood ejected per heart beat) will decline at very fast heart rates as the time for diastolic filling of the ventricle decreases, as will the contractile force. Also, at fast HR's, the ability of the heart to relax and fill properly is diminished. The blood supply to the coronary arteries occurs during diastole, so if diastole is short, oxygen delivery to the heart will be a rate limiting step resulting in the heart limiting itself to how fast it can go. In heart disease, this will lead to ischaemia and be perceived as angina. There is more to this, and it is very dependent on how fit you are and to some extent how fit you have been, but in essence:
1. Caution on targeting a HR as a training goal. Just get to know your own zones. Steadily, over time.
2. There is wide inter-individual variability in HR, as it is only part of the story. Oxygen delivery is the actual key to performance (Oxygen delivery [DO2] is cardiac output [C.O.] x how much oxygen is in the blood. Cardiac output is the heart rate x the stroke volume. There are several aspects which factor into the stroke volume (the amount of blood ejected per heart beat). We cannot measure stroke volume on a bike. But the point is...its complex!
3. Changes to cardiac performance should be gradual, especially of MAMIL's.
Sorry about this.

Can you elaborate on the above in bold for us with a basic grasp of English?

lennymc

As far as I understand it, (but i could be miles off) the ventricles are the chambers of the heart, they fill with blood and then the heart muscle contracts, pushing the blood around the heart. Contractile force is the strength of the contraction, which impacts on the hearts ability to pump the blood around the body. A slow strong contraction will pump as much blood as a fast weak contraction. Not sure on diastolic, but i think its part of the heart beat cycle. I know it's the lower of the blood pressure numbers (200 over 40).

Beasty

lennymc wrote: »

As far as I understand it, (but i could be miles off) the ventricles are the chambers of the heart, they fill with blood and then the heart muscle contracts, pushing the blood around the heart.

... and I thought it was a guy who got his kicks out of putting his hand up a doll's arse ...:o

:pac:

dermabrasion

Can of worms opened here, sorry

The left ventricle (LV) fills in between heart beats, this is called diastole. The blood supply to the heart itself occurs during diastole through the coronary arteries. Ideally, the LV needs enough time to fill properly, but also relax properly before the next heart beat. When fully relaxed, it can fill and stretch (a little more) to accommodate a little more blood. So there is a sweet spot where the work of the heart (created by your legs for example) is matched by its ability to pump-relax-refill-recover-pump again.
At very fast heart rates, the ventricle may not fill properly as it has not had enough time to relax and recover before the next heart beat. The ventricle will become stiff and not stretch and the volume of blood it can accommodate will be less. Hence the volume of blood ejected per beat will be less. Also, at very fast rates, the metabolic recovery of the heart will be less, and the force generated be each beat will be less.
Its similar to the effect on your legs when spinning at at 130rpm vs 90rpm: I am most effective at 90 RPM, I can hold high watts at this. I can't generate the same power at 130rpm, and my legs will eventually scream at me and give in.

nilhg

I had a cardiac stress test done in Vincents, the funny thing about that was that they worked out the max HR that they would allow me to reach using the 220- age formula and wouldn't allow me to pass that even though I explained that I had often held that HR (172) for extended periods on the bike and often considerably exceeded it my, Max HR is c190BPM. In their defence I have a well documented case of white coat syndrome when it comes to my BP and as per usual it was a bit high on the morning of the test so they had to get clearance from "upstairs" to start.


One thing I would say from personal experience is if you notice anything a little strange with your HR which happens consistently go get it checked, not worth taking chances with.