Discussion
Accepted wisdom says that peak HR is 220 minus age, so for me at 40 that would be 180bpm. I regularly do interval training sessions (heavy bag, KB and C2 rower FWIW) which sees my peak HR as high as 190+ and very occasionally over 200bpm. I know nobody is going to advocate training over max HR but are short periods above going to lead to any issues for me? I'm otherwise in good health and my Polar app scores me as 'elite' which I doubt, but hey. HR monitor is a chest ECG type, so I don't doubt it's accuracy or fidelity. So do I need to turn my sessions down a notch?
the formula is so far out it's a waste of time. You need to do a max hr test on yourself, which could be as simple as repeatedly running 50 metre sprints till you're sick or you faint (or die I suppose). You can find lots of ways on google. I look at it from a running perspective so I'm interested more in the range between resting hr and max rather than outright max. For someone like me, low RHR is a plus, for you it may be different.
edit...in my forties I would run a 5k race at around 186bpm for 20-25 minutes...I'm not elite or a big trianer, very average middle aged ex recreational runner so I don't know how that translates to what you do...
edit...in my forties I would run a 5k race at around 186bpm for 20-25 minutes...I'm not elite or a big trianer, very average middle aged ex recreational runner so I don't know how that translates to what you do...
Edited by Macneil on Saturday 19th January 09:36
Agree - one size does not fit all with this formula!
I'm a 64 year old recreational cyclist and sometimes hit 175 bpm on the hills. But I'm lightweight and there is a theory that smaller mammals have faster heart rates than larger creatures.
Beware though of tachycardia where the heart jumps into the 220+ range for perhaps 15-30 seconds before equally suddenly settling down. I occasionally experienced that when running in my late 40's. You feel light-headed and I gather it's similar to a pump 'cavitating', ie pumping too fast without actually circulating much blood. Running club vet showed me the technique of pressing one of the neck arteries to help it calm down.
I'm a 64 year old recreational cyclist and sometimes hit 175 bpm on the hills. But I'm lightweight and there is a theory that smaller mammals have faster heart rates than larger creatures.
Beware though of tachycardia where the heart jumps into the 220+ range for perhaps 15-30 seconds before equally suddenly settling down. I occasionally experienced that when running in my late 40's. You feel light-headed and I gather it's similar to a pump 'cavitating', ie pumping too fast without actually circulating much blood. Running club vet showed me the technique of pressing one of the neck arteries to help it calm down.
as others have said, it's not strictly relevant, it isnt a max you should go its more an average of where a heart of your age might be able to get to, but that doesnt take into account different fitness, physiology etc.
At 57 my max is supposedly 163, and when I first started back on my bike my max attainable was near the number proposed (it was then 167), now I'm fitter I regularly hit 185 on bike rides.
as long as its a steady change and not massive jumps you'll be fine.
At 57 my max is supposedly 163, and when I first started back on my bike my max attainable was near the number proposed (it was then 167), now I'm fitter I regularly hit 185 on bike rides.
as long as its a steady change and not massive jumps you'll be fine.
millen said:
Beware though of tachycardia where the heart jumps into the 220+ range for perhaps 15-30 seconds before equally suddenly settling down. I occasionally experienced that when running in my late 40's. You feel light-headed and I gather it's similar to a pump 'cavitating', ie pumping too fast without actually circulating much blood. Running club vet showed me the technique of pressing one of the neck arteries to help it calm down.
I think some veteran athlete have to be careful of sustained high intensity exercise - some are susceptible side effects of remodelling of the heart (scarring) which may cause the arrhythmia you mention.https://www.amazon.co.uk/Haywire-Heart-exercise-pr...
I think the 220 - age rule is just an indication. The fitter you are the more efficient you become and the wider the range your heart can operate in (rest to high).
For ref my resting is 45bpm and my max is 192bpm when I'm in the cycling season else around 185 out of season (like now!). I'm nearly 36.
When I started exercising as a fat 29 year old my resting was 62 and my max was something like 170.
I wear a smart watch night and day to monitor heart rate and a chest strap when on the bike.
For ref my resting is 45bpm and my max is 192bpm when I'm in the cycling season else around 185 out of season (like now!). I'm nearly 36.
When I started exercising as a fat 29 year old my resting was 62 and my max was something like 170.
I wear a smart watch night and day to monitor heart rate and a chest strap when on the bike.
42 year old recreational runner, around 25 minutes for 5k on a training run, I could probably get 21 minutes in a race.
I regularly get close to 200 when running on hard hills or when pushing particularly hard. It isn't something I can maintain, but I have no qualms about being able to get to 200 if I wanted to.
I recently did a Bruce test and asked them to keep going, however the Doctor insisted that we stop when at the maximum HR of 220-age.
I was feeling comfortable when stopped and quickly got down to sensible levels within a couple of minutes.
Normal HR is around 60, but I can eke it down to just under 40 if I focus (I guess meditate, but who know).
I regularly get close to 200 when running on hard hills or when pushing particularly hard. It isn't something I can maintain, but I have no qualms about being able to get to 200 if I wanted to.
I recently did a Bruce test and asked them to keep going, however the Doctor insisted that we stop when at the maximum HR of 220-age.
I was feeling comfortable when stopped and quickly got down to sensible levels within a couple of minutes.
Normal HR is around 60, but I can eke it down to just under 40 if I focus (I guess meditate, but who know).
50 year old, slightly over weight bloke who pedals a bit here and my max heart rate recently is 194 but that’s not sustainable for any length of time, managed to hold it for about 90seconds on a b
d climb and was seeing stars at the and feeling a little bit sick, rolled the 5 miles home trying to recover!
d climb and was seeing stars at the and feeling a little bit sick, rolled the 5 miles home trying to recover!LimaDelta said:
Accepted wisdom says that peak HR is 220 minus age, so for me at 40 that would be 180bpm. I regularly do interval training sessions (heavy bag, KB and C2 rower FWIW) which sees my peak HR as high as 190+ and very occasionally over 200bpm. I know nobody is going to advocate training over max HR but are short periods above going to lead to any issues for me? I'm otherwise in good health and my Polar app scores me as 'elite' which I doubt, but hey. HR monitor is a chest ECG type, so I don't doubt it's accuracy or fidelity. So do I need to turn my sessions down a notch?
Your “accepted wisdom” is contradicted by your own experience, hence its wrong.By definition, you can’t train over your max HR, so nothing to worry about there.
gazza285 said:
As a theoretical number it is flawed as said, mine is much lower than the formula would suggest, I have not managed to get mine over 162bpm and I can't maintain that for long, 150bpm is my threshold for sustained activity.
So what's your resting heart rate then eg just before you gt out of bed? I wouldn't be surprised if you're in the forties.CarlosFandango11 said:
Your “accepted wisdom” is contradicted by your own experience, hence its wrong.
By definition, you can’t train over your max HR, so nothing to worry about there.
Thanks all for the advice, seems it is nothing to worry unduly about. I was treating it as a metaphorical red line, or rev limit.By definition, you can’t train over your max HR, so nothing to worry about there.
Macneil said:
gazza285 said:
As a theoretical number it is flawed as said, mine is much lower than the formula would suggest, I have not managed to get mine over 162bpm and I can't maintain that for long, 150bpm is my threshold for sustained activity.
So what's your resting heart rate then eg just before you gt out of bed? I wouldn't be surprised if you're in the forties.Derek Chevalier said:
I think some veteran athlete have to be careful of sustained high intensity exercise - some are susceptible side effects of remodelling of the heart (scarring) which may cause the arrhythmia you mention.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Haywire-Heart-exercise-pr...
Thanks Derek! I'll have a look at that. It also used to be said that Type A personalities were prone to heart attacks - i don't know if that theory's been debunked now.https://www.amazon.co.uk/Haywire-Heart-exercise-pr...
As a grim statistic, three of my (non-athletic) close friends (same age cohort) have had heart bypass surgery in the past couple of years, one has been stented, and one is surviving on an artificial heart, pending transplant (sadly, his age means he isn't prioritised though they seem to keep the waiting list criteria a close secret).
For my part, I used to fly until 5 years ago so had annual medicals with ECG each time. It picked up some left ventricular hypertrophy but the trace was consistent year to year so they didn't investigate further. Fingers crossed......
As above, the 220 minus age thing isn't very good at all. I ran 5k in 16:48 at 24 years old (I'm not 30) and my max HR then was 181, and I felt like I was death. The other day I did a cycling fitness test....absolutely killed myself and my max HR was 180.
For what it's worth my resting HR typically 40-45, I have seen it at 35 before!
For what it's worth my resting HR typically 40-45, I have seen it at 35 before!
Quite a timely thread for me...
I completed my local parkrun on saturday (my 4th run), and the first time i have actually run it all the way through (i am only 4 months into this running malarkey). When i finished i noted my HR on my garmin watch (i was wearing the HR strap) was reading 183 - i'm 51 years old.
I thought this was a bit alarming, however i didnt feel ill or anything - just a bit knackered from the run.
I've seen my HR go over 200 back in my days as a road cyclist (doing TT's and hill climbs etc), but i was in my 40s then.
My garmin suggested that i ought to rest for 72 hours - so assume that i did overstretch a bit on the run, but i know my wife was a little concerned at the HR reading - again all either of us had to go by was the old 220 minus your age.
As a reference, when i have been doing my run training on the treadmill, i can happily run within a good 150-170 range for extended periods of time (40-50 mins) without feeling any real issue.
I know that it is all down to the individual physique, fitness levels, weight, hight etc, so know really that there cant be a blanket measure that fits all.
I think i'd like to book myself in for one of those active ECG tests that you can do, just to get myself properly checked out.
I completed my local parkrun on saturday (my 4th run), and the first time i have actually run it all the way through (i am only 4 months into this running malarkey). When i finished i noted my HR on my garmin watch (i was wearing the HR strap) was reading 183 - i'm 51 years old.
I thought this was a bit alarming, however i didnt feel ill or anything - just a bit knackered from the run.
I've seen my HR go over 200 back in my days as a road cyclist (doing TT's and hill climbs etc), but i was in my 40s then.
My garmin suggested that i ought to rest for 72 hours - so assume that i did overstretch a bit on the run, but i know my wife was a little concerned at the HR reading - again all either of us had to go by was the old 220 minus your age.
As a reference, when i have been doing my run training on the treadmill, i can happily run within a good 150-170 range for extended periods of time (40-50 mins) without feeling any real issue.
I know that it is all down to the individual physique, fitness levels, weight, hight etc, so know really that there cant be a blanket measure that fits all.
I think i'd like to book myself in for one of those active ECG tests that you can do, just to get myself properly checked out.
Crasher242 said:
Quite a timely thread for me...
I completed my local parkrun on saturday (my 4th run), and the first time i have actually run it all the way through (i am only 4 months into this running malarkey). When i finished i noted my HR on my garmin watch (i was wearing the HR strap) was reading 183 - i'm 51 years old.
I thought this was a bit alarming, however i didnt feel ill or anything - just a bit knackered from the run.
I've seen my HR go over 200 back in my days as a road cyclist (doing TT's and hill climbs etc), but i was in my 40s then.
My garmin suggested that i ought to rest for 72 hours - so assume that i did overstretch a bit on the run, but i know my wife was a little concerned at the HR reading - again all either of us had to go by was the old 220 minus your age.
As a reference, when i have been doing my run training on the treadmill, i can happily run within a good 150-170 range for extended periods of time (40-50 mins) without feeling any real issue.
I know that it is all down to the individual physique, fitness levels, weight, hight etc, so know really that there cant be a blanket measure that fits all.
I think i'd like to book myself in for one of those active ECG tests that you can do, just to get myself properly checked out.
Can't see the problem?I completed my local parkrun on saturday (my 4th run), and the first time i have actually run it all the way through (i am only 4 months into this running malarkey). When i finished i noted my HR on my garmin watch (i was wearing the HR strap) was reading 183 - i'm 51 years old.
I thought this was a bit alarming, however i didnt feel ill or anything - just a bit knackered from the run.
I've seen my HR go over 200 back in my days as a road cyclist (doing TT's and hill climbs etc), but i was in my 40s then.
My garmin suggested that i ought to rest for 72 hours - so assume that i did overstretch a bit on the run, but i know my wife was a little concerned at the HR reading - again all either of us had to go by was the old 220 minus your age.
As a reference, when i have been doing my run training on the treadmill, i can happily run within a good 150-170 range for extended periods of time (40-50 mins) without feeling any real issue.
I know that it is all down to the individual physique, fitness levels, weight, hight etc, so know really that there cant be a blanket measure that fits all.
I think i'd like to book myself in for one of those active ECG tests that you can do, just to get myself properly checked out.
I wouldn't worry about the numbers unless you are getting massive sustained spikes & feeling really unwell.
If you are it's worth checking everything is working as it should be.
FWIW, as a reasonably fit 39 year old (race MTB's, play county level squash & do a reasonable amount of training) mine drops to ~47 at night when well rested & I saw a peak of 198 in a game of squash last week. That's a new peak for me in recent times, but I can consistently get above 190.
If you are it's worth checking everything is working as it should be.
FWIW, as a reasonably fit 39 year old (race MTB's, play county level squash & do a reasonable amount of training) mine drops to ~47 at night when well rested & I saw a peak of 198 in a game of squash last week. That's a new peak for me in recent times, but I can consistently get above 190.
Gassing Station | Health Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff