Heart rate at 70

[Drumnagorrach]

Recently dug my old heart rate monitor out (polar) just to check how I was doing when out cycling , particularly climbing . Looking at NHS recommendations , I shouldn’t ride with my heart rate above 85% of max which for me is around 130 bpm (I’m 70 )
Well when climbing I’m up around 140 and breathing hard , but I’ve always pushed on hills .
Anybody have any experience of actually causing damage by going over the recommended heart rate ?
I’m light and fairly fit for my age and I’d like to stay that way but not keep on getting older and slowing down .

[Nearholmer]

Looking at NHS recommendations

Can you point to where you found that recommendation, because I’ve never actually been able to find one that specific in NHS material?

I’m a few years younger than yourself, and the advice that the consultant (a keen cyclist of almost exactly the same age as myself) gave me was that “once you get past sixty, thrashing away above 85%HR for long periods is not ‘heart healthy’, but going above that up the odd hill does no harm.”.

Measured in “personal tiredness”, the 85% thing does seem to mean something, because keeping below that for the vast majority of the time seems to allow one to trundle on for much longer than if ‘thrashing away’.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Heart rate, is so yesterday. It’s like working out how much sugar is in a cake by tasting it. It’s far better to measure the sugar. Power is where it’s at #unpopularopinion.

[axel_knutt]

Heart rate, is so yesterday. It’s like working out how much sugar is in a cake by tasting it. It’s far better to measure the sugar. Power is where it’s at #unpopularopinion.

A big fat smoking drinking couch potato the same age as Bradley Wiggins would be ill-advised to try and match his power output regardless of heart rate.

[Nearholmer]

Heart rate, is so yesterday.

If you get off on trying to exert as much power as possible, maybe, but if your interest is as an older person trying to remain functioning, it’s very much today.

[a.twiddler]

I'm probably not in the same category as the original poster not being a thrusting athlete or anything but I am 70. A couple of Christmases ago I was given a sports watch and was surprised to find on setting it up that I would have a max heart rate of 153 bpm. I thought it was unlikely that my heart rate would reach those dizzy heights. It would probably explode first. It was a faff to set it up and download its readings on my not so smartphone but I persevered with it long enough to have a couple of heart rate warnings while I was out. Since I don't ride that hard, and was only slightly breathless at the time, not enough to be uncomfortable, I have my doubts about the accuracy of these things. Usually while climbing I tend to get too hot rather than in any sort of distress. I think I would know if my heart rate became uncomfortably high. Any how, when I got a slightly better phone I ditched the sports watch as I couldn't face the faff of setting it up again, with its unreliability, less than stellar battery life, etc. How on earth did we manage before these devices came along to give us fresh things to worry about? Just trust the way you feel and what your body is telling you, and enjoy riding your bike.

[Nearholmer]

I junked the sports watch too, very definitely inaccurate when cycling. My good lady bought me a “polar beat” monitor, which blue-tooth links to an app on my phone, and that seems to work very well and accurately.

After a while using it, it becomes rather unnecessary though, because one gets used to what level of effort associates with what HR - very interesting when I first had it though, I learned quite a bit by using it, an important point being that my max HR is slightly above that arrived at by the simple 220-Age approximation, so any % is wrong if referenced to that.

[toontra]

Not quite there yet (68) but I regularly get into the 170's on short steep hills or doing Vo2 intervals indoors. Maximum when tested last year in a lab was 178.

When running my HR climbs to around 168-170 after the first 30 minutes and stays there for the rest of the run.

I've had my heart scanned several times so pretty sure there are no issues. Never heard of this 85% and I've never been told about it by health or sports physios. Quite the opposite - there's a lot of current research that suggests getting the HR up on a regular basis is key to staving off degenerative diseases an maintaining good health in older age.

[simonineaston]

The more I read about us and our bodies, the more I realise that we're all different...

[Mick F]

The more I read about us and our bodies, the more I realise that we're all different...

Absolutely +1

Long may it remain so.

[ANTONISH]

Are you using the 220- age formula?
At your age I wouldn't have got up a steep climb without exceeding it.
I've had mine measured a couple of times on a ramp test and it definitely excceeds the formula.

I have been told that a rough and ready way of measuring max heart rate is to sprint up a steep climb until you "blow up".
Never tried it myself but I've come close.

[Ray]

Advice about exercise levels is usually predicated on either maximum heart rate or FTP (functional threshold power), both of which require stressful tests rather than simple calculations based on age. Anyone wanting to know 'how hard they should be pushing' as they get older may hesitate to put themselves through the considerable discomfort - and maybe the risk - of these flat-out tests. After all, there'd be little satisfaction in knowing that you'd achieved your maximum if that turned out to be literally your last gasp!

Nearholmer's consultant's advice not to spend much time above 85%mhr sounds wise - but that depends on knowing your max hr in the first place.

This is something that I often think about. All my adult life (so far!) I've ridden regularly - often far, and sometimes fairly fast - and I think I know my body fairly well. These days, however, while I still like to 'stretch my legs', I am reluctant to go far into the red. I'm breathing fairly hard by the time my pulse gets into the 150s, so I tend to back off a bit, whereas years ago I'd have given a bit more welly. I'm 80, and I'd really like to get to 90 - at least . I think you just have to try and use 'common sense' - and we all know how unreliable that can be

Happy pedalling

[cycleruk]

I'm 75 - 12 stone with a resting HR = 49.
Usually ride about 15mph and with a general riding HR at 130 but can hit 169 on a climb.

My last ride = easy 17 miles - Avg speed -12.1mi/h. Avg HR -120bpm. Max HR -149bpm.
Previous ride = hard 35 miles - Avg speed - 14.4mi/h. Avg HR -139bpm. Max HR - 162bpm

[richardfm]

I junked the sports watch too, very definitely inaccurate when cycling. My good lady bought me a “polar beat” monitor, which blue-tooth links to an app on my phone, and that seems to work very well and accurately.

After a while using it, it becomes rather unnecessary though, because one gets used to what level of effort associates with what HR - very interesting when I first had it though, I learned quite a bit by using it, an important point being that my max HR is slightly above that arrived at by the simple 220-Age approximation, so any % is wrong if referenced to that.

How do you know that?

[Nearholmer]

How do you know that?

Because I wore it while simultaneously fitted-up with a portable 24hr recording ECG thingamajig, and the results tallied.

The Polar Beat thingy is only recording HR, but it’s sampling rate must be pretty high, although clearly nothing like so high as an ECG, and the app seems to store the lot.

Quite why the watch failed during cycling I’m not sure, I think a combination of vibration messing up the sensing, which is by light, unlike an ECG or the polar beat animal, and the way it “economically” stored data which missed short-term variations. Whether it averaged over a period, or simply stored only some spot readings I don’t know, but the logged data were useless for finding peaks.