Max Heart Rate (Setting & Meaning)

[Nearholmer]

This has been discussed at length several times here, most recently I think in this thread viewtopic.php?t=159514&hilit=Heart

[Audax67]

Happens all the time here, but it's easier to get an answer by asking a question as a new topic than hunting through 40pp that might not provide one.

[JohnI]

I use Garmin Connect and only realised relatively recently that my heart rate zones do seem reasonably accurate. I've been doing a fair number of indoor workouts on Zwift this winter, including FTP tests now and again. I'm pretty sure my FTP is accurate and that's consistent with my threshold heart rate.

Basically I'm saying that FTP is the thing that matters more than anything else, but you can work back from that to check FTHR and therefore what your max HR might be. That seems more reliable than relying on the standard formulae or trying to actually get to max heart rate. I suspect that Garmin may have tweaked my zones, but by chance I've always been fairly close to the 220-age formula anyway.

[Navrig]

I wouldn't lose too much sleep over what your Garmin watch is telling you. The accuracy of the HRM function is pretty poor in my experience.

I had an earlier fitness model, Vivoactive 3, which I tried to use for fitness stats but when on my turbo trainer it was telling me my HR was 90-100 when I was knocking my pan in. I knew it was north of 150. I reverted to my Wahoo chest strap and, sure enough, it was reading 150+ for a 90-100 watch reading. The watch then just became a watch - it told the time but the battery life was so poor I couldn't use it for cycle route recording. I could, and did, use it to record 10km runs.

I gave up using it until I started to read reports that new technology meant watch HRM were more accurate. I wanted a watch I could use for my golf and fitness so I opted for a Fenix7. Battery life is much better, great for golf but the HRM is not much better. The chest strap comparison still shows a significant, but not as much, discrepancy. 90-100 on the watch equating to about 130 on the chest strap. The watch improves if I tighten the strap but I have to release it when my fingers start to turn blue.

Watch HRM are still Emporer's clothes territory but Garmin don't wan't you to know that.

[JohnI]

Watch HRM are still Emporer's clothes territory but Garmin don't wan't you to know that.

That reminds me of a podcast/radio programme I was listening to just yesterday.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001wqdw

[brianleach]

No experience of Garmin either I'm afraid.

I use a wrist monitor linked to my Wahoo Roam.

It doesn't make any sort of judgement but as I have heart issues including AF I always feel it is wise to err on the side of caution so I use the "traditional" calculation to decide what I should be looking for on a ride.

I can also tell going uphill if it is getting difficult and once it gets to about 140 I bail out. I do see from the 3 calculations above if I use the 3rd one it gives 164 which I would certainly not like to get to.

[Navrig]

Watch HRM are still Emporer's clothes territory but Garmin don't wan't you to know that.

That reminds me of a podcast/radio programme I was listening to just yesterday.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001wqdw

Thanks for that. Good timing.

[Psamathe]

I wouldn't lose too much sleep over what your Garmin watch is telling you. The accuracy of the HRM function is pretty poor in my experience.

I had an earlier fitness model, Vivoactive 3, which I tried to use for fitness stats but when on my turbo trainer it was telling me my HR was 90-100 when I was knocking my pan in. I knew it was north of 150. I reverted to my Wahoo chest strap and, sure enough, it was reading 150+ for a 90-100 watch reading. The watch then just became a watch - it told the time but the battery life was so poor I couldn't use it for cycle route recording. I could, and did, use it to record 10km runs.

I gave up using it until I started to read reports that new technology meant watch HRM were more accurate. I wanted a watch I could use for my golf and fitness so I opted for a Fenix7. Battery life is much better, great for golf but the HRM is not much better. The chest strap comparison still shows a significant, but not as much, discrepancy. 90-100 on the watch equating to about 130 on the chest strap. The watch improves if I tighten the strap but I have to release it when my fingers start to turn blue.

Watch HRM are still Emporer's clothes territory but Garmin don't wan't you to know that.

It's a recent model of watch but I have no idea about the HR accuracy. I could get a chest monitor (several reputable companies sell at around £50) but I'm not convinced I'm that interested or want the extra hassle or to spend the money for minimal use. No medical reasons for me to want to monitor it, it's all just interest as the watch is now providing these new figures. Same as I'd be interested in a power meter but probably just for a few rides and for for me personally the cost definitely isn't justifiable.

Ian

[Nearholmer]

Before she bought me the chest strap HRM, I was borrowing my other half’s watch, and it was utterly useless as an HRM for cycling, all sorts of meaningless rubbish recorded. It was OK for walking and running, but I think there was something about the particular form of vibration from cycling that confused it, and I also think it’s method of sampling and averaging to compress data simply didn’t work for very rapid changes in exertion level.

[axel_knutt]

Plethysmographic monitors are also very good at hiding arrhythmia. My AF doesn't show up at all on them, the paramedic's finger clip was showing 70bpm when my actual HR was 210.

[toontra]

A ramp test on a static trainer is a good way to determine your max HR. That's certainly what's been used the two times I've had mine tested in labs. If you have a smart trainer at home and a decent chest strap HR monitor (watches are pretty useless) you can do it yourself. I do so every few weeks, using the ramp test to determine FTP and a side product is to indicate my HR max.

I agree that "regular" exercise won't get you anywhere near your max HR. You need to be doing an all-out effort to exhaustion - and it hurts! For interest I'm 68 and my HR max at the moment is around 176. I can maintain 160-165 for periods up to 2 hours, both cycling and running. The traditional formula of 220 minus age is totally meaningless.

If you are trying to follow a training plan and use an incorrect (too low) HR max to determine training zones you will probably lose much of the benefit of that training - i.e. you will be missing the "target" efforts, maybe significantly.

[axel_knutt]

I agree that "regular" exercise won't get you anywhere near your max HR. You need to be doing an all-out effort to exhaustion - and it hurts!

That's the point I was getting at above, if you push your exercise anywhere near MHR you know all about it. The professional advice I've read about conducting maximal tests is that they should be used very sparingly, because they take a long while to recover from.

[Nearholmer]

I can maintain 160-165 for periods up to 2 hours, both cycling

Ditto, but that was exactly what the cardio chap told me was “not heart healthy once you get past sixty”, so I now only do it accidentally, and it’s noticeable that doing it leaves me a “a bit whacked” for the next 24hrs, whereas if I confine those higher numbers to shorter periods, and they don’t sum to a large amount of time overall, I’m ready to go again the next day.

[re_cycler]

I can maintain 160-165 for periods up to 2 hours, both cycling

Ditto, but that was exactly what the cardio chap told me was “not heart healthy once you get past sixty”, so I now only do it accidentally, and it’s noticeable that doing it leaves me a “a bit whacked” for the next 24hrs, whereas if I confine those higher numbers to shorter periods, and they don’t sum to a large amount of time overall, I’m ready to go again the next day.

But what causes a step change at 60, it would seem as if a random age has been plucked. I suppose it could be based on population studies but that doesn't that help an individual make informed exercise decisions.

[toontra]

There's so much conflicting advice on these matters, including that being reported here, that it becomes pretty meaningless trying to establish generalised HR protocols. The caveat must always be - if in doubt get medical advice, particularly if you already know you have related heart conditions.

As regards maximal efforts requiring significant rest, TrainerRoad used to require a ramp test every 4-6 weeks (they now claim to be able to establish FTP by data crunching so fewer required). Far from a period of rest afterwards they suggested that, as the ramp test only takes 20 min or so and only 3-4 of those in the "hurt" zone, you could actually do another interval session straight afterwards. I often do.