Cycling & Max Heart Rate ?

[gbnz]

Have asked elsewhere, but am seriously wondering if anyone takes the "max heart rate "zone" recommendations" seriously , when cycling/exercising ? (I.e. Generic 220 minus age, divide by a 100 to give a max heart rate at 50%, 60%, 70%, 80% etc, etc, etc)

Have used the above generic recommendations for years, but is it purely a nonsensical "max heart rate" calculation ?

Approaching 53yr's, perhaps my "75% to 85%" max heart rate workouts, only equate to cycling / exercising at a HRM of 125bpm to 142bpm. Have actually used a new HRM watch on the bike this week (Nb. Gym being refurbished), but it simply seems absurd, that to work out within a "safe" HRM zone, I'd have to doddle along, like an old man !

Recognise that due to a dramatically reduced mileage / gym time last year, my cardio vascular levels of fitness, will currently be reduced. But does it actually become "unsafe" to cycle along at a normal speed ? Was routinely cycling at 135bpm, on leisurely rides this week !

Is it best to simply ignore "max heart rates" when exercising (Nb. Did have a Dr comment on over sized heart muscles or something couple of years back, is it actually harmful to put some effort in, on a ride !)

[Nearholmer]

I’ve always understood maximum HR to be the maximum that an individual can personally achieve, not a “speed limit”.

There are lots of other threads about this on here, but that particular version (there are others) of the simple calculation is only a really rough guide, a sort of “population wide typical”, and again not a “speed limit”. I’m not particularly fit, and at 65yo that calculation says my max is 155, whereas in fact its something like 172.

There are various sophisticated and accurate ways of finding out what your genuine max HR is, but the surest way of getting a quick estimate (assuming that you aren’t under some medical limitation), is to pick a decent length, really steep hill, one that you can barely get up in your lowest gear, and ride up it is quickly as you can, really flogging yourself so that you can’t go quicker, and can barely get to the top. While wearing a decent recording HRM, obviously!

Incidentally, there’s also discussion of the limitations of HRM watches on here, and put in a nutshell: many of them don’t give accurate readings when cycling, and to get a max HR estimate as above, you really need a chest-strap monitor.

Personally, although I have a good HRM, and got quite interested in what it was telling me for about eighteen months, I now rarely wear it, and have gone back to the trusted method: ride in a way that feels right, and doesn’t usually necessitate “recovery periods”. The biggest lesson I took from using it was that it’s significant durations at >90% max (“really going for it” in “feeling” terms) that dictates how knackering a ride is, so particularly on multi-day trips I’ll consciously avoid flogging myself, and get off and push if needs be.

[Manc33]

Over 118 rides on my indoor trainer, I have kept track of everything. I'm 48 and weigh 12.5 stone. My average heart rate over all 118 rides is 144 BPM. That almost puts me in "Zone 4" (Hard) out of 5. That zone for me is 138 to 156 BPM with the average being 147 BPM. Since there's only 1 Zone above that "Very Hard" it would seem what you're saying tallies with my heart rate - if I was to ride in zone 2 or 3 it would be nowhere near the effort I naturally put in.

My average max HR over all those rides is 162 BPM. My highest is 182 BPM. Oh how things have changed since that (2023) ride! I averaged just 90 Watts on that ride. 2 years on now I am doing about 130 Watts and sometimes not even hitting 160 BPM.

When I look at the zones for the last ride it's like this:

Zone 1: 00:27
Zone 2: 00:41
Zone 3: 06:54
Zone 4: 23:53
Zone 5: 00:00

So on a ride taking 32m 3s I was in zone 4 for nearly 24 mins of it.

Max HR: 161 BPM


Sometimes I am in zone 5, the penultimate ride:

Zone 1: 00:16
Zone 2: 00:30
Zone 3: 07:19
Zone 4: 18:33
Zone 5: 06:21

So on a ride taking 33m I was in zone 5 for more than 6 mins of it.

Max HR: 168 BPM

This is with a Wahoo Kickr + Garmin Edge 1030 Plus + Coospo H6 chest strap.

I don't know what's dangerous and what's not but I think for most people it's physically impossible to exercise "dangerously" because your body just can't do it. Been there, done that, going up Werneth Low with my HR monitor beeping at me, at 189 BPM! Then you can't carry on, I couldn't even catch my breath in fact, but this is going back years when I smoked 30 a day and was trying to do such rides.

[Nearholmer]

Duration of rides is a factor too. If I’m going for a brisk hour and half, which is about the shortest “proper bike ride”, as opposed to utility ride, I’ll go on, the average HR will be higher than on a “day ride”, where I’ll be pacing myself a bit, and having a couple of short breaks (I’m a bloke who rides a bike, with no pretensions to be an athlete!).

[TrevA]

I’m 65 so my theoretical maximum heart rate is 155, but I regularly see heart rates higher than this, particularly on a fast ride, where I’m fighting not to be dropped. I see 169-170 bpm quite often. I only do fast rides once or twice a week, not every day or every time I’m out. I’m usually found pootling along at 13mph with a 110-120 heart rate.

[sizbut]

Agree with the first reply, its a way of calculating what the maximum you can probably achieve. You don't explode or do any harm if you can actually do do more than that.

[axel_knutt]

I think for most people it's physically impossible to exercise "dangerously" because your body just can't do it.

Dangerous isn't just about dropping dead today, it's also about what happens over 10, 20, 30 years. I spent decades overtraining because I had no understanding of how to train properly, and I paid for it. Correct heart rate isn't just a number, it depends on how long you sustain it, how long the ride is and at what other heart rates, how often you're riding, how much rest you're getting, whether you're getting the right mix of easy/hard rides, rest weeks, etc.

Agree with the first reply, its a way of calculating what the maximum you can probably achieve. You don't explode or do any harm if you can actually do do more than that.

He hasn't said what his MHR is, so we can't tell whether he's someone an average MHR overtraining, or someone with an above average MHR training safely. He also hasn't said how long he's sustaining the heart rates, or how often he's training.

[Nearholmer]

He hasn't said what his MHR is

Which I think is because he doesn’t yet know, and the only way to find out is to try, either under controlled conditions, or as I suggested under uncontrolled conditions.

[Paulatic]

Have asked elsewhere, but am seriously wondering if anyone takes the "max heart rate "zone" recommendations" seriously , when cycling/exercising ? (I.e. Generic 220 minus age, divide by a 100 to give a max heart rate at 50%, 60%, 70%, 80% etc, etc, etc)

Have used the above generic recommendations for years, but is it purely a nonsensical "max heart rate" calculation ?

I suspect most of us started with 220 minus age. It then shouldn’t take very long to have enough data to see what maximum your heart actually reaches.
IME experience I’ve rarely reached MHR. on a bike. Learnt behaviour from riding Audax I suspect rarely getting above zone 3.
Always found my MHR on a squash court and now I’ve eased off to playing badminton doubles I can still spend 15-20% of 90 minutes in zone 5.
As the posts in this thread will prove most of us are very different to the formula. Formula for me at 73 is 147. I’ve not a single reading above 136. In the 30 years I’ve used a HRM I’ve never reached the age formula figure.

[mattheus]

Who buys shoes based on the average size for people the same age/sex?

[rareposter]

Have used the above generic recommendations for years, but is it purely a nonsensical "max heart rate" calculation ?

At best it's inaccurate, at worst it's completely misleading.

The 220-age is one of those eternal myths (like "steel is compliant, aluminium is harsh") that just persists, repeated ad infinitum on forums. It can overestimate HR in older people, underestimate in younger people and it doesn't take into account any of your personal factors like weight, exercise history, smoking, diet...

To get max HR for you , you need to do a proper ramp test under controlled conditions.

[JohnR]

I find that the second formula at https://www.heartonline.org.au/resource ... calculator fits me better.

[toontra]

Ramp test (if done properly to exhaustion) will give you a max HR. Mine is currently 174 at age 69, so yes - the theoretical formula is way off, at least for me. I can maintain a rate above 160 for up to 90 minutes when running.

[Jezrant]

It might be interesting and useful to establish your true MHR depending on what you're trying to achieve. Then again it might be just as useful just to listen to what your body is telling you. And if something feels very wrong, go see your GP.

There's a very clever older chappie who's been giving a lot of thought to these sorts of questions in a fascinating and long-running blog. He's recently been musing about something called Zone 2 training rides:

https://zombiecyclist.blogspot.com/2024 ... one-2.html

He references a GCN video about how riding slower makes you faster:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=at3MPoK53dU

[gbnz]

I’ve always understood maximum HR to be the maximum that an individual can personally achieve, not a “speed limit”...........
Incidentally, there’s also discussion of the limitations of HRM watches on here, and put in a nutshell: many of them don’t give accurate readings when cycling, and to get a max HR estimate as above, you really need a chest-strap monitor.

Well yes, whilst haven't used a HRM monitor on the bicycle for 12-15yr's +, both those & those at the gym, have always utilised a chest strap. Haven't ridden for "speed" or "performance" improvement for at least 12 yrs' , last week with a HRM monitor on the bike will purely have been due to a brand new HRM watch being trialled / gym being closed for renovation

But I still give 110% if it's worth it on the ride, will hit a generic 90% max heart rate, based on last weeks data

@52yr's, fit/active, c/w multitude emergency ambulances to hospitals past 6 yr's (Epileptic related), never had a heart issue, but across the board............surprising how many Hospitals / Dr's on my coming around, always seem to view "over developed heart muscles, as being a serious medical issue" (Nb. Nothing to do with an epileptic condition, purely a side effect of decades on the bike/gym/exercise)

I'd always assumed that giving 110% in any physical activity is worth it, if it feels ok, but given that the heart is a muscle ..........am fully aware of the need for a rest/recovery period for any muscle.....but had never remotely considered that a over sized heart muscle, is so routinely viewed as being a negative physiological issue, from a professional, medical viewpoint