all posts post new thread

Other/Mixed Your Age and Maximum Heart Rate

Other strength modalities (e.g., Clubs), mixed strength modalities (e.g., combined kettlebell and barbell), other goals (flexibility)
Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
Re reading my post, let me clarify. When I say crushed for days, I mean I didn't feel like training with any intensity. I felt physically fine for the rest of the day afterward and really could most likely have achieved higher but stopped when I saw it was above 175.

Reading Dr. Sears' works made me realize that the 220 thing certainly isn't absolute and each of us has differences.
 
Max HR is largely genetic, some of us rev like sport motorcycles, and others diesel trucks. Hence its lack of usefulness for training.

Maffetone says that max HR usually goes down a bit the more aerobically fit you are, FWIW.
 
As an older and amateur trainer I think in terms of recovery for the most part, being able to converse while running (which I hate) is a good marker. More than that I like the feeling of breathing easy and nasal as I plod along, working on run form and enjoying the passing scenery.

At age 61 my aerobic comfort zone for LSD/LED is right around 115-120 BPM, or lower at times. I'm fairly new to running (around 1 yr) and averaged around 3.6 MPH at that heart rate in the beginning, now the same HR yields an average speed of 4.1 MPH.

Zones I find are pretty well useless to me as an amateur as well as max HR, at least for my own training purposes.
 
Last edited:
I only use HR for one thing, at then just to establish HR relative to RPE, and that is HIIT, because its pretty much essential to the mechanism.

This is also where I hit my highest numbers, although normally I top out at mid to low 170s, about 10 bpm less than my max.

When it comes to resistance training it is not very helpful.
 
Steve Freides said:
@Oscar, just by pushing yourself as hard as you can. Yesterday, after doing 10 snatches on the 2:00, I did 30 snatches non-stop as 15 per hand as a "finisher." I don't think I pushed myself as hard as I could go because that wasn't my intention, but the HRM does store your maximum pulse in a session, so I noticed that I'd gone past the number I had previously used - so I changed it so that the zones would be, in principle, more accurate going forward. The 10's on the 2:00 was getting my pulse into the low 150's, and this was my "do something hard every now and then."

I am waiting for @Al Ciampa to tell me I shouldn't bother with the HRM at all :) but it's both a toy and a tool, so I'm interested, for the time being, in what it has to tell me.

-S-
Click to expand...
And you should play with that toy until you figure out what it means. Then, throw it way.
 
Al Ciampa said:
And you should play with that toy until you figure out what it means. Then, throw it way.
Click to expand...
That's what I did 15 or 20 years ago, when I figured my last maximum heart rate, and I have no doubt that will be the case again here. But as you suggest, for now, it's a fun toy, and I am learning things,.

E.g., I find it fascinating to notice how my body feels when I finish a bout of exercise and start watching the HR numbers - they usually go up a little after I finish, and stay in that range for a while, and then I feel something change in my body and the HR starts to come down pretty quickly. Trying to match how I feel with when the HR is going to start to get lower is something I'm finding interesting. I had thought it would have to do with how I breathed when I wanted my HR to come down, but it has to be both that and my HR has to be ready to come down. Interesting and informative and new stuff for me.

-S-
 
I'm 45. Ran a half-marathon just after my birthday. Max HR using the 220-age, would have equalled 175 max. 7 out of the last 8 km of the race, my HR averaged 176. The last km average 183 (for 5 mins straight).

Safe to say 220-age was not correct. However, I strictly ran Zone 2 runs for more than 80% of my training. In my opinion, all that aerobic work contributed to a 'faster running engine' during the race.
 
Steve Freides said:
That's what I did 15 or 20 years ago, when I figured my last maximum heart rate, and I have no doubt that will be the case again here. But as you suggest, for now, it's a fun toy, and I am learning things,.

E.g., I find it fascinating to notice how my body feels when I finish a bout of exercise and start watching the HR numbers - they usually go up a little after I finish, and stay in that range for a while, and then I feel something change in my body and the HR starts to come down pretty quickly. Trying to match how I feel with when the HR is going to start to get lower is something I'm finding interesting. I had thought it would have to do with how I breathed when I wanted my HR to come down, but it has to be both that and my HR has to be ready to come down. Interesting and informative and new stuff for me.

-S-
Click to expand...

I oftem wonder about this too. I can feel a definite difference when doing compound exercises vs ones that require fewer muscles working at the same time.
I've wondered if it didn't have to do with internal body temp even. I notice as I breathe in through nose feels the same, but out through the mouth it almost has a different "feel", something tangible about the exhale that changes after strong exertion and switches back just as my HR begins to drop.
 
mar2safety said:
I'm 45. Ran a half-marathon just after my birthday. Max HR using the 220-age, would have equalled 175 max. 7 out of the last 8 km of the race, my HR averaged 176. The last km average 183 (for 5 mins straight).

Safe to say 220-age was not correct. However, I strictly ran Zone 2 runs for more than 80% of my training. In my opinion, all that aerobic work contributed to a 'faster running engine' during the race.
Click to expand...
This is exactly why running (or cycling) in Z2 and Z1 should comprise the majority of an endurance athletes training.
In essence what we are trying to do is increase our AeT. (Which is apparently what you have done)

And as you found out 220-age is notoriously inaccurate. The only way to find ones accurate HRmax is to measure it...

Good work by the way...
 
Just before the Covid-19 shutdown I took a stress test and decided to tap out after what I decided was long enough to get my heart rate sufficiently elevated and the perception that I was around 180 bpm. Just before the decision I asked the tech if I had entered the heart rate that would qualify as high enough. She said that I had been maintaining 173 bpm for the prior 3-minute period. Afterwards I was somewhat disappointed because of the sense that I had not truly exerted maximally. The tech said that there was nothing to beat myself up about, a sentiment shared by the cardiologist after the pictures were taken a couple of hours later and we had the consultation. Great test, no blockages.

I have undergone three stress tests since the initial onset of lone paroxysmal atrial fibrillation twenty years ago. Fortunately, I do not have frequent episodes although I know that they will increase as time goes by. My EP has me take an "on demand" medication when my little visitor makes an appearance which converts me within 2-4 hours. I have mixed feelings about afib, I resent them as they are occurring but the amount of info that I have received about my overall cardiovascular health has been amazing. Another added benefit has been in the form of feedback regarding my training approach. Both the cardiologist with whom I consult during the stress tests and my EP have both said the same thing, "Keep doing what you have doing." I know that the EP suspected that there might be things afoot but changed his mind when he saw that, for example, my ejection fraction has remained in the 68-73% range over the twenty year period.

There are times when I wonder what factors contributed to the first episode lo those many years ago. My EP has posited that since I am a 6'6" former college basketball/track athlete that those factors alone have me quacking like a duck. Apparently basketball players above the normal height range have an increased tendency. Two of my former teammates (6'7" and 6'5") have had ablations.

It is my hope that my training choices have positively impacted my lot in life to this point.
 
There’s a strong motivational factor to your max hear rate too. A couple of years ago at a short, hilly mountain bike race I hit 195bpm at the age of 49. In training it’s almost impossible for me to go past 175.
 
offwidth said:
Stress tests are no joke....
Click to expand...
That's the rub. On the first two I went into the tests with the mindset that I would be the first guy to bring the treadmill to its knees and, yes, I did very well. On the third I felt like I was in tune with my body, I knew full well that I was doing well. That gave me the kind of calm resolve that my EP imparted to me early on, he told me that I had a fantastic heart and that an occasional electrical conduction nuisance would be no more than that if I continued to follow what he considered my worthy instincts. His wise counsel has made all the difference.

Back to the point. Most of my training is aerobic (MAF). I have a funny feeling that the nature of the game of basketball is akin to hard fartlek, constant movement with intense interval-like bursts. Add in the explosive component of jumping into the mix and I sometimes think that there is an overload on the nervous system that presents some time down the road. Just a hunch and, no, I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express.

Very few physical markers have changed in the last twenty years; bloodwork, bp, cardiac function, etc. My training has remained consistent and I am of the opinion that consistency is the key. It dawned me that more is not necessarily better, it's just more. At 63 I have been able to maintain a 7:30 pace for three miles although I seldom do any volume work aside from the Schwinn Airdyne, rower, or elliptical. Feeling better after a workout than I did when I started is my mantra 80% of the time. I used a heart monitor for a while until I realized that it didn't tell me anything that RPE wasn't already doing.

I have to be ready for that next darn stress test after all.
 
offwidth said:
This is exactly why running (or cycling) in Z2 and Z1 should comprise the majority of an endurance athletes training.
In essence what we are trying to do is increase our AeT. (Which is apparently what you have done)

And as you found out 220-age is notoriously inaccurate. The only way to find ones accurate HRmax is to measure it...

Good work by the way...
Click to expand...
This is the right answer. And Z1/Z2 can be simplified even easier to 120-130bpm...and even easier to: able to carry on a conversation and breathe through the nose only.

For many untrained people, 130bpm may be their anaerobic threshold (this is the type who gets winded climbing stairs). But time in the aerobic (sub-anaerobic) zone will nudge that AnT up into the nether; and you'll know when you've crossed it on a brief hard effort.

And unless you're a 1) temporarily peaking for a performance, 2) professional athlete (a fancier version of 1); or 3) your life or someone else's life depends on you being able to endure and perform in that anaerobic zone, then there is little reason to spend much time up there (Pavel suggests no more than 1 in 5 sessions should be anywhere near this intense).
 
Last edited:
Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
Back
Top Bottom