Maximum heart rate

[maximoburrito]

So, my C2 has arrived, and with it came that nice Suunto HRM. I've only had it a couple days, but I've already run into a few questions. The first is on maximum heart rate.

According to the charts, I should expect my maximum heart rate to be about 220-35=185. However, I did an experiment to test it out. I did a pair of 2Ks and went as hard as I could for the last 250m or so. I did most of the work in the range of 140-160, but on the last little bit I saw my hear rate go as high as about 214. Coming to a rest afterwards, it took a couple minutes to get down to the 190s, but once it did, it steadily decreased to a reasonable resting pace like after any other row.

Now, I realize that any formula is just an estimate and that individuals can and will vary from that, but the 185 to 214 is quite a spread. Does that seem reasonable? Should I use the 214 when considering heart rate zones. Note - I'm not planning on using heart rate to determine my exercise levels now. For the time being, I'm just trying to see if I can correspond what I'm observing compared to the charts.

As a side note to this, I do workout rather intensely a couple times a week with a trainer. I have gotten my heart rate this high (not measured - just judging by my feelings) and whenever it gets going anywhere near that I always signal my trainer that I think I've gone too hard and I rest until I feel I've got my heart rate under control.

[Citroen]

This subject is a FAQ. http://c2forum.com/viewtopic.php?t=6080&start=0

220-age isn't even a good estimate. http://faculty.css.edu/tboone2/asep/Robergs2.pdf

The best way is to row a step test. See chapter 12 in http://www.concept2.co.uk/docs/guide/tr ... ide_v2.pdf

[maximoburrito]

First - sorry for asking such a common question. I did a quick search first and didn't find the answers I was looking for, but a little more searching did pull up a number of related threads.

I guess what I'm trying to figure out is what to make of my observed number. 214 is significantly higher than would be predicted by ANY of the formulas. Should I expect to be able to use my measured number as max heart rate for calculations based on max heart rate?

[Cazneau]

Even among elite athletes, some have exceptionally high and some exceptionally low heart rates. According to the 220-age formula, mine should be 175. But I've hit 190. My test for max heart rate was to run 3 miles, speed up in the last 1/2 mile, then run up a very steep hill. I hit 190 just near the top, and felt close to, but not totally spent. So my guess is that my Max is somewhere between 190-195.

[Citroen]

214 is significantly higher than would be predicted by ANY of the formulas. Should I expect to be able to use my measured number as max heart rate for calculations based on max heart rate?

You can only find a sensible value by empirical measurement. ALL formulae should be considered an estimate only when the real world numbers don't tally with the forumulae. It's more interesting to look at heart rate range.

I'm 44yrs old, the maxHR I've recorded on the rower is 193bpm lowest is 37bpm (by wearing my HR strap overnight).

Stop worrying, it only serves to elevate your blood pressure.

[badocter]

I wholeheartedly agree with Citroen. The formulas all have a very high margin of error. According to the formulae my MHR should be 182, but the reality is I have had it up to 198 on tests. Your HR bands should be based on your real data if you have it. In addition to the RHR and MHR, you may find it worthwhile to determine your anaerobic threshold.

[TabbRows]

I had a stress test on the treadmill today, part of my "annual" checkup that I get with irregularity every 4-6 years. They set my max HR at 163, based on--you guessed it--220-my age! I asked the Technican why they used that number since it was often so far off. He said, and I don't know his medical training background, they weren't trying to find my max rate and that so many of the people coming in for these types of tests have some or possibly some degree of heartfailure that all they are trying to do is determine the degree to which they can reach 80-85% of the 220-age number and how long it takes them to do so. Took me 6.5 minutes from 54 beats and I wasn't even breathing hard after holding the max speed steepness for 1.5 minutes. 5 minutes to bring the rate back into the low 60s. He said the average time to reach the 80% mark is 3-3.5 minutes.

So I'm sticking with my averaged training max HR of 177. That's just the average of the step test, gellish, double square, and complex methods. figured I'd be around there somewhere. But if I used 163, I'd be doing heavy intervals (90-95% max) at a 2:11 pace.

[badocter]

(Scratches head) While you are above average on your MHR and found the level they gave you easy, there are just as many guys who have below the average MHR and would have found that level very stressful... Sounds like the tech was just going through the motions to me...

[LJWagner]

Max HR is exercise dependent, based on many studies.

So folks who erg a lot will with both long "slow", and hard interval training, have very healthy hearts like young fit men. Their max HR will be off the charts for their age.

The majority of heart patients are elderly, and don't exercise much.

I would expect 90% or more of people rowing for exercise to have additional cardiac arteries, as I do, so they may be unaware of a blockage to a minor artery, since most of the heart tissue may have a backup blood supply.

My cardiologist complimented me on my collateral system, saying it looked like what might be found on an Olympic marathoner. It also saved my butt, since they then sliced me open the next day and did an emergency triple bypass. There were more blockages but they were too close together to have room to do anything about them. My collaterals let me exercise.

Unless stuff has re-opened, I have under 7% normal cardiac blood flow. The rest is from my bypasses and collaterals.