Max heart rate

[Dangerscouse]

How does everyone else compare using the formula of 205-0.41 x age????????

That gives me a MHR of 185, but mine seems to be 176

[GlennUk]

205 - (0.41*61) = 179.99

Last time I did something tough enough to see HRmax was 183bpm.

that's about as close as i've seen to my observed HRmax.

[pagomichaelh]

...
How does everyone else compare using the formula of 205-0.41 x age????????

Close for me as well. Max rate tested based on 6x500m was 182, rating came out to 177.

In light that I wanted to puke as soon as I got enough air in to do so, maybe I should have capped at 177

[aegis]

I've been struggling with finding my max heart rate after going off beta blockers for a few weeks, previously my max hr observed was about 184 from jumping rope but in the last two weeks during intervals I've observed 193 and 197 most recently after pushing fairly hard. I use a polar h10 strap and I'm inclined to believe 197 is my new max now. I'm 43 BTW so my current observed max is not predicted well by most of the formulas out there. My rhr has also changed from 48 to 53.
My steady state row times have gotta worse though, I used to be able to maintain zone 2 hr at 2:30/500m r20 but now it's been closer to 2:42/500m. Almost makes me wanna go back to using beta blockers!

[MPx]

How does everyone else compare using the formula of 205-0.41 x age????????

Errr...my guess would be about as close as they are to any other formula based on age. Since we all know that most individuals at the same age actually have different MHRs (some close to each other, a few wildly different) any age based formula has got to be wrong for most of them....its basic arithmetic innit?

[MartinSH4321]

How does everyone else compare using the formula of 205-0.41 x age????????

Errr...my guess would be about as close as they are to any other formula based on age. Since we all know that most individuals at the same age actually have different MHRs (some close to each other, a few wildly different) any age based formula has got to be wrong for most of them....its basic arithmetic innit?

This!
My best friend is 1 year older, his MHR is ca. 210, mine is ca. 175, this is evidence enough for me that any formula based on age is worthless

[Tsnor]

How does everyone else compare using the formula of 205-0.41 x age????????

Errr...my guess would be about as close as they are to any other formula based on age. Since we all know that most individuals at the same age actually have different MHRs (some close to each other, a few wildly different) any age based formula has got to be wrong for most of them....its basic arithmetic innit?

This!
My best friend is 1 year older, his MHR is ca. 210, mine is ca. 175, this is evidence enough for me that any formula based on age is worthless

And this !!!!! Yes, math says formula CAN'T work. Experience says it doesn't. Broken analog clock correct twice a day.

[Erik A]

i need to find my MHR and to be honest reading all this has proven to be a bit confusing to say the least.
so to break it down
after a warm up of say 10 mins and then go balls out until failure i should get to my MHR.?

[Ombrax]

i need to find my MHR and to be honest reading all this has proven to be a bit confusing to say the least.
so to break it down
after a warm up of say 10 mins and then go balls out until failure i should get to my MHR.?

You could try that, but after a good warmup I think I'd do it in multiple increments (e.g. 3-400m pieces, taking 5 sec off your pace for each successive one, no rest between intervals) instead of one big jump to max. It takes a while to get your HR up, so if you go immediately to "as hard as you can" you may well burn out before you can really max out your HR.

[Erik A]

i need to find my MHR and to be honest reading all this has proven to be a bit confusing to say the least.
so to break it down
after a warm up of say 10 mins and then go balls out until failure i should get to my MHR.?

You could try that, but after a good warmup I think I'd do it in multiple increments (e.g. 3-400m pieces, taking 5 sec off your pace for each successive one, no rest between intervals) instead of one big jump to max. It takes a while to get your HR up, so if you go immediately to "as hard as you can" you may well burn out before you can really max out your HR.

ok that sounds logical.. will try that

[Tsnor]

i need to find my MHR and to be honest reading all this has proven to be a bit confusing to say the least.
so to break it down
after a warm up of say 10 mins and then go balls out until failure i should get to my MHR.?

You could try that, but after a good warmup I think I'd do it in multiple increments (e.g. 3-400m pieces, taking 5 sec off your pace for each successive one, no rest between intervals) instead of one big jump to max. It takes a while to get your HR up, so if you go immediately to "as hard as you can" you may well burn out before you can really max out your HR.

ok that sounds logical.. will try that

Your HR won't have time to hit max on 400M, or even 3 x 400m = 1.2K = <5 mins.

1/3 of people hit their max HR during hard interval sessions like 4 x 2K.
1/3 of people hit their max HR in 20-60 min sessions with time varying workload
20% of people hit their max HR in 5-20 min time trials (constant speed, hard effort)
10% of people hit their max HR in 20+ minute time trials (constant speed, hard effort)

So try a few variations and see what works for you. Data from https://youtu.be/lmB5cTOWCbs?t=1343

Or you can just keep track of the max you've seen and update your zones whenever you see a higher number.

You really don't need an accurate max to do zone training, you just need a good lower bound. If you think your max is 180 and you do long/slow at 70% = 126 and later discover that your actual max is 190... it made no read training difference. You could have targeted 190 x 70% = 133 instead of 126, but it won't make a difference in your training outcome. Some people do their long/slow at 65% instead of 70%. It works.
The only error that can mess up your training is overestimating your max HR and doing your long/slow too hard. And the separation between the higher zones is proving less important to the point where some experts are collapsing to two training zones -- long/slow UT2 where lactate does not rise and everything above that.

[jamesg]

i need to find my MHR and to be honest reading all this has proven to be a bit confusing to say the least.

If you're doing a lot of hard training (more than 2-3 hours a week) and so risk overtraining, you need to know where your AT (threshold) power is, so that you can keep your power lower for some of the time. The 20-80 mantra probably applies in full if you do over 10 hours a week, starting at around 2 hours.

The AT is not necessarily a fixed percentage of HR range or of max, so you may need to do a step test, or similar, to see the inflexion point on the Watt/HR curve.

Ergdata if connected to a belt should do this for you. Warm up to 140HR, then do a series of short steps at say +25W to failure. The curve should show linear W-HR to the threshold, then a curve as you add anaerobic work.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8912066/

When rowing, we train the stroke and control output by controlling the rating, so don't need any of the above: keep it below 23 and you are unlikely to overtrain.

[JaapvanE]

When rowing, we train the stroke and control output by controlling the rating, so don't need any of the above: keep it below 23 and you are unlikely to overtrain.

Even on long distances?

My experience is that HR is a bad indicator for overtraining as I typically have issues with my knees not getting enough time to recover from a training. So my HR stays low, but I kept having tired knees all week. Brought the intensity down and prevented overcompression at the catch and it was gone.

[jamesg]

Brought the intensity down and prevented overcompression at the catch and it was gone.

Would seem "it" was a technical problem that you resolved correctly.

Even on long distances?

If the length of the piece is such that you are forced to row with a weak stroke and not simply drop the rating, what is the point of the long distance?

[JaapvanE]

Even on long distances?

If the length of the piece is such that you are forced to row with a weak stroke and not simply drop the rating, what is the point of the long distance?

Well, my point is that with a 20-22 SPM you can still overtrain, even with HR monitoring says you have no issue. Typically, I train long distances on a 21 SPM while staying in HR Zone 2 to 3 (on a 5 zone system). For me, my knees are the first to go when it comes to overtraining, even after removing the overcompression. When my knees still feel wobbly the next day, it is a clear sign I've not recovered enough.

My point is that HR is a nice indicator for having HR or O2 issues, but muscle-issues shouldn't be forgotten. Listening to your body is important, especially when training more than 3 times a week.