Strategies for the aging athlete

[dabatey]

A max HR test is horrendous to go through.

I actually completely disagree with this. Compared to a 2k max effort, a ramp test for max HR is a walk in the park with only the end 'all out' portion being difficult.

That is of course if you give your 'all' at the right point in the ramp I suppose which takes a certain bit of playing it by ear, it certainly has the opportunity to be horrendous if you don't go all out early enough and instead play it like a cycling FTP ramp test.

Ha! We'll just have to agree to differ on this. I'd go so far as to suggest if you found it a walk in the park up until the last rep, then you probably haven't found your max yet. It takes a long time in the hurt box to reach maxHR. Erging "to failure" is easily done and doesn't imply anything about HR. My session last night sounds very similar to your description of a max HR test. It was actually a 1k TT but I spent quite a while warming up at a modest pace with bursts of power from time to time - reasonably challenging but very much at the walk in the park end. A 1k TT for me is just under 3:20 which is the sort of effort to failure time of the last rep you describe - and I did indeed get to the point about 600 in where I couldn't sustain my race plan (failure?) but still managed to keep going and put in a faster last 100 to get a 3:17.8 - OK but 2s slower than last season. Despite all that pain and effort my HR only got to 160, way off my max. 2k for me is something over 7 min these days. 7 or even 8mins isn't long enough to reach maxHR - but very easy to reach failure if you over cook it.

Ok whatever. If you had cared to read my post of 3 posts ago (to Annisotropic) you would see that my ramp test was over a period of 21 minutes and not 7 or 8. You could of course be correct that I have not yet seen my rowing HR max (It was very early in my erging I did the test and I've seen 184 a few times cycling and a blip to 185), but I'd hazard that it was within a couple of bpm, and close enough to max for the purposes of what Annisotropic is after. I still say a ramp test is a walk in the park compared to a 2k test.

Edit..I've just had a look on intervals.icu for the activities that have lead to my maxHR's cycling. One of the 184's was reached at the top of a 5 minute hill after a flat low HR 'warm up' run in right at the start of my cycle. So it's certainly possible to get the body up to max HR in some sports in a much shorter time frame than the 20 minute or so rowing 5 or 6k.

[jamesg]

The simplest way to check max HR is use 220-½ Age, then test it, since it's an average that can be up to 10% (2 x SD) off.

And test it again, every time we do intervals, such as the WODs. It's not dfficult to work to near collapse in the last two intervals, always hoping to see accurate readings.

However belts also see extrasystolic impulses, so can be useless. I often see 240 on PM and watches, so use a finger oxymeter (which sees only pressure pulses, not electric) during rests to see how fast it drops.

On C2 machines, for OAPs who don't need to go anaerobic, it's much simpler to use Watts; this is in line with Conconi HR theory, which suggests that when aerobic, HR range used is linear with Power produced. So both can be calculated from the other, once we know the factor to use.

On erg, nowadays I stay below 120W, most of the time, which is 1.5W/kg. My range factor is around 2, so 120W implies an increase in HR from RR of 60.

[iain]

The simplest way to check max HR is use 220-½ Age, then test it, since it's an average that can be up to 10% (2 x SD) off.

Its more than 10% off for me (seen 184 recently when formula gives 165), while I know people who have varied 15%

...it's much simpler to use Watts; this is in line with Conconi HR theory, which suggests that when aerobic, HR range used is linear with Power produced.

That doesn't work for me either. It assumes that stroke volume is constant. Admittedly it gets closer as I get fitter, but when I have been inactive for a few months then stroke volume stays low until past threshold and then increases significantly.

[dabatey]

220 - 1/2 age. That would put me at 196 lol. I saw 192 running, but that was over 15 years ago.

For a small sample of 6 I can say that in my cycling TTT team, all 50-54 and varying weights, 4 of us run a max (seen) HR of low 180's with one of us a member of the living dead with a max of 165. So a discrepancy of 15-20bpm at roughly the same age. I think most of us would agree that no formula will work for max HR, and you've got to test for it (whether deliberately or not) and all you can ever go by is your maximum that you have seen taking into account erroneous spikes.

[gvcormac]

Here's a better max HR calculator. The "220-age" is inaccurate for two reasons: (1) it is a bad estimator of population average; (2) individuals differ considerably from the population average. A better calulator is 208-0.68*age; it better estimates the population average, but is still subject to individual variation.

The calculator below also considers height and weight and resting HR, and is a bit better. For example, it estimates my max HR to be 169, but I have hit 171 at the end of recent 10km races (both running and rowing).

For comparision, 220-age gives 153 and 208-0.68*age gives 162. 220-0.5*age gives 187.

https://www.ntnu.edu/cerg/hrmax

Of course, if all you're going to do is plug this number into some other formula (like 70% of max HR) it doesn't really matter, because the 70% has no evidentiary basis.

[Me, Myself and I]

The simplest way to check max HR is use 220-½ Age, then test it, since it's an average that can be up to 10% (2 x SD) off.

That's bang on for me. Max HR seen recently 185.

Its more than 10% off for me (seen 184 recently when formula gives 165), while I know people who have varied 15%

But you've taken off your full age not half of it. Or a sprightly 110 are you?

[jamesg]

Sorry, 220-Age was the original average MHR estimate. There are plenty more. All derive from a set of readings, so are averages. Any single value differs from the average. It seems the differences were large, with SD around 5%:

THE SURPRISING HISTORY OF THE “HRmax=220-age”

So what with drift, large variance and Karvonen or not, using MHR will be somewhat complex. No problem, the C2 ergs measure Power, with far better accuracy. I've read that US coaches want to see 1 Watt/pound body mass.

For us amateurs, anything over 1W/kg will do: referring to an ideal weight.

[dabatey]

Here's a better max HR calculator. The "220-age" is inaccurate for two reasons: (1) it is a bad estimator of population average; (2) individuals differ considerably from the population average. A better calulator is 208-0.68*age; it better estimates the population average, but is still subject to individual variation.

The calculator below also considers height and weight and resting HR, and is a bit better. For example, it estimates my max HR to be 169, but I have hit 171 at the end of recent 10km races (both running and rowing).

For comparision, 220-age gives 153 and 208-0.68*age gives 162. 220-0.5*age gives 187.

https://www.ntnu.edu/cerg/hrmax

Of course, if all you're going to do is plug this number into some other formula (like 70% of max HR) it doesn't really matter, because the 70% has no evidentiary basis.

I think your 211-0.64age (in the study) is going to give a much better average than 220-age. So for most it is probably a better/closer formula. Still doesn't help those that are the bigger 'outliers' and really folks need to test if they want to know.

[Dangerscouse]

The simplest way to check max HR is use 220-½ Age, then test it, since it's an average that can be up to 10% (2 x SD) off.

That's bang on for me. Max HR seen recently 185.

FWIW, that's +31 on my highest seen HR, and maybe even more as it's three years out of date now, so it will only be lower than 174

[Joebasscat]

The simplest way to check max HR is use 220-½ Age, then test it, since it's an average that can be up to 10% (2 x SD) off.

That's bang on for me. Max HR seen recently 185.

FWIW, that's +31 on my highest seen HR, and maybe even more as it's three years out of date now, so it will only be lower than 174

This is the closest any formula has come for me. 187.5 and highest observed is 190.