Determining Max Heart Rate

Locolady98

I have an Apple Watch and am able to monitor my heart rate as I run. MapMyRun (upgraded version) shows me what "zone" I'm running in. I've never really paid attention to that before, but as I'm easing back into running, I'm thinking it might be helpful. At least it might add a new element to my running.

So, the old way was a formula. 220 - your age = your max heart rate. But google a bit, and it seems that's often very inaccurate. Google also happily says go to an exercise physiologist to get a real determination. Yeah. Right. Sorry, but that probably isn't happening for me.

So, I found this:

"1. Put on a heart rate monitor.
2. Run or cycle at a moderate pace for 15-20 minutes.
3. Sprint or cycle hard for 1-2 minutes, then note your heart rate and add another 5 beats per minute (BPM).

The number you get from Step 3 will provide you with your approximate maximum heart rate."

Thoughts? Anyone else have a reasonably sound DIY method of determining max heart rate?

NorthCascades

Many people use their "maximum observed heart rate" and perhaps do a test to try to find it. There isn't actually anything special about your maximum heart rate, though.

It's far better to base your zones off your lactate threshold heart rate. Run a 10K and take your average heart rate for the entire race. Or ride a 30 minute time trial and take your average heart rate over the last 20 minutes. To some extent this tests your ability to take the test, but in practice it works well for most athletes.

spiriteagle99

Running a 5k is a good way of finding your maximum, as long as you run it all out. Doing hill sprints can also work. I've just gone on a hilly run and added 5 to the maximum that I got on that run. It's probably still low, but I don't do serious HR training so it doesn't matter. I know I run my easy runs too hard. Having an approximate HR to aim for can help me keep the pace easier than I would if I just went by perceived effort. I have a hard time perceiving truly easy. For me, any time I'm not running uphill, it's easy.

MeanderingMammal

As above, is probably more meaningful to identify your Lactate Threshold HR, essentially the threshold that you can maintain for an hour. You can then structure your understanding around that figure.

The challenge there becomes cardiac drift, so record your HR for an hour and measure the average for the middle 20 minutes. A 5K can work as well.

For maximum, use a track and do a good warm up then 100m maximal effort repeats.

Alternatively, ignore zone training as an approach.

RuNaRoUnDaFiEld

I don't pay much/any attention to which zone and I'm in.

I find it much better to push myself to improve on time or distance.

sijomial

I did my proper max HR test as part of a VO2 max test in a sports science lab.
A step test where you cycle at a constant cadence and every couple of minutes more resistance is added until you get to the point of complete failure.
According to the simplistic 220 - age formula mine should have been 166 but I actually hit 176.
It was incredibly hard as I'm a bit determined, afterwards felt like I'd been hit by a truck and took 3 days to recover.

I had previously done max HR self tests on a Concept2 rower but never saw anything in the 170's so I think for a self test the advice "then note your heart rate and add another 5 beats per minute (BPM)" is probably quite reasonable.
I did it by warming up thoroughly and then rowing hard to failure.

The max HR data isn't really that useful for my training but it did me confidence to push harder in extreme exercise. Also seemed to help calibrate a HRM for calorie burns.
I did use zone training for my winter to spring cycle training when I was coming back from a lower fitness level and it worked well. Generally though I don't, tend to use power instead.

Locolady98

Interesting, thanks. The 1 minute sprint during a run then adding 5 seems like it might get in the right ballpark, at least.

belgitude66

thanks sijomial , in fact the simplistic 220-age is not so bath (166 against 176=+/-6%) if you say that it was incredibly hard and that you are determined!!!

nifty50fitandlean

I wear a fitbit. I'm doing hiit on my indoor bike. When I push all out, and I mean my body just either stops or I'm lightheaded and dizzy I've reached a high of 178. I'm 50, so the old rule would tell me 170 is my max.

AnnPT77

belgitude66 wrote: »

thanks sijomial , in fact the simplistic 220-age is not so bath (166 against 176=+/-6%) if you say that it was incredibly hard and that you are determined!!!

Depends on the individual how bad it is: That's the problem. My age estimated max by that formula would be 159. Actual is about 180. If I based training zones on 159, I'd hardly ever get an actual workout.

scorpio516

belgitude66 wrote: »

thanks sijomial , in fact the simplistic 220-age is not so bath (166 against 176=+/-6%) if you say that it was incredibly hard and that you are determined!!!

Even just 6% in this example is REALLY, REALLY bad. Every single training would be wrong by a substantial amount. That margin of error would make training by heart rate completely useless

Locolady98

AnnPT77 wrote: »

belgitude66 wrote: »

thanks sijomial , in fact the simplistic 220-age is not so bath (166 against 176=+/-6%) if you say that it was incredibly hard and that you are determined!!!

Depends on the individual how bad it is: That's the problem. My age estimated max by that formula would be 159. Actual is about 180. If I based training zones on 159, I'd hardly ever get an actual workout.

Mine was similar, when I was on a treadmill regularly over a decade ago using a chest strap monitor. I remember my heart rate would happily (comfortably) hang out in a range that the formula said was way too high. I would easily run 30 minutes at a time in that range that I remember the formula saying I should be keeling over dead at. (I don't remember what it was, just remember it was waaaay off.)

I started wondering back then how far off it was, and basically ignored it after that. Now I'm interested again, and I'm assuming if the formula was way off for me 10-15 years ago, it'll still be way off for me. And I still am highly unlikely to go to a lab to get it assessed, because there's not a good enough reason to. I'm not a professional athlete, just a middle aged woman wanting to get back in shape, and maybe start finishing 5k and 10k races in the middle of the pack instead of the rear.

ronocnikral

I would argue max heart rate is a meaningless number.

stealthq

ronocnikral wrote: »

I would argue max heart rate is a meaningless number.

Depends on how dead-set one is on training using HR zones and calculating those zones based on a calculation that uses max HR instead of one of the others that uses lactate threshold or age.

It is useful for letting you know if the age-estimation HR zones are even in the ballpark for you or not. Though if they're really far off, you don't need max HR to know that. At least with me, my threshold HR is slightly higher than my age-estimated max.

Otherwise, you're right - max HR doesn't correlate with fitness or aerobic capacity, and only with age for some people.

AnnPT77

ronocnikral wrote: »

I would argue max heart rate is a meaningless number.

Many people who train to achieve particular athletic outcomes would disagree.

AnnPT77

Locolady98 wrote: »

AnnPT77 wrote: »

belgitude66 wrote: »

thanks sijomial , in fact the simplistic 220-age is not so bath (166 against 176=+/-6%) if you say that it was incredibly hard and that you are determined!!!

Depends on the individual how bad it is: That's the problem. My age estimated max by that formula would be 159. Actual is about 180. If I based training zones on 159, I'd hardly ever get an actual workout.

Mine was similar, when I was on a treadmill regularly over a decade ago using a chest strap monitor. I remember my heart rate would happily (comfortably) hang out in a range that the formula said was way too high. I would easily run 30 minutes at a time in that range that I remember the formula saying I should be keeling over dead at. (I don't remember what it was, just remember it was waaaay off.)

I started wondering back then how far off it was, and basically ignored it after that. Now I'm interested again, and I'm assuming if the formula was way off for me 10-15 years ago, it'll still be way off for me. And I still am highly unlikely to go to a lab to get it assessed, because there's not a good enough reason to. I'm not a professional athlete, just a middle aged woman wanting to get back in shape, and maybe start finishing 5k and 10k races in the middle of the pack instead of the rear.

You could get yourself to a decent base-level fitness using RPE (rate of perceived exertion) as a guide, then try one of the sub-maximal tests for estimating max, to get a better estimate. Or even do a true-max step test of some type.

Personally, I wouldn't do either of the latter without decent base fitness, or at least a friend standing by to call 911. But I'm old, and conservative.

ronocnikral

stealthq wrote: »

ronocnikral wrote: »

I would argue max heart rate is a meaningless number.

Depends on how dead-set one is on training using HR zones and calculating those zones based on a calculation that uses max HR instead of one of the others that uses lactate threshold or age.

It is useful for letting you know if the age-estimation HR zones are even in the ballpark for you or not. Though if they're really far off, you don't need max HR to know that. At least with me, my threshold HR is slightly higher than my age-estimated max.

Otherwise, you're right - max HR doesn't correlate with fitness or aerobic capacity, and only with age for some people.

And how do you measure your "lactate threshold?" Please don't tell me you use an equally as wonky "calculation." Like running a 10k and use your HR from that.

MeanderingMammal

ronocnikral wrote: »

I would argue max heart rate is a meaningless number.

In principle I would agree, in conjunction with other data points it serves a purpose.

Data in isolation have limited value. Data together becomes information.

NorthCascades

ronocnikral wrote: »

stealthq wrote: »

ronocnikral wrote: »

I would argue max heart rate is a meaningless number.

Depends on how dead-set one is on training using HR zones and calculating those zones based on a calculation that uses max HR instead of one of the others that uses lactate threshold or age.

It is useful for letting you know if the age-estimation HR zones are even in the ballpark for you or not. Though if they're really far off, you don't need max HR to know that. At least with me, my threshold HR is slightly higher than my age-estimated max.

Otherwise, you're right - max HR doesn't correlate with fitness or aerobic capacity, and only with age for some people.

And how do you measure your "lactate threshold?" Please don't tell me you use an equally as wonky "calculation." Like running a 10k and use your HR from that.

Run a 10k as a race and take your average heart rate. Or ride a 30 minute TT and take your average heart rate over the last 20 minutes. The key is to treat the entire test as if it was a race.

stealthq

ronocnikral wrote: »

stealthq wrote: »

ronocnikral wrote: »

I would argue max heart rate is a meaningless number.

Depends on how dead-set one is on training using HR zones and calculating those zones based on a calculation that uses max HR instead of one of the others that uses lactate threshold or age.

It is useful for letting you know if the age-estimation HR zones are even in the ballpark for you or not. Though if they're really far off, you don't need max HR to know that. At least with me, my threshold HR is slightly higher than my age-estimated max.

Otherwise, you're right - max HR doesn't correlate with fitness or aerobic capacity, and only with age for some people.

And how do you measure your "lactate threshold?" Please don't tell me you use an equally as wonky "calculation." Like running a 10k and use your HR from that.

What, use the mean HR I can sustain for an hour*, understanding I was probably not putting out my 100% best effort given it wasn't an actual race?

Yes. No calculation involved on my part, but of course it's still an estimate. I could use a lactate analyzer, but that's unnecessary for someone that doesn't train using HR zones. It's not worth the money to buy one or the effort to find someone that owns one and have it done. I just keep track of HR out of curiosity.

Look, it doesn't really matter whether my lactate threshold HR is 120 or 190 or any point in between. It doesn't matter if my estimation of it is off (and I'm sure it is) or by how much. The point is that if I can sustain a HR significantly greater than 220-age for a significant period of time (and I do, regularly), then 220-age obviously is not a good estimate for my max and HR zones based on that estimate are going to be the next thing to useless if I bothered to use them.

*Actually, the mean over miles 2-4 to try to avoid a high estimate due to cardiac drift. Trust me, my HR over the last couple of miles was not decreasing.

ETA: I was kind of treating the 10k as a race. I was trying to maintain the fastest steady pace I could for the duration. For an actual race, I'd start slow and speed up in the last couple of miles. I do most of my runs that way.

GaryRuns

I think the method you wrote about will be fine. I generally do about a 1.5-2 mile run at a brisk pace and then run all out up a 1/4 mile or so hill and use my resulting HR at the top of the hill as my max. It's about 3 or 4 bpm higher than the 220-age formula.

If you're older, like myself, then there is an alternate formula that was derived from data from older folks. It's 208-0.7*age. That one is dead on for the HR I obtained from my hill-sprint method.

As others have noted, if you're not fit don't try and find your max by experiment. It puts a lot of strain on your heart.

And I find a HRM very helpful when marathon training, particularly on long runs where I want to stay at a relatively easy, aerobic pace. I set my watch to warn me if I exceed my aerobic HR and it helps keep me nice and slow.