Max HR Field Test

SteveTries

Curiosity is leaving me feeling compelled to more accurately determine my maxHR than 220-[age].

I found the following field test online, which reads ok....but I don't really know what good looks like so thoght I would see if any of you have an opinion or alternative field test.

1. Warm up for 15 minutes on a flat surface. Build up to your usual training pace.
2. Choose a hill that will take more than 2 minutes to climb. Run up the hill once, building to as hard a pace as you can hold for 20 minutes. Return to the base of the hill.
3. Run up the hill again. Get your heart going as hard as you can to be able to just about hold it there for 3 kilometers. Observe your highest heart rate on the display.Your HR max is approximately 10 beats higher than the now-noted value.
4. Run back down the hill. Allow your heart rate to drop 30–40 beats per minute from where it was.
5. Run up the hill once again at a pace that you can only hold for 1 minute. Try to run halfway up the hill. Observe your highest heart rate. This brings you close to your maximum heart rate. You can use this value as your HRmax to set sport zones.
6. Make sure you cool-down for a minimum of 10 minutes.

Thanks

dewd2

Sounds like a lot of work.

Do you have a HRM? I get mine from my all out efforts in shorter races. That and a few 400 meter repeats usually does it.

SteveTries

I do indeed.

At yesterday’s half mara, I ran the final 2k 30s faster per km than the rest of the course and I don’t believe I had much more to give. HR reached 172. I reckon that must have been close to max. It’s just a little adrift of the old 220-[age] approximation (176), but I do have a low resting heart rate (low-mid 40’s), dunno whether that affects max HT.

dewd2

Low RHR shouldn't have much impact on max HR. I am still able to hit 180 and my resting HR is 47 (which blows the 220-age out the window since I am 49 ).

I would check after an all out effort in a shorter race. Or if your HRM has a guided test (like Garmin's VO2max test) you could try that as well. If really want to know you can have it tested (along with VO2max and Lactate Threshold).

MobyCarp

220 - age is garbage for masters distance runners. I'm 62, so 220 - age is 158. I routinely exceed 160 in 5K and 10K races, and can go higher. The highest HR I've seen that I don't believe was a measurement error was 189 in December 2016, when I was 60. That was at the top of "the wall" the 3rd time at Apalachee State Park in Tallahassee, for the USATF National Club Cross Country Championships. According to 220 - age, that race should have killed me.

I'm using 185 as my estimated max HR, but I really don't know what an accurate number would be. I've been using 45 as estimated resting HR: it can be higher or lower, depending on how well conditioned I am. I know it's low enough that when a medical professional want to take my pulse, I need to tell them in advance not to freak out.

dewd2

I love it when I set off the alarm on the machine they use to check my pulse. It has become a game to make sure my HR is under 50.

Tacklewasher

I'm 53 and, according to my watch, hit 181 in March. Can't remember what run that was, but I've been close to that a few times. So I'll use 180 as my Max HR. bit different than the 167 the formula gives. Resting shows as 54.

GaryRuns

That sounds like too much effort. I've always just warmed up to my typical 10k pace and then sprinted up a hill for a minute or so. Gives me about what I would expect based on the formulas.

BTW, it's pretty well understood these days that a simple formula can't be used for a broad range of people. Measuring it like you're trying to do is the only way to get your MHR accurately.

T1DCarnivoreRunner

I never understood 220-age to be the true Max HR, but rather an estimate for HR at VO2 Max. In other words, your Lactate Threshold / Max "aerobic" HR. Am I totally mistaken in the 220-age formula?

Either way, whatever your true Max HR is (i.e. the fastest your heart is capable of beating) is always going to be higher than your Max [aerobic] HR. But since true Max HR is not sustainable (even elites generally last no more than 1 hr. at exertion above VO2 Max, because lactic acid build-up can only get to be so high), it is helpful to know what your Max [aerobic] HR level is. This is what you will need to use for workouts that specify % of VO2 Max.

BTW, you can get your VO2 Max tested in a fitness lab. I had mine tested 1 year ago (age 31.9) and my Max HR (lactate threshold HR) was 159... much lower than the 220-age estimate formula.

ETA: Despite a Max HR of 159, I've actually measured my HR in the 190's. But that is because I was exerting beyond my lactate threshold "Max HR" and close to my true "Max HR."

MobyCarp

@midwesterner85 I understand 220-age to be a very conservative estimate of max HR designed to avoid causing problems for sedentary, deconditioned people who may have other health issues as well.