Max heart rate

I used to run a lot in my 30s and my heart rate would normally reach
somewhere in the 180-200 BPM range. I laid off for a few years bc of a bad
knee, gained too much weight, and now cycle for cardio. At first, I could
only reach about 150 BPM before getting exhausted. Six months later, and
much more fit, I get to about 173 for intervals and average about 150-160
for the entire session. Still nowhere close to where I was before but
definitely have improved.

Wondering whether, at age 48, this is about all I can expect (charts say max
HR at this age is in the mid-170s) or can I keep getting to higher max HR if
I keep pushing. Also I've heard that I should exercise at about 80% of max
HR and that going above that for sustained periods can be detrimental. I
prefer to go as intensely as I can stand it (usually 90%-plus of my
presumptive max HR for sustained periods). Anybody know of any research or
good articles that address this? Am I focusing too much on heart rate? My
goal is not higher max HR but to go faster. Still, seems they're
interrelated. Comments/thoughts, esp from middle-agers, appreciated.

On May 29, 8:21 am, "Zen Cohen" wrote:

Wondering whether, at age 48, this is about all I can expect (charts say max
HR at this age is in the mid-170s) or can I keep getting to higher max HR if
I keep pushing.

Increasing fitness often leads to (slightly) decreased MHR. That's cuz
total cardiac output is a function both of how fast your heart beats
and also the volume of blood pumped per beat. As your heart becomes
more "fit", your volume increases so fewer beats can end up moving
more blood. Conversely, if you stop exercising and sit on your butt
watching TV and eating nachos, you may find that your MHR increases a
bit.

Also I've heard that I should exercise at about 80% of max
HR and that going above that for sustained periods can be detrimental.

Not exactly. The 80% MHR rule was originally set up for patients with
ischemia to define a margin of safety so they wouldn't drop dead while
exercising under a physician's ca that would be embarrassing.

Am I focusing too much on heart rate?

Probably.

My max hr used to be higher when I was racing , now I just turned 50
and its at 201 when I climbed (inline skates) up Trinity Grade to
Oakville outside Santa Rosa Calif (the Tour of California climbed this
on the stage from Santa Rosa to Sacremento a few months ago)

My old coach used to call me "Birdy" (he meant I had a little heart),
my max when on the circuit was 224, and I ran usually about 15 - 20
bpm higher than others.

Even now I can still carry on a half decent conversation at 175bpm.

So I do LSD workouts at 148 - 153, and when I do intervals at 90%
effort it drops to 120 125 fairly quickly... for the first 5
intervals that is...

I have 84% slow twitch (based on the core sample from 1983).

Don't know if muscle fiber changes with age.. everything else seems
to!


wrote:
On May 29, 8:21 am, "Zen Cohen" wrote:

Wondering whether, at age 48, this is about all I can expect (charts say max
HR at this age is in the mid-170s) or can I keep getting to higher max HR if
I keep pushing.

Increasing fitness often leads to (slightly) decreased MHR. That's cuz
total cardiac output is a function both of how fast your heart beats
and also the volume of blood pumped per beat. As your heart becomes
more "fit", your volume increases so fewer beats can end up moving
more blood. Conversely, if you stop exercising and sit on your butt
watching TV and eating nachos, you may find that your MHR increases a
bit.

Also I've heard that I should exercise at about 80% of max
HR and that going above that for sustained periods can be detrimental.

Not exactly. The 80% MHR rule was originally set up for patients with
ischemia to define a margin of safety so they wouldn't drop dead while
exercising under a physician's ca that would be embarrassing.

Am I focusing too much on heart rate?

Probably.

My max hr used to be higher when I was racing , now I just turned 50
and i saw 201 when I climbed (inline skates) up Trinity Grade to
Oakville outside Santa Rosa Calif (the Tour of California climbed this
on the stage from Santa Rosa to Sacremento) a few months ago)

My old coach used to call me "Birdy" (he meant I had a little heart),
my max in the old days when on the racing circuit was 224, and I ran
usually about 15 - 20 bpm higher than others. (I only saw this in the
lab tho)

Even now I can still carry on a half decent conversation at 175bpm.

So I do LSD workouts at 148 - 153, and when I do intervals at 90%
effort it drops to 120 125 fairly quickly... for the first 5
intervals that is...

I have 84% slow twitch (based on the core sample from 1983).

Don't know if muscle fiber changes with age.. everything else seems
to!

I notice that my speed gets faster at the same hr's , depending on
point in the training program.


wrote:
On May 29, 8:21 am, "Zen Cohen" wrote:

Wondering whether, at age 48, this is about all I can expect (charts say max
HR at this age is in the mid-170s) or can I keep getting to higher max HR if
I keep pushing.

Increasing fitness often leads to (slightly) decreased MHR. That's cuz
total cardiac output is a function both of how fast your heart beats
and also the volume of blood pumped per beat. As your heart becomes
more "fit", your volume increases so fewer beats can end up moving
more blood. Conversely, if you stop exercising and sit on your butt
watching TV and eating nachos, you may find that your MHR increases a
bit.

Also I've heard that I should exercise at about 80% of max
HR and that going above that for sustained periods can be detrimental.

Not exactly. The 80% MHR rule was originally set up for patients with
ischemia to define a margin of safety so they wouldn't drop dead while
exercising under a physician's ca that would be embarrassing.

Am I focusing too much on heart rate?

Probably.

On Mon, 28 May 2007 23:21:15 -0700, "Zen Cohen"
wrote:

Also I've heard that I should exercise at about 80% of max
HR and that going above that for sustained periods can be detrimental. I
prefer to go as intensely as I can stand it (usually 90%-plus of my
presumptive max HR for sustained periods). Anybody know of any research or
good articles that address this?

Yes. See Ultrafit.com among many, many others.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Dans le message de ,
Zen Cohen a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
I used to run a lot in my 30s and my heart rate would normally reach
somewhere in the 180-200 BPM range. I laid off for a few years bc of
a bad knee, gained too much weight, and now cycle for cardio. At
first, I could only reach about 150 BPM before getting exhausted. Six
months later, and much more fit, I get to about 173 for intervals and
average about 150-160 for the entire session. Still nowhere close to
where I was before but definitely have improved.

Wondering whether, at age 48, this is about all I can expect (charts
say max HR at this age is in the mid-170s) or can I keep getting to
higher max HR if I keep pushing. Also I've heard that I should
exercise at about 80% of max HR and that going above that for
sustained periods can be detrimental. I prefer to go as intensely as
I can stand it (usually 90%-plus of my presumptive max HR for
sustained periods). Anybody know of any research or good articles
that address this? Am I focusing too much on heart rate? My goal is
not higher max HR but to go faster. Still, seems they're
interrelated. Comments/thoughts, esp from middle-agers, appreciated.

Geezer advice : your body is unique, and you get points, in racing, for
crossing the line before others. If you have outgrown comparing your
personal physical beauty to others, it's time to give up on your quest to
model your cardiac life after other, too. Work withink your physical
universe, take limits a little seriously, providing you want to ride another
mile. Watch the Giro for heart rate graphs - different elite riders at
different rates, including the verified maxima.
--
Bonne route !

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

There is a rough formula: 200 minus your age = max heart rate.
For some this is not acurate. For others (myself included) this is spot on.

Either way, all else being equal, your max heart rate will decrease with
age.

"Zen Cohen" wrote in message
...
I used to run a lot in my 30s and my heart rate would normally reach
somewhere in the 180-200 BPM range. I laid off for a few years bc of a bad
knee, gained too much weight, and now cycle for cardio. At first, I could
only reach about 150 BPM before getting exhausted. Six months later, and
much more fit, I get to about 173 for intervals and average about 150-160
for the entire session. Still nowhere close to where I was before but
definitely have improved.

Wondering whether, at age 48, this is about all I can expect (charts say
max HR at this age is in the mid-170s) or can I keep getting to higher max
HR if I keep pushing. Also I've heard that I should exercise at about 80%
of max HR and that going above that for sustained periods can be
detrimental. I prefer to go as intensely as I can stand it (usually
90%-plus of my presumptive max HR for sustained periods). Anybody know of
any research or good articles that address this? Am I focusing too much on
heart rate? My goal is not higher max HR but to go faster. Still, seems
they're interrelated. Comments/thoughts, esp from middle-agers,
appreciated.

On Tue, 29 May 2007 18:12:19 -0700, "Mike" wrote:

There is a rough formula: 200 minus your age = max heart rate.
For some this is not acurate. For others (myself included) this is spot on.

Most people should ignore this formula.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
On Tue, 29 May 2007 18:12:19 -0700, "Mike" wrote:

There is a rough formula: 200 minus your age = max heart rate.
For some this is not acurate. For others (myself included) this is spot on.

Most people should ignore this formula.

Yes it would make mine 133!
Although Charly Wegelius was climbing at 12% 25bpm yesterday - or
perhaps the computer was wrong :-))

On Tue, 29 May 2007 18:12:19 -0700, Mike wrote:
There is a rough formula: 200 minus your age = max heart rate.
For some this is not acurate. For others (myself included) this is spot on.

You mean 220 - age. But yes, useless for accurate individual
predictions.

--
E. Dronkert