Heart rate question

[Mr. Pink]

Just started wearing a heart rate monitor, since I have a Garmin 810, and, hell, all I needed was the transmitter and I was good to go. I wore one about twenty years ago, and I remember maxing out at around 160 on long, steep climbs, but now I never get above 130, and high 120s are pretty much max. I'm 66 years old. So, is the drop a sign of age, or am I in better ahape after twenty years of biking? (I started biking about 25 years ago) or, both? Or, is the Garmin device not too accurate? I have averaged about 105 on hilly two to three hour rides.

[bigbill]

I'm 54 and similar in HR. In my 20's, I could hit 200 bpm in a long sprint or in the final laps of a pursuit. These days most of my rides average around 125-130 with a peak of 150ish. If I push it hard on a climb, I can get into the upper 160's. I have to be under a power line to beat that.

[rain dogs]

It's generally accepted (proven?) that max heartrate declines with age.

The bogus formula for max heart rate "220-age" has shown to be nothing more than a very poor approximation, and more of a trend in a population, vs something useful for an individual but it does illustrate the age related decline.

"A new study by a group led by Catherine Proenza, PhD and Roger Bannister, PhD from the University of Colorado School of Medicine reports that one of the reasons for the age-dependent reduction in maximum heart rate is that aging depresses the spontaneous electrical activity of the heart's natural pacemaker, the sinoatrial node."

[Johnnysmooth]

I'm 61 and out of shape so heart rate runs a little on high side maxing out in mid 160s on a hard push up climb. Usually hover in the 140s for basic tempo. 20 yrs ago could go much higher - hit 180s and tempo at 155.

When in good shape, heart rate runs even lower.

[gasman]

Mr. Pink-

I'm in a similar situation. I'm now 65 but have been wearing a HR monitor for about 15 years. Back then I could usually get my HR into the 170's with a really hard effort. Now I only get to maybe the low 140's but usually the high 130's.
I think it's age related as others have said. There may be other reasons but they don't make total sense.

[sitzmark]

Has been changing with age - now early 60's.

180 set as my max HR for zone analysis. In cooler (under 70*F) weather I can hold mid170's for climbs and burst efforts without too much discomfort. In heat (80*F+) 170 is redline.

Typical solo fitness rides feel spirited/not overly winded and average 150bpm @ 220-240 avg power. Resting HR is usually 52-54bpm.

Weight is up the past two years (~200 vs 185/190) so same effort is not producing same performance as years prior. Don't ride to set PR's but reviewing results after have shown no PR's this season and very few 2nd/3rd segment "medals". Segment times on climbs suffering the most.

[Rpoole8537]

Mr. Pink-

I'm in a similar situation. I'm now 65 but have been wearing a HR monitor for about 15 years. Back then I could usually get my HR into the 170's with a really hard effort. Now I only get to maybe the low 140's but usually the high 130's.
I think it's age related as others have said. There may be other reasons but they don't make total sense.

I’m 64 and that Is almost exactly my what I have experienced.

[Dave]

At age 66, 140 is just loafing and I can still do about 170. To really test your max, try riding a long hill, out of the saddle. Push it until you think you'll explode and your respiration rate is ridiculously high. If you're not breathing as fast as you think possible, you're not trying hard enough.

In my 50's 170 was a rate that I could maintain for a long time. In my 40's I could hit 200, but not for long. I used to average 160-165 for 2 hours.

[djg21]

It's generally accepted (proven?) that max heartrate declines with age.

The bogus formula for max heart rate "220-age" has shown to be nothing more than a very poor approximation, and more of a trend in a population, vs something useful for an individual but it does illustrate the age related decline.

"A new study by a group led by Catherine Proenza, PhD and Roger Bannister, PhD from the University of Colorado School of Medicine reports that one of the reasons for the age-dependent reduction in maximum heart rate is that aging depresses the spontaneous electrical activity of the heart's natural pacemaker, the sinoatrial node."

That bogus formula always has been pretty spot-on for me. I remember racing in my 20s and redlining at 200 bpm or slightly above. At 55, I sometimes see 165-167 bpm But I saw 220 bpm for a few minutes this past Sunday.

[ScottW]

I'm 42 and the generic 220-age formula for max HR seems to suit me okay. On a pretty steep climb last week I hit 181 bpm and felt pretty close to cooked. 170s is more typical for climbs lacking unusually steep kickers. On avg/flat/rolling terrain I'm in the 140s to 150s if by myself, subtract 20 bpm if I'm in a group drafting and/or chatting & lollygagging. Resting pulse in low 50s. I suspect I'm probably of average cardiovascular fitness among people posting on a cycling forum.
In my 20s when I was in a bit better shape, and doing more swimming than cycling, it was not a big deal to have my HR around 180 regularly, and redline was somewhere closer to 200. I wasn't using electronic sensors back then, just counting for 6 seconds and multiplying by 10.

[tctyres]

I only ever touch my max hr (about 187) on sprinty climbs, in criteriums, or pushing it while running. I think you need to really tax your system to get to max.

Altitude also matters. When I go to the Rockies, my max hr drops considerably (like 30bpm).

Edit: FWIW, I have a garmin hrm, and I have found it to be accurate. At least, I find it to be consistent with what is measured at the doctor's office.

[Lewis Moon]

I'm 62 and still regularly hit 180, but my resting pulse rate is around 60.
Some distance athletes have resting pulses as low as 35...Jim Ryun, former world record holder at the mile (3:51.1) had a resting pulse rate of 72.
My doc says there are two types of hearts, low volume, short stroke "Kawasaki" hearts and high volume, long stroke "Harley" hearts.

[gasman]

My max HR is still in the low 140's and trust me I know how to suffer and push. There's something going on and I suspect it's aging. I don't think my heart's stoke volume ( the amount of blood pumped per heart beat) has increased enough to account for the change. In other words I haven't gone from a Kawasaki heart to a Harley heart.

[JasonF]

Just turned 50 and hit 186 (Wahoo Tickr) at a spin class last week (please forgive me)...

[commonguy001]

I'm going to add my 2 cents and say you're probably just one that runs a little lower than some and maybe higher than others. I have a buddy who in his 50s was really hammering when he'd see 130 and rarely had a ride where his average was over 110. On the same ride I'd easily be 20-25 BPM higher and I was in my early 30s actively racing as a 2 at the time. He wasn't faster but he had a much lower HR for the same effort.

[tkbike]

I’m 60 and don’t monitor my heart rate or really care what it is while riding, but I hit about 187 on my hard runs 2 to 3 times a week. I am a 6 day a week runner and still manage to hit the 185 - 187 heart rate on hard runs, my resting heart rate for the last 7 days is 53 which is a little high for me. I have not yet found any scientific evidence to generalize heart rate that should be listened too, every human body is different.
For reference I am 6’2” and about 165 pounds this week, I attribute my higher heart rate to the higher temperatures the past couple of weeks. I like to run during the early afternoon when it is hotttt!

[muz]

I’m 60 and don’t monitor my heart rate or really care what it is while riding, but I hit about 187 on my hard runs 2 to 3 times a week.

One thing to note: maximal running heart rate tends to be higher than maximal cycling heart rate. Other performance metrics like VO2max, LT etc are also sport specific.

[tkbike]

One thing to note: maximal running heart rate tends to be higher than maximal cycling heart rate. Other performance metrics like VO2max, LT etc are also sport specific.

Is this the case for both MTB and road cycling? Just curious, maybe I should monitor my hr while riding. I rode Howard and timber this weekend in Lory state park and thought I was going to die!

[muz]

Is this the case for both MTB and road cycling? Just curious, maybe I should monitor my hr while riding. I rode Howard and timber this weekend in Lory state park and thought I was going to die!

I think this is because of different body position and different muscles used in running vs. cycling. I have also read that cycling has much higher metabolic efficiency compared to running, which could be as low as 10% (i.e. 90% of the energy gets wasted as heat).

[Ken Robb]

I have to ask Dr. Gasman and other medical pros: should people 65+ be pushing their "redlines"? Are we likely to blow up and die going for a near-max effort?

[Tandem Rider]

Max HR number only matters to you, it's not an indicator of ability compared to anyone else. Same is for all the zones, the number only matters for you.

Back in the '80s my buddy and I were both trying and failing to make the National Team. We did a pretty flat 50k team time trial together, with HR monitors. My HR averaged 10bpm lower than his, 170 vs 160, same speed, same length of pulls, equal bikes, both in skinsuits, within 8 lbs of each other.

[BigDaddySmooth]

Just started wearing a heart rate monitor, since I have a Garmin 810, and, hell, all I needed was the transmitter and I was good to go. I wore one about twenty years ago, and I remember maxing out at around 160 on long, steep climbs, but now I never get above 130, and high 120s are pretty much max. I'm 66 years old. So, is the drop a sign of age, or am I in better ahape after twenty years of biking? (I started biking about 25 years ago) or, both? Or, is the Garmin device not too accurate? I have averaged about 105 on hilly two to three hour rides.

Unfortunately, you're not in better shape compared to 25 years ago. Not only has your max heart rate decreased, but your V02 max is down by about 25% too. There are other variables to consider-bodyweight then/now, temperature/humidity/hydration, etc, You are probably more efficient riding a bike now compared to then but unless you had a watt meter or you knew how much time it took to climb back then compared to now, the heart rate alone doesn't tell the whole story. Kudos for riding and staying healthy!:hello:

[gasman]

I have to ask Dr. Gasman and other medical pros: should people 65+ be pushing their "redlines"? Are we likely to blow up and die going for a near-max effort?

Ken if you have training under your belt going for “redline “ efforts won’t kill you. I have a couple 70 year old plus friends that can beat me up most hills.
Occasional high intensity efforts will help your fitness.

[Tony T]

Never get above 130 on climbs?
Might be a bad monitor
What's your resting HR

[thwart]

Ken if you have training under your belt going for “redline “ efforts won’t kill you. I have a couple 70 year old plus friends that can beat me up most hills.
Occasional high intensity efforts will help your fitness.

I'd agree with the above, but move in that direction gradually, and be aware of any unusual symptoms like prolonged shortness of breath, fatigue or chest tightness. Training means different things to different people.

Some 70 year olds have coronary arteries that are clean as a whistle (thanks to good genetics, diet and exercise), but many do not.

Every year some middle aged cyclists die doing 'challenge' rides... and they've been "training".

[dasein]

Age 52. Last Sunday's hilly ride with 3000 ft ascent, 3 1/2 hrs had max HR at 182 and avg at 140. My avg HR at 10 min pace easy run has dropped from 150 to 135 over past 15 years. My power and pace has dropped some since mid 30's but can still get HR up into the 180s on hard climbs and fast (for me) run intervals/short racing. At 220-age, my max HR should be 168 and I can regularly go over that. And, I'm slower than I was by 5-10%. No idea what that means other than I'm getting older, but didn't need a HR monitor to tell me that.

[Tony T]

FWIW, here's a recent ride of mine (age: 60ish)
Started with a climb of 600ft, HR climbed to 160.

[doublenines]

Is this the case for both MTB and road cycling? Just curious, maybe I should monitor my hr while riding. I rode Howard and timber this weekend in Lory state park and thought I was going to die!

I’ve worn the same HR monitor and used the same Garmin unit and found no difference in numbers between road rides & mountain biking. My max is the same, however, mtb’ing keeps me in the upper HR zones far longer. I’ve always attributed it to mtb uses the whole body vs road riding that my upper body is still. I also find that I get in the red/zone 5 almost at the beginning of every ride but thats because I’m usually climbing from the start (e.g., 186 bpm within 5 mins [196 is max; I’m 44, 160 lbs]).

I joke that a mtb ride is 2x more taxing than a road ride. I go for a 2 hour road ride and get home and mow the lawn, but a 2 hour mtb ride leaves me useless for half the day.

And finally, if you doubt the accuracy of the monitor, measure your pulse for one minute and compare it to the monitor’s readout. Not sure if the Garmin has a timed average for HR like it does for power.

[m_sasso]

FWIW, here's a recent ride of mine (age: 60ish)
Started with a climb of 600ft, HR climbed to 160.

Hello Tony,

Searching for a new HRM, likely an arm band, want to let us know what monitor and application you used to generate that graph.

Thanks!

[Ronsonic]

I'm 63 and my max, which I see rarely and usually through bad planning is right at 164.

I don't see that on the road. I've got more control of how I attack my environment. But off-road I'll run into situations like fairly technical trails in and around mining pits that are quickly followed by an uphill slog through tall grass. Just brutal.

My max on road is usually about 154. As a rule anything below 140 I'm recovering anything above 145 I'm burning reserves.

[OtayBW]

I have to ask Dr. Gasman and other medical pros: should people 65+ be pushing their "redlines"? Are we likely to blow up and die going for a near-max effort?
Funny - I just started wearing a HRM again a few weeks ago after years. I'll be 65 this year and can get a true - balls out, 18% grade hill climb, out of the saddle - max exertion of 175 bpm. HOWEVER, Dr. Gasman might find it interesting that I was diagnosed ~10 years ago by 3 cardiologists with going into what has been described to me as a 'benign ST Depression' when I get close to my ~max HR. I've been tested up one side and down the other and never had a problem with it. It's a little weird, but so far so good after a long time....

[Tony T]

Hello Tony,

Searching for a new HRM, likely an arm band, want to let us know what monitor and application you used to generate that graph.

Thanks!

I use a Garmin HR Monitor (chest strap) and a Garmin Edge Cylometer
The graph I posted is from Strava.