# Heart rate profile



## Joel_l (Aug 12, 2016)

Just curious what folks are seeing heart rate wise while riding. I tend to like climbing and there is a particular ride I do regularly. For me, it's a pretty grueling climb. I'm 55 and my HR can sit at 160+ for extended periods during the moderate parts of the climb. When I hit the steeper parts of the climb that get me near exhaustion, I can get to 185. When I stop to rest, I usually wait for it to get to the low 140s again before continuing, usually a few minutes. I tend to be happy just seeing that it's still beating, but wonder what others my age are seeing.

Joel


----------



## Guest (Nov 16, 2016)

I have similar HR patterns when on rides and yes at moments wonder if i'll explode, alas no problems. The HR recovery within the 2-3min rest is important and speaks to ones fitness, ie from say 180 down to 140 or below in 2min is very good results.


----------



## Crankout (Jun 16, 2010)

Any idea what numbers you attained in your earlier years?


----------



## miatagal96 (Jul 5, 2005)

I'm seeing a reduction in my max heart rate. I started using HR about 5 years ago and have seen 190. I used to exceed 180 fairly often. Now, it's uncommon to see numbers over 180.

On the other hand, my max sustainable HR over an hour (e.g. cyclocross or x-c ski race) hasn't changed that much. It ranges between 168 and 172.

Everyone's HR is different. My husband's is much lower than mine, both resting and during exertion.


----------



## Joel_l (Aug 12, 2016)

When I was in my late 30s/early 40s I was hitting the low 200s. When I was about 42, I went in for a cardiac stress test. At that time I hit 200 and was still going. Doc called off the test after about 30 minutes.



Crankout said:


> Any idea what numbers you attained in your earlier years?


----------



## Joel_l (Aug 12, 2016)

I have been riding a lot the last few months. I have notice my peak heart rate going down which I think is going hand in hand with my climbs feeling better, so getting into better shape. It takes more work now to get into that 180 range but I still can if I am pushing hard enough. Since being back on my MTB, I am feeling better and do notice big improvements in fitness.



miatagal96 said:


> I'm seeing a reduction in my max heart rate. I started using HR about 5 years ago and have seen 190. I used to exceed 180 fairly often. Now, it's uncommon to see numbers over 180.
> 
> On the other hand, my max sustainable HR over an hour (e.g. cyclocross or x-c ski race) hasn't changed that much. It ranges between 168 and 172.
> 
> Everyone's HR is different. My husband's is much lower than mine, both resting and during exertion.


----------



## Guest (Nov 16, 2016)

miatagal96 said:


> I'm seeing a reduction in my max heart rate. I started using HR about 5 years ago and have seen 190. I used to exceed 180 fairly often. Now, it's uncommon to see numbers over 180.
> 
> On the other hand, my max sustainable HR over an hour (e.g. cyclocross or x-c ski race) hasn't changed that much. It ranges between 168 and 172.
> 
> Everyone's HR is different. My husband's is much lower than mine, both resting and during exertion.


it's a combination of fitness and age but to your point about each individuals HR is vastly different.


----------



## dave54 (Jul 1, 2003)

Max HR does decline with age, but it is not linear. That is why the 220 - age is no longer recommended. 

Women is less than men, and cycling is about 5 BPM less than running or swimming. A lower resting pulse rate will raise your Max HR. Highly individually variable. As long as you still feel OK and you return to your recovery HR within a few minutes then don't worry.


----------



## Lone Rager (Dec 13, 2013)

dave54 said:


> Max HR does decline with age, but it is not linear. That is why the 220 - age is no longer recommended...


Actually, it is still widely recommended. The reason it shouldn't be is because maximum heart rate varies considerably between individuals, not because the decrease is or is not linear with age.


----------



## dave54 (Jul 1, 2003)

Lone Rager said:


> Actually, it is still widely recommended. The reason it shouldn't be is because maximum heart rate varies considerably between individuals, not because the decrease is or is not linear with age.


Some websites still use it because it is simple. It is not very accurate. The more accurate formulas involve some math and vary with the activity.


----------



## rockman (Jun 18, 2004)

I've been using a HR monitor for over two decades. While climbing the same trail:

In my 30s: HR150-160
40s: 145-155
50s: 135-145

I'm now 54. It seems like my max HR has dropped from 185 to about 175. I'm in arguably better shape than when I was in my 30s at least from a cycling perspective. I can still hit 160 but I can't hold it there like I could for extended periods.


----------



## MSU Alum (Aug 8, 2009)

Crankout said:


> Any idea what numbers you attained in your earlier years?


When I was in my 30's I flew the F-14. I was tasked with going into a centrifuge set up with an F-14 cockpit to simulate a flat spin - a significant threat as the front seat could generate 6 g's, "eyeballs out" during the spin. I was brought up to 4.5 G's in that configuration, while wired up to an EKG and hit 235. Now I'm 64 and my max heart rate seems to be 192 (4 years ago getting a stress echo cardiogram it was 200).


----------



## rockman (Jun 18, 2004)

MSU Alum said:


> When I was in my 30's I flew the F-14. I was tasked with going into a centrifuge set up with an F-14 cockpit to simulate a flat spin - a significant threat as the front seat could generate 6 g's, "eyeballs out" during the spin. I was brought up to 4.5 G's in that configuration, while wired up to an EKG and hit 235. Now I'm 64 and my max heart rate seems to be 192 (4 years ago getting a stress echo cardiogram it was 200).


Good lord that's wacky:eekster:


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

Joel_l said:


> Just curious what folks are seeing heart rate wise while riding. I tend to like climbing and there is a particular ride I do regularly. For me, it's a pretty grueling climb. I'm 55 and my HR can sit at 160+ for extended periods during the moderate parts of the climb. When I hit the steeper parts of the climb that get me near exhaustion, I can get to 185. When I stop to rest, I usually wait for it to get to the low 140s again before continuing, usually a few minutes. I tend to be happy just seeing that it's still beating, but wonder what others my age are seeing.
> 
> Joel


Your numbers all sound about right, Joel. We are all somewhat unique in our individual HR's.

I'm 55 and average around 164-165 during a 90 mountain bike race, but have moments in the 174-179 range during a race for short durations. Off season on the trainer in the basement where it is warmer, and not as much air flow to keep me cool I can occasionally hit 180-183 on the Zone 5 intervals due to the warmer temperatures and not being in as tip top shape as during the racing season (warmer months).

My HR on the bike has dropped a bit compared to a decade ago where I could hit 185+ every now and then. All of that is normal.


----------



## joeduda (Jan 4, 2013)

MSU Alum said:


> When I was in my 30's I flew the F-14. I was tasked with going into a centrifuge set up with an F-14 cockpit to simulate a flat spin - a significant threat as the front seat could generate 6 g's, "eyeballs out" during the spin. I was brought up to 4.5 G's in that configuration, while wired up to an EKG and hit 235. Now I'm 64 and my max heart rate seems to be 192 (4 years ago getting a stress echo cardiogram it was 200).


That's pretty damn impressive id say ( the plane and HR ). I'm 55 and maxed out at about 165. I've had many echo's and they have been quite pleased with them, after months of very aggressive chemo sessions and a stem cell transplant. The docs tell me that's part of the reason I cant get my heart rate any higher. Resting HR is low too though, the nurses ask about it every time I get my blood tested. I'll take the 165.


----------



## MSU Alum (Aug 8, 2009)

joeduda said:


> That's pretty damn impressive id say ( the plane and HR ). I'm 55 and maxed out at about 165. I've had many echo's and they have been quite pleased with them, after months of very aggressive chemo sessions and a stem cell transplant. The docs tell me that's part of the reason I cant get my heart rate any higher. Resting HR is low too though, the nurses ask about it every time I get my blood tested. I'll take the 165.


Yeah. I actually don't think absolute value for max heart rate is that significant. Maybe I just have a chipmunk heart!


----------



## Lone Rager (Dec 13, 2013)

What your max is isn't significant. Knowing your max is useful for setting up heart rate zones for training and quantifying training load. Best is to use HR as an adjunct to power.


----------



## jeffscott (May 10, 2006)

Me 38 sleeping heart rate, max 186, age 60. hasn't changed much over the past 10 years.

The formula 220-Age= max heart rate.

Was not intended originally to calculate anyones maximum heart rate, it is considered a max allowable heart rate, for sedentary people, getting stress test for the first time, or to start training after cardiac events.

And for this it is satisfactorily
low.

In normal healthy people basically:

Too high a resting heart rate means that your heart is likely untrained and relatively small.

Too low a resting heart rate means that your heart is likely trained and relatively larger.

An enlarged heart can be problematic, but not if it is from training, rather than disease.

Studies show that enlargement from training will decrease over a course of no training for 6 months.

The maximum you can achieve is based somewhat on your tolerance to entering the pain cave.....

But mostly the higher the better, assuming you have a healthy heart.


----------



## mces (Apr 12, 2011)

rockman said:


> I've been using a HR monitor for over two decades. While climbing the same trail:
> 
> In my 30s: HR150-160
> 40s: 145-155
> ...


Have your times changed for the same climb over the above time period?


----------



## rockman (Jun 18, 2004)

mces said:


> Have your times changed for the same climb over the above time period?


Yeah, like 1 mph per decade. 
30s 9mph ave spd
40s 8mph ave spd
50s 7mph ave spd

Now I'm a long-haul trucker instead of a Ferrari. I can go all day long and not bonk.


----------



## Bail_Monkey (May 8, 2007)

I'm generally in line with the 220 minus your age at 54. I typically hit 160 when going for it on a steep climb or when I'm on an aggressive sprint. When going full gas, I can hit the upper 160's for a short periods of time, no way can I sustain it. On the road bike, I can sustain ~150-5 or so on a steady climb...(sweating by butt off)

I've had a HRM since late 2011 and have seen my max HR slowly decline.

I have an older Garmin HRM and a Wahoo Tickr,,, both are pretty close to each other. The Wahoo may read a bit lower.


----------



## Joel_l (Aug 12, 2016)

I went for a ride Friday after being off the bike for a bit over a week. I have this climb I like to do that is actually pretty challenging for me. What I'm finding is that I tend to loose fitness faster as I get older. When I was riding the hill 4 - 5 times a week, it was getting easier to climb and my max heart rate was decreasing. My ride Friday, I felt pretty good but noticed the heart rate went up about 10BPM. I don't think it's a big deal but I'm finding it interesting to see how my body is responding to exercise and what happens when I get lax for even a short period of time. I actually am probably in better shape in my 50s than I was in my 20s. In my 20s and 30s I really yoyo'd between reasonably fit and not so much so.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

HR , yes. Goes up as I go up hills. See white spots? Take a breather. See black spots? Look for a soft spot 'cuz I'am about to pass out.


----------



## Guest (Nov 29, 2016)

leeboh said:


> HR , yes. Goes up as I go up hills. See white spots? Take a breather. See black spots? Look for a soft spot 'cuz I'am about to pass out.


what about blue or red??


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Go to the politics section. ^^^^^


----------



## Guest (Nov 29, 2016)

leeboh said:


> Go to the politics section. ^^^^^


nope not gonna go there, bad juju.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

^^^ Hence the really high HR.


----------



## MtnBkrBob (Aug 15, 2007)

Don’t take your heart for granted. 

In my 40s, I experienced periods of exercise induced rapid heart rate. I remember recording 278 on a simple 20 minute jog around the neighborhood. After 3 years, it was eventually diagnosed as WPW, and corrected via an RF ablation. 

In my 50s, atrial fibrillation required another RF ablation, plus meds. Cool side effect of the meds was I’d run about 30-40 lower, at max exertion on the meds. A hill I used to crest at 175, was now being crested at 140. Drove my wife nuts. 

Moral of the story…pay attention to your ticker.


----------



## BmanInTheD (Sep 19, 2014)

I'm 57 and did a race effort (simulation, not a real race) a few weeks ago and averaged 181 BPM for 80 minutes. I've seen 198 BPM in the last year on one occasion. When I'm fitter, I rarely get above 190 or so. Max HR and training HR zones varies wildly by individual. And some people think a high Max HR is an advantage or something that is impressive. It's just genetics, the only thing that matters is how close to your max you can maintain and, more importantly, how much power you're putting out at those HR's.


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

BmanInTheD said:


> ...the only thing that matters is how close to your max you can maintain and, *more importantly, how much power you're putting out at those HR's.*


The bolded part is the only thing that is important.


----------



## jeffscott (May 10, 2006)

The most important thing, is the percentage of blocked heart arteries...

And the gap between max and resting heart rate.

When resting heart rate exceeds max heart rate you are in heart failure.


----------



## rockman (Jun 18, 2004)

jeffscott said:


> The most important thing, is the percentage of blocked heart arteries...
> 
> And the gap between max and resting heart rate.
> 
> When resting heart rate exceeds max heart rate you are in heart failure.


I thought that's what my inhaler was for?


----------



## zephxiii (Aug 12, 2011)

Your HR profile is unique to yourself. When you first start using a HRM, all you can do really is just look at it with curiosity. 

As you ride you need to study your HRP each ride and compare to how the ride went, previous segments, experience during the ride etc.. 

You have to get familiar with your heart rate overtime to really connect to it. 

I've had avg hrs of 178-180 over two hours in race efforts. My last for races averaged 168-170, when i saw that it was more of a confirmation because i knew i had dialed back the effort etc (for specific reasons). (Interestingly i had meet or beat prev efforts too)

I like looking at HR for races, segment efforts, and in general as I'm familiar with myself and it tells me what kind of effort i put down in whatever situation. 

In the end, to me it is a historical comparative data reference, and one I'm very glad to have. Might be useful to show the doc or cardiologist too.

Would be cooler to have a full ecg log each ride though...and 247 logging on top of that!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk


----------



## jeffscott (May 10, 2006)

Moderately scientific article with some relevance.

The Cardiovascular System and Exercise


----------



## HanJuh (Jul 27, 2015)

^Thanks for sharing 

-Juha


----------



## robwas (Feb 18, 2009)

I'm 49 but find this thread interesting as I'll be approaching 50 and have worn a HRM for most of my cycling days. When I was in my 30's I recall seeing 197 on my Polar HRM, back then it was pre computer age and I didn't record much. Now I ride with a Garmin 520 and it records everything to the web. My max HR is probably 190, I've seen it hit 189 briefly on some hard rides and quite often I'll see 187 so I think 190 is a very close maximum guess. As for average HR, when I got back into cycling in 2013 anything over an average of 150 felt very hard, in fact enough to scare me into seeing a cardiologist. Everything checked out ok but I still wasn't sure there wasn't a problem because I got chest pains not during but a day after my rides. Fast forward to today and I'm probably in better cycling condition than when I was 30. Most of my moderate rides my HR average is around 155, an easier ride would be 140 range, super easy under 135 and really hammering I can average in the mid 160's for a full hour and a half ride. When I look at my garmin data many of my rides reside in zones 4 and 5 exclusively. For whatever reason after a few years of consistent riding it's fairly easy for me to ride at a higher HR for a long time. I only mountain bike so of course rarely is my HR not varied over a ride, hills come, hr goes up, downhill it usually drops down to 130 or so. My resting HR is around 45, even lower sometimes which is the lowest it's ever been in my life, when I was in my 30's and cycling often it was more around 50 to 55 resting. I hope someone finds this info useful and feel free to comment. Oh, one last thing to add that's changed since my younger years is I switched to a fully vegan diet, not sure if that changed physiology or not.


----------



## TheBaldBlur (Jan 13, 2014)

When I was riding and competing in my 20s and 30s I used a HR monitor all the time. Now at 54 that I've resumed riding after a 10 yr hiatus, I don't use mine anymore - not even sure I still have it, the monitor. I use the general rule of thumb that when I get so out of breath that I cannot hold a conversation, I'm pushing too hard and back off. If I'm yawning, I'm not pushing hard enough.  With that as my "upper limit" I notice that I can climb easier the more I ride consistently and that's enough for me.


----------



## CrashCanipe (Jan 12, 2004)

robwas - I could have written the exact same thing, except for the fully vegan part! I will be 50 in a few months and have the exact same max and resting heart rates. I have found that I can ride for hours in the 150 to 165 range. However, any matches I burn over 165 really impacts how fast and long I can ride.


----------



## ladljon (Nov 30, 2011)

I started racing in my thirties, and my last race was three yrs ago. Now 64, not sure if I will race again. Still do time trials. My max during all those yrs, and still is 158. I was surprise to see it get that high. It was after moving from 900ft altitude to 7000ft. Still live at 7000ft and max is still 158.


----------



## robwas (Feb 18, 2009)

CrashCanipe said:


> robwas - I could have written the exact same thing, except for the fully vegan part! I will be 50 in a few months and have the exact same max and resting heart rates. I have found that I can ride for hours in the 150 to 165 range. However, any matches I burn over 165 really impacts how fast and long I can ride.


That's interesting, especially the part about riding for hours in a fairly high HR zone. I often wonder if it would do me good to purposely ride less hard but more often because it seems most of our group rides we're just out having fun and we always seem to push hard. I seem to go over 165 quite a bit but can average close to that, in fact I'll share a fairly recent ride I did at what felt pretty good, not too hard but definitely a workout.

https://connect.garmin.com/modern/activity/1582381457

Most of my rides are under 2 hours but the few I did that were 3 to 4 hours I tried to keep my HR in the 140 zone for much of it, something that's never an option on group rides. I'm curious what you and others think about riding more at a lower intensity versus harder bouts less often. Yesterday I rode for 3 hours fairly hard, today I feel like sitting on the couch and not riding but I'm going to go out anyways since cold weather is in the forecast and may make riding outside prohibitive. I really don't enjoy the indoor bike much, seems very hard to get my HR up on that, maybe due to the fact it's boring compared to being outside on a trail.


----------



## CrashCanipe (Jan 12, 2004)

Robwas, I'm certainly no expert but to me, it depends on whether you are talking training or racing (or trying to keep up on group rides). As I'm getting older, my training is certainly more shorter, harder rides with longer recovery. I find saddle time at low heart rates to do very little for my overall fitness. I don't do much racing but have done some stage races and don't claim to be fast. My training will be 75 to 120 minutes and I will have intervals and generally really pushing it. That will be three days a week and then I will do a harder fourth day where I ride for 3 hours or more but without the intentional intervals.

When I'm actually racing, especially a stage race that is four hours or so is when I have limited matches to burn (when my heart rate exceeds 165 bpm). That matchbook gets smaller as I get older. However, if I go hard but keep the hr below 165, I can go for a long time. 

I would recommend Joe Friel's book on training over 50 for some guidelines. But I'm finding the older I get, the more short, intensity workouts I need mixed with some lifting and yoga and lots of recovery time. The foam roller is also equally important to keep the legs fresh.


----------



## robwas (Feb 18, 2009)

CrashCanipe I'll check out that book by Joe Friel. I've been experimenting with what works and right now since I have a lot of time I'm doing a lot more cycling even on days when I feel more like resting, it seems to be helping. In the past it was usually very hard rides maybe 3 days a week at most only because I wasn't able to do more and I felt like I hit a wall where I didn't get out of shape but really no improvements. Thanks for your experience, I do hear a lot of quality versus quantity arguments.


----------



## geoffpw (Jun 10, 2006)

Wow, you guys make me feel like an old steam train. At 57, I typically run ~130-140 on a hard ride and peak at 150 on climbs, maybe 155 sometimes - I'd explode at >150 for any length of time. I wasnever much above 160 or 170 even in my youth (40 - first time I used a HRM). I consider my recovery rate to be 100 (resting is~45). I sometimes wonder if my heart runs too slow . fwiw, I race endurance MTB and xterra and used to swim competitively at near-national level (so, I'm in reasonable shape)


----------



## MSU Alum (Aug 8, 2009)

geoffpw said:


> Wow, you guys make me feel like an old steam train. At 57, I typically run ~130-140 on a hard ride and peak at 150 on climbs, maybe 155 sometimes - I'd explode at >150 for any length of time. I wasnever much above 160 or 170 even in my youth (40 - first time I used a HRM). I consider my recovery rate to be 100 (resting is~45). I sometimes wonder if my heart runs too slow . fwiw, I race endurance MTB and xterra and used to swim competitively at near-national level (so, I'm in reasonable shape)


Max heart rate highly is variable. It's meaningful as a data point for an individual, but not that meaningful for comparison with someone else.


----------



## rockman (Jun 18, 2004)

geoffpw said:


> Wow, you guys make me feel like an old steam train. At 57, I typically run ~130-140 on a hard ride and peak at 150 on climbs, maybe 155 sometimes - I'd explode at >150 for any length of time. I wasnever much above 160 or 170 even in my youth (40 - first time I used a HRM). I consider my recovery rate to be 100 (resting is~45). I sometimes wonder if my heart runs too slow . fwiw, I race endurance MTB and xterra and used to swim competitively at near-national level (so, I'm in reasonable shape)


I'm 55 and those numbers are very similar to mine, incl. the resting HR.


----------



## chuckha62 (Jul 11, 2006)

Iknow this is an older thread, but I just had this conversation with my doc today during my physical. I'm 55 and still hit 188-192 on sustained climbs. He asked how I feel when I hit those numbers and told him I feel fine. He wasn't concerned, since I have literally zero risk factors.


----------

