# heart rate question



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

ive been riding w a heart rate monitor on and off this year. 52 yo

a good cardio ride runs 155 to 165 bpm

during the summer my speed has increased but hr stayed the same.

barely if ever do i get in the 180's

recently, rode a steep section that was 100m vertical over 700m horizontal. ave 14% grade. the 20 yr old with us dropped me like yesterdays newspaper.


is the diff in performance a peak heart rate thing?
was he just able to clean 210bpm and keep the system running stronger?


----------



## upstateSC-rider (Dec 25, 2003)

No, not just HR, VO2 max also drops with age and weight usually goes up some, and by the next hill he's probably recovered already and you'll probably still feel the previous effort. 
Best thing is to not compare yourself to someone 30 years younger, that's what I tell myself anyway.


----------



## Fleas (Jan 19, 2006)

If yer not buffering lactic acid, yer gonna feel bad.

There is perceived effort and there is actual output. They don't always correlate.

-F


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

IMO, at your age, you should be able to do better unless he is a real stud. If you want to know what you're capable of, do some interval training, but be careful that you don't damage your heart (like I think may have happened to me at a much more advanced age).


----------



## MSU Alum (Aug 8, 2009)

There are lots of heart rate threads here that may (or may not) answer some of your questions.

Peak HR has little to do with peak performance. Someone who is at 180 bpm may or may not be producing more power than another person at 150 bpm. And, I know that there are times when I'm not effectively putting out more performance at a higher heart rate, particularly if I have a cold, or I'm dehydrated, etc., so it can vary just for an individual.
A fit 52 year old can't hang with a fit 20 year old, if they're at comparable levels of "fitness". I know that's hard to define completely, but really, that's just life. If I were faster than my 30 year old son, I'd be pretty upset about it.

The climb to the top of Burro on TWE starts at 10,400' and tops out at 11,100 feet and is an average of 11.7%. I'm 69 and my best time last year (24:27) was ahead of a bunch of 20 year olds. But, I'm acclimated, have better gear and most importantly, they didn't likely have anything to prove! Many may have been relative couch potatoes who were in town for a once a year outing. It doesn't really mean anything.

I still use it as "bragging rights" but I don't actually believe it's relevant.


----------



## Cleared2land (Aug 31, 2012)

Just ride more. It doesn't get easier, you just get faster.


----------



## dbltap (May 29, 2012)

Intervals are a good answer. Conditioning the heart to become stronger (hence more efficient) will improve your climbs. Push/recover. Just don’t over do it and not everyday. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## D. Inoobinati (Aug 28, 2020)

*Member has removed content due to fundamental disagreement with this site owner's views favoring expanded access for electric mountain bikes (eMtb) on multiuse singletrack in public lands.*


----------



## BmanInTheD (Sep 19, 2014)

Your HR has zilch to do with how fast you're gonna go. Everyone has different HR levels and fitness levels. I can ride at 180 BPM (61 yrs old) but I'm not as fast at 180BPM as I was when I was 40 at 180BPM.That 20-yr-old may have been at 130BPM, or he may have been at 180, just like you. HR has NOTHING to do with speed across riders.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

BmanInTheD said:


> Your HR has zilch to do with how fast you're gonna go. Everyone has different HR levels and fitness levels. I can ride at 180 BPM (61 yrs old) but I'm not as fast at 180BPM as I was when I was 40 at 180BPM.That 20-yr-old may have been at 130BPM, or he may have been at 180, just like you. HR has NOTHING to do with speed across riders.


This.

The difference in performance boils down to someone producing more power per unit of mass than you do. That's it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## hammersorethumb (Sep 14, 2018)

is this what the Whoop device does? anyone use one?


----------



## Eric F (May 25, 2021)

Fuse6F said:


> recently, rode a steep section that was 100m vertical over 700m horizontal. ave 14% grade. the 20 yr old with us dropped me like yesterdays newspaper.
> 
> is the diff in performance a peak heart rate thing?


The difference is a power-weight ratio thing.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

hammersorethumb said:


> is this what the Whoop device does? anyone use one?


It helps you understand your recovery. How much you need, the quality of your sleep, etc.

Doesn't quantify fitness metrics.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

Why the difference in performance? There are three things that work together.
1. The ability to extract oxygen from the air. Simplifying things a bit here but this called Vo2 max. 
2. The ability to transport oxygen. How good is your blood and how much blood can your heart pump. 
3. The ability of your muscle to extract oxygen from your blood and use it.

All of these things can be trained but people have different baselines and respond differently to training.

The difference is stunning, a top level professional will climb at 130bpm at a rate that even fast amateurs are doing at near max heart rate.


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

Okay. Thanks everyone.

quite a few variables contribute to performance besides hr.

it quickly becomes a big topic. 

i just wondered w all things being equal if having a higher max hr produces greater peak performance. Im sure it does. 

how much? Not sure.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Fuse6F said:


> Okay. Thanks everyone.
> 
> quite a few variables contribute to performance besides hr.
> 
> ...


No, having a higher maximum HR has nothing to do with greater peak performance.

No one here suggested that and it has no basis in reality.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

Le Duke said:


> No, having a higher maximum HR has nothing to do with greater peak performance.
> 
> No one here suggested that and it has no basis in reality.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


is it true that
a fitter person will typically have a lower heart rate at rest. 
that this is an indication their cardiovascular system is functioning efficiently
heart rate increases with exertion
if you start with a lower heart rate and that then you have a greater range of increase for which to perform work
that if due to age your max hr is lower that this would in theory lower the range of increase available to the athlete thereby reducing performance


----------



## NordieBoy (Sep 26, 2004)

Fuse6F said:


> is it true that
> a fitter person will typically have a lower heart rate at rest.
> that this is an indication their cardiovascular system is functioning efficiently
> heart rate increases with exertion
> ...


My brother and I (51 & 53) have similar resting HR's (42ish) and similar riding styles and times on Strava.
I'll climb at 165-175bpm and max HR is 183. He'll do the same climb in the same time at 150-155 and max HR is 165.

When I was younger my resting HR was 38 and max was 205. But I had no power. Endurance - hell yes.


----------



## MSU Alum (Aug 8, 2009)

Fuse6F said:


> is it true that
> a fitter person will typically have a lower heart rate at rest.
> that this is an indication their cardiovascular system is functioning efficiently
> heart rate increases with exertion
> ...


I think that if you look at a large population sample, you'd find that fitness is correlated with a lower resting HR.
I don't think you can apply that very well as the sample approaches a single individual. Large samples tend to smooth out the effect of "confounders".

About 5 years ago, I rode a lot with a friend who had a resting HR about the same as mine. My max HR was a good 10-15 BPM higher than his. He was a stronger rider than me in that he had more endurance than I had on long climbs where we both were close to our max HRs. I would be surprised if there is a correlation between the range and relative endurance.

As we age, we lose muscle mass, the ability of muscles to contract rapidly or forcefully (due to loss of some of the proteins in the muscles, mitochondrial activity, fatigability, synaptic quality between the nerve and muscle, levels of inflammation, etc.). And, as we age, consistency of performance decreases such that predictability of performance decreases. Performance (having a strong biking day Vs having a weak one for example) becomes more variable. Age related central nervous system changes (balance, cognitive speed) build up and those contribute to a decrease in capabilities. Even hemoglobin levels decrease with age and I'd guess that the transfer rate across the pulmonary membranes vary as they accumulate age related damage.

If you're talking about changes from age 48 to age 54, then no, these changes aren't that great, and they vary a lot, individually. If you're talking about the differences between a 25 year old and a 65 year old, the differences are much more profound. I think the cumulative effects are much more than what you could ascribe to cardiovascular differences alone, though, if that's your thesis. And they do accelerate as you get up over about 70. Generally speaking, the difference between a 70 year old and an 80 year old are greater than those between a 40 year old and a 50 year old, of course.

Hey, news flash, getting old sucks!


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Fuse6F said:


> is it true that
> a fitter person will typically have a lower heart rate at rest.
> that this is an indication their cardiovascular system is functioning efficiently
> heart rate increases with exertion
> ...


Sure, there is generally a correlation between high levels of aerobic fitness and low resting heart rates.

But a guy with a resting heart rate of 40 and a max HR of 165 might produce significantly more power than another guy with a resting HR of 40 and a max HR of 185. The heart is only ONE component here.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

MSU Alum said:


> If you're talking about changes from age 48 to age 54, then no, these changes aren't that great, and they vary a lot, individually. If you're talking about the differences between a 25 year old and a 65 year old, the differences are much more profound. I think the cumulative effects are much more than what you could ascribe to cardiovascular differences alone, though, if that's your thesis. And they do accelerate as you get up over about 70. Generally speaking, the difference between a 70 year old and an 80 year old are greater than those between a 40 year old and a 50 year old, of course.
> 
> Hey, news flash, getting old sucks!


I did an analysis of times at Masters XC ski world a couple of years ago. Race speed only started to drop off significantly once we hit the 70+ categories. And those 70 year olds were still fast.


----------



## MSU Alum (Aug 8, 2009)

LMN said:


> I did an analysis of times at Masters XC ski world a couple of years ago. Race speed only started to drop off significantly once we hit the 70+ categories. And those 70 year olds were still fast.


Until there's an "open" category where all age groups race, same time, same course, I don't see that there can be valid comparisons.
We have age groups because performance decreases with age, at least generally, and I'd say at the high end of the bell shaped curve.
I'd be interested to see your data, though.
I remember John McEnroe, a few years ago, lamenting the fact that there were so many young players that could beat him, handily. I think he was in his late 50's then.


----------



## Eric F (May 25, 2021)

Fuse6F said:


> is it true that
> a fitter person will typically have a lower heart rate at rest.
> that this is an indication their cardiovascular system is functioning efficiently
> heart rate increases with exertion
> ...


This is not how it works in the real world.


----------



## Eric F (May 25, 2021)

NordieBoy said:


> My brother and I (51 & 53) have similar resting HR's (42ish) and similar riding styles and times on Strava.
> I'll climb at 165-175bpm and max HR is 183. He'll do the same climb in the same time at 150-155 and max HR is 165.
> 
> When I was younger my resting HR was 38 and max was 205. But I had no power. Endurance - hell yes.


You're one of the few people I've encountered that had a max. HR around the same as mine. At the peak of my fitness in my early-30s, my max. was 207. My body is built more for peak power, and I got fairly good at the sprint game in crit racing. Even at 53yo now, my max. HR is 189, and I can put out over 1200w for a few seconds. This is just how my body is put together.

To echo your point, max. HR is not an indicator of better/worse or more/less when it comes to judging fitness. Many other factors are more important.


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

Le Duke said:


> Sure, there is generally a correlation between high levels of aerobic fitness and low resting heart rates.
> 
> But a guy with a resting heart rate of 40 and a max HR of 165 might produce significantly more power than another guy with a resting HR of 40 and a max HR of 185. The heart is only ONE component here.


i agree, but my point remains a fact.

if any one individual looses 10% of their max hr then they have a quantified decrease in their cardiovascular performance.

so limiting it to one individual then we all agree. performance decreases w a lower hr. which is caused by age.

max hr is now a factor in the degredation of the individuals performance.

we just simply cant say max hr has nothing to do with performance between two individuals. especially when we compare across a 30 yr age gap.

a lower max hr becomes one of the factors in the performance difference. its just not as discussed as say weight or body type.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Fuse6F said:


> i agree, but my point remains a fact.
> 
> if any one individual looses 10% of their max hr then they have a quantified decrease in their cardiovascular performance.
> 
> ...


But there's little correlation between HR and actual power produced.

The heart is just pumping blood. Your ability to take in oxygen and turn energy into power are two things that are more important. No one can turn all of the oxygen their blood carries into power at the crank; elite athletes utilize it better than others.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

Le Duke said:


> But there's little correlation between HR and actual power produced.
> 
> The heart is just pumping blood. Your ability to take in oxygen and turn energy into power are two things that are more important. No one can turn all of the oxygen their blood carries into power at the crank; elite athletes utilize it better than others.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Generally with age we get a reduction in Vo2 max and that reduction is primarily due to a decrease in maximal heart rate. Assuming equal level of training a lower max heart rate is one of the reasons your 50 year old self cannot keep up with your 25 year old self. But this is more theoretical than anything. It take a pretty high level of training to actually be able to spend more a minute at your Vo2 max. Even you and myself, who are fitter than average bear, probably spend very little time at Vo2 max or even close to Vo2 max.

Middle age weight gain is probably the primarly reason we get slower with age.


----------



## MSU Alum (Aug 8, 2009)

Fuse6F said:


> i agree, but my point remains a fact.
> 
> if any one individual looses 10% of their max hr then they have a quantified decrease in their cardiovascular performance.


A comparatively lower max HR does not necessarily equate to comparatively lower cardiovascular performance.
One of the reasons a highly trained athlete "can" (as opposed to "must" - even this is not always the case) have a lower resting HR is that you can train to an increased stroke volume. The result is that the same amount of blood can circulate, at the same rate, even with lower HR. The same is true at the high end of the HR scale when you are approaching max HR.
You can have greater cardiac output, if your stroke volume increase is great enough to compensate for reduced HR. The amount of blood sent through the system is a product of HR and stroke volume - not HR alone. Further, the ability to send oxygen throughout the body (which is really the critical measure) is a product of HR, stroke volume, and the ability of blood to carry oxygen. The ability of blood to carry oxygen is dependent on RBC, hemoglobin levels, and the ability of the lungs to get oxygen into the blood/CO2 out of the blood. Even mitochondrial efficiency and concentrations become a factor. There's even an association between a variation in the angiotensin-converting enzyme gene and the ability of athletes to succeed in very high altitude mountaineering. So, it's really complicated stuff.

The bottom line is that, while HR IS a factor, it's by no means the only factor, nor is it the most important factor.

Someone with a lower HR can have greater cardiac output and on an individual level someone can train to have greater output at lower HR levels.
The only thing you could say is that if nothing else changes, a lower HR would result in lower output, but due to the complexity of the system, that is just not necessarily the case.


----------



## rod9301 (Oct 30, 2004)

I have been taking a beta blocker for 4 years.
My max heart rate went from 185 to 165, but my performance had not decreased at all.

Measured by vertical feet per hour skinning or mountain biking uphill on a known trail. 

Sent from my Redmi Note 8 Pro using Tapatalk


----------



## Eric F (May 25, 2021)

Fuse6F said:


> i agree, but my point remains a fact.
> 
> if any one individual looses 10% of their max hr then they have a quantified decrease in their cardiovascular performance.
> 
> ...


Your point is not a fact, and you moved the goalposts by trying to limit it to one athlete. Even with that limiter, reduction in the max HR of one individual due to age MIGHT come with a reduction in power, but not necessarily. However, if that person's ability to process oxygen is improving due to years of consistent good training, there might not be a drop-off in performance.

Comparing different athletes, there are too many other more important factors involved with fitness to make any determination about performance abilities based on their max HR.


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

rod9301 said:


> I have been taking a beta blocker for 4 years.
> My max heart rate went from 185 to 165, but my performance had not decreased at all.
> 
> Measured by vertical feet per hour skinning or mountain biking uphill on a known trail.


i started the discussion as a way of learning about hr and performance and from others experiences.

do you ride w a hrm? 
what hr are you exercising at now? 
is it the same % of max hr or the same hr?

eg. 
185max and 65 resting. is 120 bpm range. exercising at 80% of your hr range. would be 65+96= 161bpm.

165max and 65 resting is 100bpm range. 80% of this range is 65+80=145bpm

i notice a big difference in performance crusing at 161 ave hr vs 145hr.

i wouldnt think your exercising at 4bpm below your max hr.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

I’ve never, ever seen anyone use percent of heart rate range. 

Everyone here keeps telling you that max heart rate doesn’t correlate to performance, but you keep insisting it does. 

Why? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

Le Duke said:


> I've never, ever seen anyone use percent of heart rate range.
> 
> Everyone here keeps telling you that max heart rate doesn't correlate to performance, but you keep insisting it does.
> 
> Why?


article to reference my previous post on.









Can you sing while you work out?


To get the most out of exercising, aim for moderate to vigorous exercise intensity. See how to judge your exercise intensity.




www.mayoclinic.org





does hr rate not correlate with physical exertion?

why are you insisting that max hr has nothing to do with an athletes ability to produce power.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

Fuse6F said:


> article to reference my previous post on.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Maybe some people are not quite sure what you are referring to.

If you are saying that your 50 year old-self is slower than your 20 years old-self in part because of a drop in max heart rate then, yes there is some truth in what you are saying.

If you are saying that someone with higher max heart rate will be faster than another person with a lower max heart rate, you are incorrect.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

Le Duke said:


> I've never, ever seen anyone use percent of heart rate range.


It is used all the time. It is called heart rate reserve.

Heart Rate Reserve (HRR) is *the difference between your Resting Heart Rate and your Maximum Heart Rate*. It's used primarily for determining heart rate zones during exercise, and the amount of cushion in heartbeats available for exercise. To get your HRR, subtract your heart's resting rate from your maximum rate


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

LMN said:


> If you are saying that someone with higher max heart rate will be faster than another person with a lower max heart rate, you are incorrect.


how can this not be true.

please provide some evidence that shows hr doesnt correlate with power output and that therefore a higher max hr which also means a higher hrr doesnt either.


----------



## MSU Alum (Aug 8, 2009)

Fuse6F said:


> how can this not be true.
> 
> please provide some evidence that shows hr doesnt correlate with power output and that therefore a higher max hr which also means a higher hrr doesnt either.


I have a friend who is one year younger than me. My max HR (when we rode together about 5 years ago) was about 200. His was about 185. We are also about the same weight, but he's taller than me. He was consistently faster than me, at the time. He probably had greater stroke volume (she expostulated!) and therefore more cardiac output at a lower HR.
That's not at all uncommon.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

Fuse6F said:


> how can this not be true.
> 
> please provide some evidence that shows hr doesnt correlate with power output and that therefore a higher max hr which also means a higher hrr doesnt either.


I didn't say power doesn't correlate with HR. The higher your heart rate is, typically, the higher your power output is. But that correlation does not extend between different people.

For instance, my power at Vo2 max, which I achieve at about 190bpm is 325 watts. One of the guys I coach hits his vo2 max power of 530 watts at 185bpm. What is the difference, he has a way bigger heart that pumps more blood per beat.


----------



## MSU Alum (Aug 8, 2009)

LMN said:


> I didn't say power doesn't correlate with HR. The higher your heart rate is, typically, the higher your power output is. But that correlation does not extend between different people.
> 
> For instance, my power at Vo2 max, which I achieve at about 190bpm is 325 watts. One of the guys I coach hits his vo2 max power of 530 watts at 185bpm. What is the difference, he has a way bigger heart that pumps more blood per beat.


Yeah, it's also the reason you can pump up tires faster with a floor pump at 5 strokes per minute than you can with a backpack pump at 20 pumps per minute.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

MSU Alum said:


> Yeah, it's also the reason you can pump up tires faster with a floor pump at 5 strokes per minute than you can with a backpack pump at 20 pumps per minute.


Even to further mess with OP, at really high heart rates Vo2 max and power actually drop. There is a certain point where your heart is beating to fast to fill and you are actually moving less blood. My Vo2max power is 190 but max HR is 195 (this lab tested).


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

LMN said:


> Even to further mess with OP, at really high heart rates Vo2 max and power actually drop. There is a certain point where your heart is beating to fast to fill and you are actually moving less blood. My Vo2max power is 190 but max HR is 195 (this lab tested).


If you compare to your two examples. They second produces more power but add 30 years as is the my original case here and we should see a max heart rate reduction and a huge power drop.


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

LMN said:


> I didn't say power doesn't correlate with HR. The higher your heart rate is, typically, the higher your power output is. But that correlation does not extend between different people.
> 
> For instance, my power at Vo2 max, which I achieve at about 190bpm is 325 watts. One of the guys I coach hits his vo2 max power of 530 watts at 185bpm. What is the difference, he has a way bigger heart that pumps more blood per beat.


sure and a 100lb girl at max hr 185 produces less power than 215 lb guy at 185 hr both 20 years old. But age either person out to 65 years old and their max hr will come down and so does max power.

age is just a way we all agree that max hr drops.
concede my point guys. Its a fact. Max hr affects max power.


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

I was thinking about my case.
20yr old guy 235lbs out climbing me.

52 yr old guy 255lbs.

We drop a hr mon on me and run the climb 80% of hrr. Time is x

then we take the 20 yr old and he runs the climb at 80% hrr. Ave Hr is higher and time is faster.

now he runs the course again but must limit his hr to same as mine. Im saying that his time will be reduced. Because his power was reduced

the only criteria of importance is a reduction in hr to do the work. His time comes down. Doesnt matter his weight or cardio fitness etc.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

I think we can all agree that generally (there are a lot of complexities) that an individual will climb slower at 150bpm then they would at 180bpm.

But that 20yr still might out climb you if you limited his heart rate to 150.

Between different individuals max hr has zero correlation with climbing speed. If you were to take two riders of the same weight, same age and the same training background but one rider had a max HR of 200 and the other A max HR of 180 we would have no who climes faster until they raced each other.


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

upstateSC-rider said:


> No, not just HR, VO2 max also drops with age and weight usually goes up some, and by the next hill he's probably recovered already and you'll probably still feel the previous effort. Best thing is to not compare yourself to someone 30 years younger, that's what I tell myself anyway.


Correct.

Personally, I prefer to compare myself with _myself_ in terms of year over year - or looking back even a few years. Wattage, weight, HR, recovery, weather, hydration, etc.... all factor into my comparisons. Obviously, with consistent training, the wattage and heart rate are going to be somewhat consistent when comparing yourself to some prior years as the degradation is slow as we age. I find it is weight (or rather, carrying extra weight) that is the largest performance hindrance once the training has been bumped up enough to ride at a good level. Hitting 60 soon, and my wattage and HR are currently very similar - if not exact - to prior younger years of the past decade. However, I'm carrying enough extra weight to not be able to match some prior years in terms of lap times, or some longer duration 10-15 minute uphill intervals. No surprise there!

So I cannot keep up with my former 50 or 55 year old self, but that currently appears mostly to do with weight, rather than age. I am probably not alone in adding the Covid 15 pounds to the waistline...


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

Fuse6F said:


> age is just a way we all agree that max hr drops.
> concede my point guys. Its a fact. Max hr affects max power.


Didn't I state that earlier? The drop in Vo2 max as we age is partly from a drop in maximal heart rate. This is a well known fact.

But the drop is marginal (to a point) among people who maintain activity level as they age.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

Another way to think about this.

As we age our maximum potential drops. Partly because we lose peak aerobic power. But very few are anywhere near their peak potential. The vast majority of us are getting dropped on climbs because of other factors than our maximal aerobic output.

Unless you are punching out 700 to a 1000 hours per year with good structured training. Maximum aerobic output isn’t the issue.


----------



## Offspring (Jan 29, 2006)

rod9301 said:


> I have been taking a beta blocker for 4 years.
> My max heart rate went from 185 to 165, but my performance had not decreased at all.
> 
> Measured by vertical feet per hour skinning or mountain biking uphill on a known trail.
> ...


I was on one for longer than that and never liked the "speed limiter". I would hit it all the time and it just didn't feel right even though I was performing fine during exercise. I was more concerned with the fact both my parents, into their 70's needed pace maker to keep their bpm up. I spoke with my Dr. and we switched over to an arb and I feel much better about how it works on me. The 'speed limiter' has been lifted and it feels like 'normal' exercise now. I have purposely not pushed like my previous effort to help get used to the new normal. A ride or two into it I was at 171 with more left in the tank but I have since backed off and get some time under my belt with this new medicine. This was 25-30 more than I was able to get under the beta blocker. Another issue is my garmin is treating me like I'm dying since I had 1.5 years of 18mi/every other day rides with the beta blocker. I have heard it will eventually learn my new normal. Just an anticdotal story of my experience. Good luck and safe riding.


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

Fuse6F said:


> ive been riding w a heart rate monitor on and off this year. 52 yo
> 
> a good cardio ride runs 155 to 165 bpm
> 
> ...


So, you are improving your condition and seeing the progress is tangible. Not a bad thing, to be honest!
Most of all, enjoy the ride. ?


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

LMN said:


> I think we can all agree that generally (there are a lot of complexities) that an individual will climb slower at 150bpm then they would at 180bpm.


right.

so i shouldnt expect to be able to perform to my 20 yr old self as my hr alone would not allow me to achieve the maximal effort of my younger years.

its also a factor when chasing any other 20yr old.


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

LMN said:


> But that 20yr still might out climb you if you limited his heart rate to 150.


yes i still expect that would be true.


----------



## rod9301 (Oct 30, 2004)

Offspring said:


> I was on one for longer than that and never liked the "speed limiter". I would hit it all the time and it just didn't feel right even though I was performing fine during exercise. I was more concerned with the fact both my parents, into their 70's needed pace maker to keep their bpm up. I spoke with my Dr. and we switched over to an arb and I feel much better about how it works on me. The 'speed limiter' has been lifted and it feels like 'normal' exercise now. I have purposely not pushed like my previous effort to help get used to the new normal. A ride or two into it I was at 171 with more left in the tank but I have since backed off and get some time under my belt with this new medicine. This was 25-30 more than I was able to get under the beta blocker. Another issue is my garmin is treating me like I'm dying since I had 1.5 years of 18mi/every other day rides with the beta blocker. I have heard it will eventually learn my new normal. Just an anticdotal story of my experience. Good luck and safe riding.


Are you faster since you switched away from the beta blocker?

Sent from my Redmi Note 8 Pro using Tapatalk


----------



## rod9301 (Oct 30, 2004)

I was on bystolic and supposedly it doesn't affect athletic performance

Sent from my Redmi Note 8 Pro using Tapatalk


----------



## Offspring (Jan 29, 2006)

rod9301 said:


> Are you faster since you switched away from the beta blocker?
> 
> Sent from my Redmi Note 8 Pro using Tapatalk


Yes. But I'm not gonna push it right now. Just zeroed in on what will work for dosage and want to give my body time to get used to it, so I'm about 10-15 minutes slower over the +/- 2 hours. The biggest thing I feel right now that is more impactful for me than is the speed, is my recovery time between rides seems to be much better.


----------



## angryoldman (Jun 15, 2015)

Wow, these high heart rates are depressing me.
I am turning 58, and go up hard climbs at 148-152.
I just don’t think it goes up high anymore. It use to be close to that generic formula 220 - age…
but now not close. 
I am fit and my climb times for age group are very good on strava but no more high numbers.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

Fuse6F said:


> right.
> 
> so i shouldnt expect to be able to perform to my 20 yr old self as my hr alone would not allow me to achieve the maximal effort of my younger years.
> 
> its also a factor when chasing any other 20yr old.


A reduction in maximum heart rate is probably not the primary reason for this. My max hr is down about about 8 beats from where I was in my 20s. But my threshold power is actually up from where it was in my 20s. And it is the threshold power that really determines climbing pace.

Yes my peak oxygen consumption has dropped but I have never been trained enough to spend very much time riding at that output


----------



## NordieBoy (Sep 26, 2004)

Fuse6F said:


> right.
> 
> so i shouldnt expect to be able to perform to my 20 yr old self as my hr alone would not allow me to achieve the maximal effort of my younger years.
> 
> its also a factor when chasing any other 20yr old.


I would blow away my 20yr old self as soon as the trail started going up.
I was a decathlete, duathlete etc, but had no climbing ability.
A 40km ride followed by a 10km run, no problem. If it was flat.
Now, a 100km MTB race in 6hrs averaging 165bpm with 2,000m of climbing is fun.


----------



## Mark16q (Apr 16, 2006)

Something to consider, through my 40s hit 180 to 200 and felt fine. Around 50 started to struggle over 160. 2 doctors attributed it to age and said I’m fine. 3rd doctor, who is a distance runner didn’t like my story. On a hunch did a calcium score and not good. 50% coronary blockage, hereditary and now dealing with it (repatha) and #s looking good. Still struggle over 160 but helps knowing what is going on and what to do to stay healthy. I have excellent endurance but sustained high rates with heart disease are a no no. Age alone slows us down, but make sure everything is working as it should And enjoy the ride.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Fuse6F said:


> sure and a 100lb girl at max hr 185 produces less power than 215 lb guy at 185 hr both 20 years old. But age either person out to 65 years old and their max hr will come down and so does max power.
> 
> age is just a way we all agree that max hr drops.
> concede my point guys. Its a fact. Max hr affects max power.


Does she? I'd bet that most female WC racers produce more power than most males of any size.

I'm 143lbs and likely produce more raw power than you do at 255lbs for any duration longer than a couple minutes. There are plenty of 130lb pros who produce a lot more than both of us.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## rod9301 (Oct 30, 2004)

Mark16q said:


> Something to consider, through my 40s hit 180 to 200 and felt fine. Around 50 started to struggle over 160. 2 doctors attributed it to age and said I'm fine. 3rd doctor, who is a distance runner didn't like my story. On a hunch did a calcium score and not good. 50% coronary blockage, hereditary and now dealing with it (repatha) and #s looking good. Still struggle over 160 but helps knowing what is going on and what to do to stay healthy. I have excellent endurance but sustained high rates with heart disease are a no no. Age alone slows us down, but make sure everything is working as it should And enjoy the ride.


What was your calcium score?

Sent from my Redmi Note 8 Pro using Tapatalk


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

Le Duke said:


> Does she? I'd bet that most female WC racers produce more power than most males of any size.
> 
> I'm 143lbs and likely produce more raw power than you do at 255lbs for any duration longer than a couple minutes. There are plenty of 130lb pros who produce a lot more than both of us.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


if i produced 250w and you did 143w. we would ascend at the same rate.

but both at 250w and you would absolutely crush me on power to weight ratio.

but id love to line up w you and have you add lead vest until we were equivalent bike and body weights. cause that would be fun.

but recent experience w the 20 yr old has proven without a doubt that im no where near as fast or strong as i would like to think.

so i will challenge myself and just hope to keep riding injury free as long as i can.

winter is approaching and the next 6 months without a bike will be tough.

last week i rode over 125km and coached mtb 7/8 year olds.

im having fun

what w can you hold for 5 minutes?


----------



## eri (Sep 4, 2012)

Pfft. Heart rate?! Try age.

My son has never been much of an athlete, coed frisbee. Hes 20. Got an old used road bike, rode a nice local 90 minute loop 5-6 times over 2 weeks, then started trying and starts beating my best strava times by 5%. Every segment hes beat my best from 2-3 years ago. Totally unfair. And hes in sweat pants and sneakers.

Young folks just got better fitness. I couldnt beat my 20 year old self either.


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

Mark16q said:


> Something to consider, through my 40s hit 180 to 200 and felt fine. Around 50 started to struggle over 160. 2 doctors attributed it to age and said I'm fine. 3rd doctor, who is a distance runner didn't like my story. On a hunch did a calcium score and not good. 50% coronary blockage, hereditary and now dealing with it (repatha) and #s looking good. Still struggle over 160 but helps knowing what is going on and what to do to stay healthy. I have excellent endurance but sustained high rates with heart disease are a no no. Age alone slows us down, but make sure everything is working as it should And enjoy the ride.


You now have a threshold number that lets you know to back off as needed. Many don't realize such information can be gained in order to treat the condition as well as moderate activity carefully. Keep on keepin on!



eri said:


> Pfft. Heart rate?! Try age.
> 
> My son has never been much of an athlete, coed frisbee. Hes 20. Got an old used road bike, rode a nice local 90 minute loop 5-6 times over 2 weeks, then started trying and starts beating my best strava times by 5%. Every segment hes beat my best from 2-3 years ago. Totally unfair. And hes in sweat pants and sneakers.
> 
> Young folks just got better fitness. I couldnt beat my 20 year old self either.


Wait til he has kids of his own... Baybacks are a ...


----------



## NordieBoy (Sep 26, 2004)

Damn mass start XC races, you're 30 min in and finally catching and passing the 13 year old girls with arms and legs like twigs.
How the hell did they get out front? Must have cheated, cut the course or something.

The 13 year old boys are either long gone or following close behind you, laughing and chatting amongst themselves on their enduro bikes equipped with DHF/DHR's and the rolling resistance of a bulldozer...

This actually happened at my last XC race 
I got 4th in 50+.


----------



## xcandrew (Dec 30, 2007)

Fuse6F said:


> age is just a way we all agree that max hr drops.
> concede my point guys. Its a fact. Max hr affects max power.


Max heart rate doesn't necessarily drop much with age, depends on the individual. I'm also 52 and generally don't train with a heart rate monitor, but have at times in the past. My maximum heart rate was about the same (181) in my mid-20s when I got my first HR monitor as it was when I last was messing with one, maybe late 40s.

Jack Daniels, a famous running coach/exercise physiologist, did studies of the same 26 elite runners 25 years apart. Here's what he said:

I had 26 elite distance runners (average age 24) first tested in 1968 (all in the Olympic Trials and 14 made it to the Olympics). Average max HR was 179. All 26 came back for follow-up testing in 1993 (25 years later and now average age 49). At 49 average max HR was 177. One Olympian had max HR of 148 originally and 25 yrs later it was 146. Another had max HR of 188 as a 24 yr old and 192 when 49 yrs old. I suppose I should publish the findings some day, but this year we will bring them in for the 40-year follow-up and average age will be 64. Now it's time to publish (unless they want to try for 50-yr follow-up).​​from: Declining max HR with age. (letsrun.com)​


----------



## EKram (Oct 30, 2020)

I know my own body. My training decisions are based on me. I don’t really concern myself fitting in a category of some kind. I.e. Being xx years old and this is how you have to be.


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

xcandrew said:


> Max heart rate doesn't necessarily drop much with age, depends on the individual. I'm also 52 and generally don't train with a heart rate monitor, but have at times in the past. My maximum heart rate was about the same (181) in my mid-20s when I got my first HR monitor as it was when I last was messing with one, maybe late 40s.
> 
> Jack Daniels, a famous running coach/exercise physiologist, did studies of the same 26 elite runners 25 years apart. Here's what he said:
> 
> I had 26 elite distance runners (average age 24) first tested in 1968 (all in the Olympic Trials and 14 made it to the Olympics). Average max HR was 179. All 26 came back for follow-up testing in 1993 (25 years later and now average age 49). At 49 average max HR was 177. One Olympian had max HR of 148 originally and 25 yrs later it was 146. Another had max HR of 188 as a 24 yr old and 192 when 49 yrs old. I suppose I should publish the findings some day, but this year we will bring them in for the 40-year follow-up and average age will be 64. Now it's time to publish (unless they want to try for 50-yr follow-up).​​from: Declining max HR with age. (letsrun.com)​


its possible theyall had heart damage at the younger age. This provided the low max hr.

ive heard that marathon long distance training isnt good for the heart.









Is long-distance running good for the heart?


Running is good exercise for heart health, but there's a debate about whether consistent long-distance running can do more harm than good.




www.heart.org





All exercise is good. But there are extremes. Competitive marathon training is an extreme. Imo


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Fuse6F said:


> if i produced 250w and you did 143w. we would ascend at the same rate.
> 
> but both at 250w and you would absolutely crush me on power to weight ratio.
> 
> ...


For 5min? I'm guessing ~375-380w at moderate altitude, now. Maybe more.

Here's 357w for 6:46 on an actual mountain bike trail with some non-pedaling bits.



https://strava.app.link/IPToIuh6wjb



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## xcandrew (Dec 30, 2007)

Fuse6F said:


> its possible theyall had heart damage at the younger age. This provided the low max hr.
> 
> ive heard that marathon long distance training isnt good for the heart.
> 
> ...


No, those study subjects were definitely healthy in 1968, and most were racing shorter distances, not marathons. 14 of the 26 made the Olympic track and field team, the others were also among the top in the US at the time. The study subjects included legendary runners like Gerry Lindgren and Jim Ryun (a miler considered by many the US GOAT runner) in their primes. Ryun is also famous for having a high resting heart rate of about 60.

More recent studies have shown that exercise isn't causing heart damage, even though it elevates markers associated with heart damage. Correlation isn't causation.

There's Finally Heart Health Data on Extreme Exercise | Outside Online


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

cool. what was the name of that guy who ran every where all continents then finally dies on a trail run from a heart attack?


----------



## Offspring (Jan 29, 2006)

Jim Fixx?


----------



## xcandrew (Dec 30, 2007)

Fuse6F said:


> cool. what was the name of that guy who ran every where all continents then finally dies on a trail run from a heart attack?


Not sure who you are thinking of. Micah True? Micah True - Wikipedia

Heart disease is the #1 cause of death in the US, so of course some runners and cyclists die of heart attacks or other heart issues. You would need to show that the rate of death among athletes who train more is higher than the rate of non-exercisers or people who train less to show that exercise is detrimental to heart health. That hasn't been shown.


----------



## mtnbkrmike (Mar 26, 2015)




----------



## mtbdudex (Jan 13, 2020)

xcandrew said:


> Not sure who you are thinking of. Micah True? Micah True - Wikipedia
> 
> Heart disease is the #1 cause of death in the US, so of course some runners and cyclists die of heart attacks or other heart issues. You would need to show that the rate of death among athletes who train more is higher than the rate of non-exercisers or people who train less to show that exercise is detrimental to heart health. That hasn't been shown.


Fwiw, I remember looking into this in my early 50's, I'm 58 now.
Below general population data.

















Statistically Death is "rare" before age 45. 
Put 100 people in a line. 90 of those will live to age 60, between age 60 and 90 2.5 of those remaining per year will pass away. Half (50%) will live past late 70's.
Conclusion: Live life large, enjoy the journey. Eat, love, pray, forgive.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## EKram (Oct 30, 2020)

Jim Fixx-arteriosclerosis. Long slow distance training. I have been doing this 35 years. No arteriosclerosis.


----------



## mtbdudex (Jan 13, 2020)

EKram said:


> Jim Fixx-arteriosclerosis. Long slow distance training. I have been doing this 35 years. No arteriosclerosis.


I remember him, read his book back in early 80's while in my college physical Ed course "running", sadly &#8230;. 









Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## EKram (Oct 30, 2020)

Never knew this until recently. So I read on some more.

Found this info from "Healthline". <<<<< Medical treatment combined with lifestyle and dietary changes can be used to keep atherosclerosis from getting worse, but they aren't able to reverse the disease.>>>>>

Probably a contributing factor to the heart attack was how to use the word (arteriosclerosis or atherosclerosis) figured in. 

One can only guess if Jim knew of his condition or not. Many liked his "long slow distance" plan.
I did and still do. Only way (that I knew) I embraced to train for, and easily pass military running tests.
Like all of us, my training (I no longer run) has evolved.


----------



## Velobike (Jun 23, 2007)

I read Jim FIxx's book back in the late70s I think.

If I remember right he espoused the ability to eat any sort of crap food because running would sort it. I didn't agree with that at the time based on the way I felt when I ate like that.

I suspect was his eating habits that killed him, not the running habit.


----------



## eri (Sep 4, 2012)

LMN said:


> Even to further mess with OP, at really high heart rates Vo2 max and power actually drop. There is a certain point where your heart is beating to fast to fill and you are actually moving less blood. My Vo2max power is 190 but max HR is 195 (this lab tested).


Yup was going to post this. There’s sports medicine papers that report the same thing. The high end max hr is not peak performance for heart: it moves less blood.


----------



## Offspring (Jan 29, 2006)

Offspring said:


> I was on one for longer than that and never liked the "speed limiter". I would hit it all the time and it just didn't feel right even though I was performing fine during exercise. I was more concerned with the fact both my parents, into their 70's needed pace maker to keep their bpm up. I spoke with my Dr. and we switched over to an arb and I feel much better about how it works on me. The 'speed limiter' has been lifted and it feels like 'normal' exercise now. I have purposely not pushed like my previous effort to help get used to the new normal. A ride or two into it I was at 171 with more left in the tank but I have since backed off and get some time under my belt with this new medicine. This was 25-30 more than I was able to get under the beta blocker. Another issue is my garmin is treating me like I'm dying since I had 1.5 years of 18mi/every other day rides with the beta blocker. I have heard it will eventually learn my new normal. Just an anticdotal story of my experience. Good luck and safe riding.





Offspring said:


> Yes. But I'm not gonna push it right now. Just zeroed in on what will work for dosage and want to give my body time to get used to it, so I'm about 10-15 minutes slower over the +/- 2 hours. The biggest thing I feel right now that is more impactful for me than is the speed, is my recovery time between rides seems to be much better.


An update on this change I made. I've had to increase the dosage of the arb to keep up with the higher bp and i think i'm at a good place with it now. Without the artificial HR limiter, I've had to back down my efforts on my rides, I have no business in the 180 range which I can easily reach now. I am trying to spend more time in zone 2 and 3 with short bursts into 4/5. This has got my garmin recovery times to match my every-other-day ride schedule. I am feeling much better than when I first made the med change. Early on I was attempting same effort on rides and ignoring the garmin recovery times and i think it started to catch up with me as I was experiencing bouts of rapid heart rate between rides. My Dr agreed for me to back it off and allow my body to adjust to the new normal. The only draw back was I had to cut mileage down by 4-5 miles to stay near the 2 hour mark, any more time really seems to cut into my day. Also seems like I am dropping weight more efficiently at this new effort. I am glad I made this change to the arb. Good health to all.


----------

