So it doesn't seem like the treadmill test really gave me my actual max.

It doesn't seem like your technician was too concerned about your HR zones.

If you know a good place to get max testing done in San Diego, please let me know!

I think you already found the best place to test that.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Jim, the techician was wrong, or your HR monitor was wrong. Or, both were wrong.

---

Quid quid latine dictum sit altum videtur
(That which is said in Latin sounds profound)

She did seem clueless. She told me that it wasn't a good idea to go in the gym and workout at my max heart rate anyway! Man! It was like I was talking to the wall!

I actually had to tell her how training zones are commonly based on max heart rate...

Jim

---

Jim

I looked at the graph where I hit 184. I have seen spikes sometimes from interference but since the graph shows a steady rise from 158 to 184 over a distance of about a mile, it looks pretty reliable.

BTW -- My HRM is the polar S725.

---

Jim

...what the F*** ? How does she know your max, without taking you to your max.

Mine was 195, 10 years ago and I have seen 191 on an all out climb as recently as 2 years ago. For the record, I am 39 years old, and typically race an Olympic tri in the 165 to 180 range and a half Ironman in the 155-170 range.

In any event, the max heartrate is a truly useless number. What you need to know is the heartrate you can sustain for 1 min, 5 min, 120 min, 300 min and 600+ min, corresponding to approximately a 300 m sprint at the end of a race, a mile at the end of race, a full olympic tri, a half Ironman and an Ironman.

I was at a training session for the now extinct AARP triathlon and the trainer was going over how to calculate maximum heart rate. A woman present then asked if it was dangerous to exceed her maximum heart rate. It was a tough question to answer!

You have evidence that your heart rate is 184. Who can argue with that? However, I would verify it with another HRM at some point.
.
.

---

Lou Battaglia

Why didn't I retire last year?

I think I may just follow Chris Carmichael's approach. The training programs in his new book "The Ultimate Ride" are based on the results of the CTS test.

The CTS test calls for riding 3 miles as fast as you can, recovering and doing it again. The average heart rate from those 2 efforts are then used to determine the proper heart rate for each type of workout. That way you don't even have to know your max!

That's looking like a pretty good approach...

---

Jim

The definition of max heart rate is the highest number of bpm you have observed. So for you it's 184. You can't exceed your max because the new number becomes your new max heart rate.
An interesting book on the subject of heart rate training is John L. Parker's, "Heart Monitor Training for the Complete Idiot"



By the way, John L. Parker Jr. wrote one of the funniest books about endurance racing, "And then the Vulture Eats You". Sometimes I start laughing just thinking about it. Check it out.



Richard

She is a moron. You cannot exercise above your max, that is why it is called maxium. It means the highest possible HR you can attain. How can you train above it??? If you saw 184 on a training session, and if it was close to an all out effort, then add about 5 beats for your theoretical max. I would base all your training %'s on 189 or so..She probably gives her kids a $5 allowance, and then tells them not to spend $10...It must be some kind of chick logic...Sorry ladies, just kidding, lots of men make this same mistake. Let's call it moron logic.....

Cardiologists are more used to seeing heart attack patients than athletes. I developed heart problems at quite a young age, and consequently saw a pediatric cardiologist for the first ~20 years of my life. needless to say, their stress-testing equipment wasn't suited for a athletic young adult. they finally started taking me more seriously after I maxed out the reisistance unit on their exercise cycle during a stress test.

another stress test consisted of a treadmill with increasing speed and slope over time. Only problem was I wasn't allowed to take my hands off the railings and run. trying to explain to the administering nurse that there was no way I would be able to hit my max HR while walking, regardless of the incline on the treadmill was like talking to a brick wall.

If you want to find out your max HR without paying for a stress test administered by non-athletic morons, go find a hill that takes you 40-80 seconds to run up, steep, but not ridiculously so. Run up it as hard as you can three or four times. On your last time, go harder. Add 3-5 beats to the largest number you see on your HR monitor and you've got your max HR.

On a somewhat related note, in the hospital the night before surgery I was hooked up to a wireless 24-hr heart monitor. A minute of two after it was turned on the staff came running into my room ready to revive the dying patient. They had never seen anyone with a resting pulse of 35 before : ). In general, our medical community does not understand how to deal with fit people.

J

Tee hee hee - I love her line about not exercising above your max.

Some people have absolutely NO idea. I'd pretty much ignore anything she said after that little gem.

I agree - the cardiologist was just "guessing" based on calculations and your age, etc. I'm 36 and my calculated max HR would end up anywhere from 184-190 depending upon the formula used, yet I can fairly easily hit 191 if I try so my max HR is likely about 195 (and that is the number I use for my "zones") Makes a big diff when trying to stay in zone 3 for longer runs as I'm usually running in the upper end of zone 3 for me as I hate running slow.

I would trust your Polar s725, your instinct and training over her calculation any day.

---

____________________________________
Fatigue is biochemical, not biomechanical.
- Andrew Coggan, PhD

You cannot predict maximum heart rate from a submaximal test. You can loosely predict VO2 max from a submaximal test if you know your max heart rate. Clearly your max heart rate is higher than the value she gave you. Probably higher than the 185 nubmer that you observed. You don't need to go anywere to get a max test done if all you want to know is your max heart rate. You can do this yourself on a treadmill if you have a heart rate monitor. Do a google search for treadmill VO2 max protocols. You will find several to choose from. Pick one and continue to increase speed and grade until you cannot continue. Note your HR at exhaustion. That will be a good estimate of max HR. Simple. No need to pay somebody for this.

Mike

She is clueless....

I actually saw 195 on my HRM 10 years ago when I was 40. So considering that max declines slowly with age, 185-190 sounds reasonable.

---

Jim

Thanks for the great info everyone! It's good to know that I'm not the only one here has been frustrated with the medical community regarding determining max heart rate.

BTW -- During the prior visit to my cardiologist I met with the resident exercise physiologist. He told me that there was no value to knowing my max heart rate and that to just exercise until I was breathing fairly hard. He didn't even think there was any value in using an HRM!!! Sheesh!!!

---

Jim

i don't think you could ever get your true max heart rate, but you can get pretty close by pushing really hard. depends on whatever you feel comfortable with (for example, if you are a runner, run and if you are a better cyclist, then bike), toward the end of your workout, run on a steep hill and push as hard as you can. harder you push more accurate the data is. or maybe you can wear heart rate monitor during your race. i hit a little over 200 during a half marathon race, even though i'm 30. (so 220-your age is...)you really don't need to pay any money to get your max heart rate if you already have a heart rate monitor. anyway, i don't think max heart rate is not so important to know. people say you should be in the target zone which is 60-80 bla bla bla. first of all, you never know your true max heart rate anyway. so don't go with those numbers. however, heart rate tells you how hard you are working. like biking, the speed doesn't tell you how hard you are working but heart rate does. same for running. so just use it as a guide of how hard you are working. and if you are using a treadmill, you can see your improvement by running at a same speed but heart rate is lower than before etc. hope those make sence to you. sorry for my english. i'm not native...

question on that not knowing you max h.r. so how would you know if you really are working hard? if you don`t have a base # like the max #? everyone`s not the same with regard to max h.r. a 165 ave may sound normal and aerobic to one but a 165 is red line for someone else...i think breathing hard won`t mean much also if you`re after the numbers..just got a bit confused

---

"Pain is NOT temporary,you remember every bit of it"

Jim wrote: He didn't even think there was any value in using an HRM!!! Sheesh!!!

Well, there is no value to using any measurment, if it doesn't have meaning. Unless you are exercising in a certain manner, HR certainly isn't neccessary to have an effective workout. Unless you know what the significance of the numbers, there is no value. I'd argue that there could even be an attenuation of positive training effects if the HR monitor reading is used incorrectly.

I've used one at times, and I like to use it on long races (1/2 and full Iron distances), but, I don't use it any more in training. I used it long enough to know the correlation between my HR and sustainable efforts at various distances, and during a long race I find it beneficial in the early going to have a device to hold me back from pushing harder than I should. I always turn it off toward the end, because once I get a certain distance from the finish, I don't want an externally-produced excuse to slow down. Also, I'm no slave to it in training...mostly because if I miss the training effort goal by going a bit too hard, it's not a big deal. Really good long distance training people might benefit more from a HR monitor than I in order to keep their workload rate in a range that allows them to pile up massive time working out....that's not a problem for me.

---

Quid quid latine dictum sit altum videtur
(That which is said in Latin sounds profound)

The VO2 max test I had done, "only" took me up to like 97% of my max. (I guess the computer has some sorta algorthym for figgering out when this is) So, from that "max" #, I could then determine my actual max, w/o having to fall over in a chest-clutching heap to do so.

I happen to be one of those people for whom the 220-age formula happens to be pretty close to accurate. But that is just dumb luck. For cycling, my max HR is probably a good 6-8 bpm less, as is my LT for bike vs. run.

IMHO, which is worth what you're paying for it, max HR is way less important to know than your LT HR. Max HR (like VO2 Max) is mostly determined by genetics and age, whereas LT is based on training effects.

Most experts these days seem to base training HR zones off of % of LT HR, vs. Max HR. For example, let's say 2 athletes both have 200 as their max HR, but one is very fit and well trained, the other is not. It is possible that the first athlete has a LTHR of 190, whereas the second might only be at 170. HR zones based on % of max (and especially as % of 220-age nonsense) are likely going to have one athlete going too easy in each zone, and the other one going way too hard. Zones based on % of LTHR solve this problem.



As for the original post, assuming no spike due to interference, I'd go w/ what your Polar HRM told you.

---

float , hammer , and jog

"She probably gives her kids a $5 allowance, and then tells them not to spend $10...It must be some kind of chick logic..."

You could call it the Credit Card logic.

I just saw your other post about BP, and I think it might exlplain some of the reactions you got. Don't take this the wrong way, but.... When a 50yo male with a BMI near the "obese" range (yours is 29.4, obese is 30) walks in for a stress test, the tech probably didn't guess you were a highly trained athlete. You probably dont look the part of a triathlete. Yet. :)

That said, she is still an idiot.