Hi,
If I run Intervals I can get my HR up to 180. I can hold a 170+ HR for a 5 KM. On the bike I can only get my HR up on the hills and if in the Aero posistion if I get it up to 150 I feel like I may pass out due to the pain. I run more that I bike. Is it just that I haven’t developed all the capillaries, etc. due to lack of cycling?
I’m sure the ex phys experts can fill in more details, but I think I remember hearing that Max HR is sport specific and usually lower for cycling than running.
Anecdotally, whether that is true or not about Max HR, I know that–at the same perceived level of exertion–my average HR during a running session is a lot higher than my average HR during a bike session (by 20bpm or so).
Apparently even lower for swimming too.
Probably so. I’m such a terrible swimmer, though, that I find it difficult to compare perceived level of exertion in swimming workouts with the others. And, I don’t wear my HRM in the pool so I don’t have my swim average HR’s to compare.
I have the same thing. My run threshold is around 167 bpm, my bike threshhold is around 157 bpm. I think on average people’s biking HRs tend to be 10-15 bpm lower at the same RPE.
per my polar, bike max is 172, run max 201. I am male, 30 yo.
10 beats lower for a non weight bearing activity like cycling is normal compared to running
.
With running the length of your body is unsupported so you are using more muscle groups. In cycling part of your body is supported partly by the bike and you are using fewer muscle groups.
10 beats lower for a non weight bearing activity like cycling is normal compared to running
No it’s not… it’s commonly like that because most people are more able to push themselves to where the heart is the limiter on their exercise in running compared to cycling. It’s not “normal” or particularly related to weight bearing, it’s just down to training, fitness and limits on performance.
On tuesday, I did a 40minute crit - I was off the back the entire race, but working to keep the bunch in sight my average heart rate was 175, max 180. My last 3mile run, all out pushing it, my average was 169, max 175. The last hill session, the HR max was 176.
I’ve lost a lot of running fitness recently, and that’s the limiter on the HR when running - a year ago when I was much less bike fit, and much more run fit, I could do those same 3miles with a 179 average, and max out at 185.
interesting, i was told that from a coach when I was using soley HR for pacing on bike and run training (now I use power on the bike and a combo of pace/HR on the run) where the zones we set were 10 beats lower for biking than running (doesn’t mean it’s correct).
I will say that running in race conditions in a short race or tri if my HR get’s into the mid 180’s I can only sustain that for about 2 minutes and on the bike if I get to the mid 170’s when trying to bridge a gap (really the only time I have been able to get there on the bike) I can only hold that for about the same so it seems to hold true for me unless it has to do with being more run fit at high intensities than bike fit at high intensities, I will be curious to hear what others say…
I’m sure the ex phys experts can fill in more details, but I think I remember hearing that Max HR is sport specific and usually lower for cycling than running.
Anecdotally, whether that is true or not about Max HR, I know that–at the same perceived level of exertion–my average HR during a running session is a lot higher than my average HR during a bike session (by 20bpm or so).
100% wrong, no such thing as sport specific Max HR. This was beat to death on a recent thread. If you think you have a “BIKE MAX” of say 150, let’s get there and I’ll put a gun to your head and see if we can’t raise that number a bit.
I have no problem hitting the same max running or on the bike, if you can’t it’s because you lack bike fitness.
Max is Max, period.
JJ
x2, you use more muscle groups while running so it drives your HR up higher, cycling is predominantly a legs only activity. Field test your threshold in both activities to find appropriate target heart rate zones for them.
I’m sure the ex phys experts can fill in more details, but I think I remember hearing that Max HR is sport specific and usually lower for cycling than running.
Anecdotally, whether that is true or not about Max HR, I know that–at the same perceived level of exertion–my average HR during a running session is a lot higher than my average HR during a bike session (by 20bpm or so).
100% wrong, no such thing as sport specific Max HR. This was beat to death on a recent thread. If you think you have a “BIKE MAX” of say 150, let’s get there and I’ll put a gun to your head and see if we can’t raise that number a bit.
I have no problem hitting the same max running or on the bike, if you can’t it’s because you lack bike fitness.
Max is Max, period.
JJ
So I went back and read the thread from a few weeks ago. I’m not sure that I would characterize this issue as “beat to death” other than to say that you: 1) called the ACSM wrong without providing a single piece of scientific evidence to support your claim, and 2) continued to post berating threads until the other members gave up and just quit posting. I’m glad to see that I’m now at least the second person you’ve called “100% wrong.”
You say that “Max is Max, period” and that “Max HR is not open to interpretation” yet there are obviously many interpretations of what Max HR means or this wouldn’t be an issue. For my purposes–and for the purposes of many other posters on here–the only use we have for a Max HR is so we can then calculate %'s based off that number so we can categorize our workouts as being recovery, LT, or whatever. I have personally performed heart rate tests both using run and bike workouts and I come out with slightly different numbers. Therefore, I calculate my %'s using those slightly different numbers. If the highest I can get my HR to on the bike is 187 then I want to calculate my % based on 187 regardless of what HR I can achieve while running or swimming or anything else. For some people, their maximum achievable HR may be the same whether they are biking or running. They can calculate their %'s using the same number; I don’t care. I’m not here to argue semantics between maximum achievable heart rate for a given activity vs the absolute maximum heart rate one can achieve. I made my post because I was trying to help the OP out. Where in your post did you do that?
And FWIW, I’m perfectly content for us to agree to disagree so feel free no to post any more berating replies.
10 beats lower for a non weight bearing activity like cycling is normal compared to running
x2
I’ve had my Lactate zones done at the Boulder Center for Sports Medecine (they kind of know what they are doing…)
and they also give a guideline of 8-10 beats higher for running than Cycling.
As has been stated, their explanation is that more muscles are in use running than cycling.
.
I’m sure the ex phys experts can fill in more details, but I think I remember hearing that Max HR is sport specific and usually lower for cycling than running.
Anecdotally, whether that is true or not about Max HR, I know that–at the same perceived level of exertion–my average HR during a running session is a lot higher than my average HR during a bike session (by 20bpm or so).
100% wrong, no such thing as sport specific Max HR. This was beat to death on a recent thread. If you think you have a “BIKE MAX” of say 150, let’s get there and I’ll put a gun to your head and see if we can’t raise that number a bit.
I have no problem hitting the same max running or on the bike, if you can’t it’s because you lack bike fitness.
Max is Max, period.
JJ
@jsquared: i think your 100% right.
But, I would bet a typical triathlete will see their highest HR numbers on the running leg.
@jsquared: i think your 100% right.
But, I would bet a typical triathlete will see their highest HR numbers on the running leg.
No doubt that the majority of triathletes can hold a higher HR running than cycling but we’re talking AT, LT, and PE here which are sport specific. But as the self appointed ST “sport specific max HR” policeman I always get the hairs up on the back of my neck when I hear that term because it’s just plain idiotic. HTFU on the bike and you’ll find that theoretical max has mysteriously gone up.
JJ
Max HR is max HR. Whether you can hit it in one sport or the other is dependent upon your fitness, physiology, and your ability to push. Most people see a difference of 10 beats (+/-) on the bike and run, but this is mainly due to either (or both) the above mentioned note that running requires more muscles used for support than does cycling and/or a more adapted run fitness than cycling. True cyclists or those from a heavy cycling background may have an achieved/percieved max HR higher on the bike than the run, and will generally have a higher LT (more important than max HR) on the bike. Heavier people will also have a higher sustained HR for a given effort level on the run vs the bike.
Sport fitness is a big contributor here. I don’t test for max HR because it’s generally not a useful number, but I do test LT. I’ve tested runners getting into triathlon who have a 30 beat difference between run and bike LT, and cyclist who have a 15 beat diff the other way.
X2
I have hit similar max HRs for all 3 disciplines, but my LT for the run is about 3-5 beats higher than the bike. The difference used to be closer to 10 beats, but I have done a good amount of threshold work on the bike in the last year, and the numbers continue to converge.
If your swimming max HR is lower than your running max HR, there aren’t enough sharks in your pool.
