Heart rate with age

Triathlon Forum
1

I’ve been using a HRM for training for ~27 years now, starting when I was in my young 20’s. I’m now nearly 49, and although I’ve never “not trained” I’m stepping it back up a little bit right now compared to the last few years of focusing on kids rather than racing

From my observation, it seems my HR for a given running speed seems relatively consistent over the years. For example, in my 20’s an 8 minute/mile pace was an easy run at ~165bpm of HR. These days it feels like a pretty solid tempo to me, and my HR might still settle around 165bpm for a few miles that I could hold it. The high HR paces I ran in my 20’s are now out of reach for any aerobic distance. There are some weight fluctuations to account for but not too severe :-). Max HR when in 20’s was observed at about 204, while now I would “predict” about 185 but haven’t tested it. RHR is around the same at ~50bpm.

It seems sort of logical that your oxygen needs for a given pace would stay consistent with age, and therefore the HR for a given pace is independent of age, and this seems to be consistent with my crude observations. Is this an accurate conclusion? I’ve never heard it stated this way.

The downside is that I don’t think there is much you can do about decreasing max HR with age, so performance will automatically go down as one moves into higher HR zones for a given pace. I did read one expert say that Max HR does not decrease with age unless you are sedentary, but that seems to be counter to a lot of other information, as well as my own experience. But if my conclusion above is accurate, it seems I could interpolate my decreasing running pace for a HR zone as I get older, assuming consistent training.

To put it another way, I should not hold out hope that I will be able to run the same times and distances I ran when I was younger but now at a significantly lower HR (baring some efficiency breakthrough e.g. weight loss).

http://www.howtobefit.com/determine-maximum-heart-rate.htm

2

I am 57. I also find that my paces are the same per given hr. from when I was younger, just my zones changed for the same reason you stated

3

I started to run later in life so I haven’t data going that far but in the last 12 years my HRmax has decreased ~10bpm and something similar has happened to HR at sub-maximal paces, luckily the paces not so much:
2005 - 42yo - 178HRmax - 37:58 10k @ 159bpm
2017 - 54yo - 168HRmax - 38:23 10k @ 149bpm
.

4

How are you deteriming your max heart rate and how frequently do you do this?

5

I’ve been using a HRM for training for ~27 years now, starting when I was in my young 20’s. I’m now nearly 49, and although I’ve never “not trained” I’m stepping it back up a little bit right now compared to the last few years of focusing on kids rather than racing

From my observation, it seems my HR for a given running speed seems relatively consistent over the years. For example, in my 20’s an 8 minute/mile pace was an easy run at ~165bpm of HR. These days it feels like a pretty solid tempo to me, and my HR might still settle around 165bpm for a few miles that I could hold it. The high HR paces I ran in my 20’s are now out of reach for any aerobic distance. There are some weight fluctuations to account for but not too severe :-). Max HR when in 20’s was observed at about 204, while now I would “predict” about 185 but haven’t tested it. RHR is around the same at ~50bpm.

It seems sort of logical that your oxygen needs for a given pace would stay consistent with age, and therefore the HR for a given pace is independent of age, and this seems to be consistent with my crude observations. Is this an accurate conclusion? I’ve never heard it stated this way.

The downside is that I don’t think there is much you can do about decreasing max HR with age, so performance will automatically go down as one moves into higher HR zones for a given pace. I did read one expert say that Max HR does not decrease with age unless you are sedentary, but that seems to be counter to a lot of other information, as well as my own experience. But if my conclusion above is accurate, it seems I could interpolate my decreasing running pace for a HR zone as I get older, assuming consistent training.

To put it another way, I should not hold out hope that I will be able to run the same times and distances I ran when I was younger but now at a significantly lower HR (baring some efficiency breakthrough e.g. weight loss).

http://www.howtobefit.com/...ximum-heart-rate.htm
Certainly fitness goes down as we age, but that’s a complicated issue. The decrease in fitness is not simply a matter of decreased max heart rate, us oldsters are falling apart in all sorts of ways. Go track down Joe Friel’s book, “Fast after 50”.

Max HR does decrease with age. Hard to imagine an “expert” would say otherwise. I’m 55. I’ve been running pretty seriously since I was 14 and cycling since I was 20. Did both for college teams. I was “useful” in college but never among the best long distance guys or cyclists for the 2 major universities. I first started paying attention to my heart rate at age 30 and could hit 200 no problem. Now I’m at about 175+BPM running and 170+ cycling.

6

There is a published study (I don"t have the source with me) that indicated the SA node as an issue with not being able to fire as frequently as it did years earlier.

7

How are you deteriming your max heart rate and how frequently do you do this?

From the highest HR I see after short(ish) maximal efforts when well rested, this year was at the end of a 1500m test following several easy days, quite infrequently TBH.

8

getting faster as you get holder will depend of how hard you train when in your 20-30s…how smart you trained at that time and how good your training/lifestyle is now.

for exemple, i do have a athletes that turn 47 and ran a PB of 3:07 marathon off the bike at Ironman TX. that is the best performance he as done in 25 years of triathlon. The difference, very smart training and sticking to the plan. something he had never completely done year ago.

as you get holder, you have no choice but to get clever and use your experience to compensate for the physical ability that are regressing. But some very solid performance are definitely possible… but the receipt need to be changed…

9

What does it go down as we age specifically. I’m tired of the answer cause “we got older” . I want the bio-mechanical reason

10

What does it go down as we age specifically. I’m tired of the answer cause “we got older” . I want the bio-mechanical reasonGet the Joe Friel book.

11

I’m also your age and have been consitantly training and measuring HR since 2006. My natural HR is lower then yours, at 40 I ran a 2:58 at Boston with an average HR of around 165. Now at almost 49 I can barely hold an average of 160 for a 1:24 open half.

12

Max HR when in 20’s was observed at about 204, while now I would “predict” about 185 but haven’t tested it. RHR is around the same at ~50bpm.
…
The downside is that I don’t think there is much you can do about decreasing max HR with age
N=1

My tested MaxHR is the same now, as it was in 1992: 193bpm. My tested aerobic threshold number has not changed, either, during this time. What has changed: my ability to generate the same levels of power—at the same heart rates for the same durations—as I was doing 25 years ago.

I did read one expert say that Max HR does not decrease with age unless you are sedentary, but that seems to be counter to a lot of other information, as well as my own experience.

I’d have to agree w/ no decrease in MaxHR. My current training volume is 50-75% of what I was doing in my 20s and most of my 30s. But again, N=1.

When you do get your intensity, and volume, back up, let us know if your MaxHR (and AT, etc.) has really gone down, or if you can still hit >200bpm MaxHR.

13

I’m a little skeptical of this scenario mainly because the technology for the past 20+ years that provide heart rate monitoring during activities has changed quite drastically. Anyway my input is that I am 19 years old and during most runs I average about 180BPM. My pace is usually around 6:10 - 6:15 for 8-12 miles. Curious as to what your research can potentially show.

14

My max observed HR is 172 and even at my current age I have seen it hit 170 albeit VERY briefly.

15

I’m a little skeptical of this scenario mainly because the technology for the past 20+ years that provide heart rate monitoring during activities has changed quite drastically.

Are you skeptical of all science & technology that’s older than you?

Measured heart rate: I did field testing solo, and also in a university research setting in my 20s…30s…40s.
I have a high level of confidence (+/-3bpm) in the correlation between the data which I’ve collected, and which has been collected for me, about me.

Measured power output: same standardized measuring tools (with improvements in both accuracy and precision over the years). I have a high level of confidence in the measured data.

16

I’m a little skeptical of this scenario mainly because the technology for the past 20+ years that provide heart rate monitoring during activities has changed quite drastically.

Are you skeptical of all science & technology that’s older than you?

Measured heart rate: I did field testing solo, and also in a university research setting in my 20s…30s…40s.
I have a high level of confidence (+/-3bpm) in the correlation between the data which I’ve collected, and which has been collected for me, about me.

Measured power output: same standardized measuring tools (with improvements in both accuracy and precision over the years). I have a high level of confidence in the measured data.

Alright, relax there wasn’t trying to offend your research. The average person usually isn’t getting their heart rate tested with such technology so for your case I’d agree your results are likely accurate. However, for many other cases I stand by my opinion of being skeptical unless I am wrong of heart rate monitors not changing in the past 20-30 years. I know my heart rate monitor goes all over the place some days while others it is flawless (to my knowledge).

To answer your question, of course I’m skeptical of technology that’s older than me and for good reason. Technology has changed more in 20-30 years than the human species has in centuries.

17

max hr expected to decline with age, but this is individual and may vary. Jack Daniels did a 25-year follow up on some guys he’d tested earlier and reported, “another had a max HR of 186 as a 25 year old and 192 as a 50 year old” (this in a letsrun post, so no better citation than that I fear).

I did a treadmill stress test in 2005 and hit 168, so fairly confident that was a well-measured max. Saw hrs in the low 170s while skate skiing at altitude.

Yesterday in the pool after 5x200 on 3:15 my HR was 168… so from age 45 to 57 it does not seem to have changed much.

Never measured max hr as a young man so who knows…

8min/mi used to be my marathon stagger pace, survival jog to the finish. Now it’s 5k race pace…

18

I trust the accuracy of my old 1990’s HRM (cheap clunky Performance Bicycle brand) much more than my memory of what it was telling me. Until the IR HRM’s came out recently this technology had not changed much other than miniaturization and more useless features. I’ve always had to use judgment on whether the readings are correct or not, it’s usually pretty obvious if you watch it vigilantly. The IR sensor on my Fenix 5 seems to be less affected by heavy sweat and electromagnetic interference, but I still see odd readings from time to time.

From the various input I’m hearing, it seems the relationship I’m currently observing between Pace and HR independent of Age may be just a coincidence of my current fitness level. It will be interesting to see if I can improve to faster paces and the same HR or lower, as well as maintaining higher HR for longer.

19

I’m also your age and have been consitantly training and measuring HR since 2006. My natural HR is lower then yours, at 40 I ran a 2:58 at Boston with an average HR of around 165. Now at almost 49 I can barely hold an average of 160 for a 1:24 open half.

Yes, this.

Mine is a bit lower still.
I did a hilly 30k in '06 & '07, and my avg HR was about 160 for the ~2hrs.
Did a 2:49 at Philly in '09 at an avg of 155.

These days, 155-160 is more like Tempo HR, and I can’t hold that for even an hour anymore. Sigh.

I want to say I read someplace that max HR declines at about 1% / year on average, and while consistent training can slow that rate of decline, nothing can stop it entirely.

Except death.
Father Time is undefeated, he always wins eventually.

20

I think the rule of thumb is a 1bpm reduction in HRmax per year.
Thus the 220-age formula for estimating HRmax. I know that formula is not exactly reliable for actual HRmax but I think the 1bpm/year part is not far off.