It’s very common for articles on fitness to offer a “maximum heart rate” – usually 220 minus your age. And they advise you to exercise at some range of percentages of your “maximum heart rate” which is usually somewhere between 50 and 80 percent.
Is it safe to exercise at 90 or 95 or 100 percent (or 105%) of your “maximum heart rate” assuming that you otherwise feel comfortable and do not have a heart condition?
Or do you risk damaging your heart or even keeling over on the spot?
You won’t last long at those exertion levels. You can do intervals but those are very short bursts. Continued exertion at those levels is called “racing” and will tear you down rather than build you up.
Max HR formulas are estimates, best suited for the sedentary. You really need to self-test or find a sports lab/cardiac unit to do the testing.
I don’t have any cites, but I regularly exercise at or near my maximum HR for extended periods and I’m fine (my max according to that calculation is 188 and I’m often between 175 and 185 for one or more hours with some short (~5 minute) rests). That said, the 220 minus your age is a ballpark figure. Someone who is fit has a higher max HR then what that calculation specifies.
Are you sure about your max? My age-predicted max is 167 but I can still hit 189.
There are a few people who have very high max HRs.
We had a kid where I coach who ran a 6 minute mile and had a HR of 203 at the finish. His PR was 4:55.
ETA: how are you measuring your HR?
I was just saying my max based on the 220-age calculation is 188 (I’m 32), but I think my true max is a bit higher, though I’ve never had it tested. I use a Garmin computer for cycling and running and wear a HR monitor strap. Looking at my last long ride profile, my ‘average HR’ for about two hours is 176. Minimum was 97 and maximum was 191 (my RHR is usually around 48).
My point was the same as yours - the 220 minus age calculation is a ball park for more sedentary people, whereas true max HR’s for people who are more active will probably be a bit higher then what this calculation provides.
If you are at 105% of your max heart rate then it is not your max heart rate.
It is difficult to find out what your max heart rate actually is and on any particular day you may not achieve the same heart rate you have before. I’m not a serious enough cyclist to go to a specialist to find out my max HR, but I know from experience that it is somewhere around the mid 180s. But that is the absolute max I can get, it is what I end up with after climbing a long hill at my maximum sustainable effort level and then sprinting the last bit when it feels like a can’t possibly give any more.
My girlfriend, who is a little younger than me, and a lot lighter, has a heart rate that is consistently about 10 bom higher than mine when we are doing the same exercise. So if we are climbing a hill together at the same speed, her HR might be 170 while mine is 160, but her max HR is in the 190s. On the other hand her resting HR is a bit lower than mine.
Lots of people do exercise at a high percentage of their max HR, though the closer to the max they are, the less sustainable it is, but only a doctor can tell you whether it is safe for you to exercise like that.
I’m guessing your max HR is around 220. That would put your avg. HR for your ride around 80% which is normal for a two hour effort. Unless you’re one of those rare types like Frank Shorter, who was known for running marathons at 85-90% maxHR.
ETA: @ EmAnJ
I don’t know if it is that simple is it? I have friends who aren’t particularly fit but have very high HRs, meanwhile mine is very close to the age predicted rule of thumb but I’m quite fit and race with guys a lot younger than me. I haven’t noticed any great change in my max HR regardless of my current fitness. I do notice it changes a bit on a day to day basis though. Yesterday I was doing 15sec on/off intervals on my trainer at an effort level that normally has my heart rate gradually drift up to 174 before I feel like I can’t do any more but it didn’t go above 166 and I still felt the same as when it goes higher. Probably a bit of fatigue or something had set in.
As others said, the 220 minus age Max Heartrate is one of those estimates along the lines of BMI, 2k calorie diets or other such estimates. It’s probably good enough, and erring far enough in the safe zone, such that beginners and intermediates are getting their heart rate high enough to get some benefit while low enough as to generally be safe. Obviously, people who train at an advanced level will probably be able to exceed those guidelines, but they aren’t aimed at those people.
That is, if you’re just starting out, aside from the fact that you should get a checkup before beginning a regimen, it’s not worth yours or your doctor’s time to get the more precise testing, and you shouldn’t be training at those high levels at that point anyway. Once you get to the point where you would actually get real benefit training at 180+ BPM, you’re probably doing something like training for a particular purpose or event, and would benefit from more precise testing and such anyway.
Speaking personally, I can exercise comfortably above the suggested high range, and can maintain above my supposed maximum for a long period, but I’ve been training for it for some time. Several years ago, I used to train at a level that was too high, I got exhausted sooner and at lower levels of stress, and when I started seeing negative results I altered my routine, and eventually was able to exceed my previous performance with a lower heartrate.
My cardiologist says that if you have a healthy heart, then you can’t over-rev or harm your heart (with some exceptions such as cocaine usage).
On the other hand, if you do hurt your heart, it wasn’t all that healthy. Sorta like revving your car engine to the max. If it runs OK, it’s OK. If it throws a rod or something, well…
In my case I did a max effort racing my daughter up a long, steep hill. I was 46 YO and in great shape - I thought. My heart rate was around 180 BPM when I started feeling chest pain. (My daughter won the race, but was barfing at the top of the hill to do so). Anyway I had a minor heart attack.
I certainly can’t encourage someone over the age of 40 to do an unscientific, unsupervised cardiac stress test like I did. Yes there is a small chance that you could keel over. Death is often the first major symptom of a heart problem. If you are above the age of 40, overweight, have high cholesterol levels, have a family history of heart problems, or some combination of the above, I’d recommend getting a formal cardiac stress test first. I have my heart rate monitor set to start beeping at 160 BPM. Not bad for a 59 YO and I might have to start lowering to 155 BPM as people tend to lose 1 BPM per year as they age.
Lol, that’s why I put “maximum heart rate” in quotes.
Yes, you’re likely correct. I’m pretty sure I am not a freak of nature, it’s just that my max is higher.
What does a higher or lower max rate indicate about your metabolism or fitness? I do weight training regularly, and when I rode my bike regularly I couldn’t sustain anything higher than 136 for very long and I think that max I ever hit was 150. I’m 56. I’ve never been able to hit those high rates. What does that mean?
I have heard of elite athletes who can sustain high heart rates but I don’t know if that’s natural ability or training.
Being an elite athlete has nothing to do with holding a high heart rate.
You probably have an unusually low max but it’s your actual performance that counts. There’s an elite distance runner who has a max HR of only 155(lab tested) yet has no trouble holding his own.
Believe it or not ,almost all world class marathon runners only sustain 75-80% in a marathon.