Resetting Max Heart Rate

1 lurker | 11 watchers

Girlie Jan 2016 11:41am, 10 Jan 2016 10,613 posts	0 Girlie Definietely! - I was curious and also because the max hadn't been reassessed in 9 years, felt it was maybe time to revisit it.
Chrisull Jan 2016 3:48pm, 10 Jan 2016 8,380 posts	0 Chrisull I posted some slightly contentious stuff about this in the sub 3:15 thread, it was in that some studies scientists had seen a max HR INCREASE in racing cyclists as a result of exercise over mesocycle period, and I said that this questioned two of my main understandings: 1) Exercise doesn't affect Max HR (it most certainly does it seems according to the studies - not massively but a couple of beats - OR at the very least it affects your ability to reach it, but that is not what the study conclusion was saying it was saying the former.) 2) Max HR always goes down (it doesn't although the general trend is down - although then we start postulating that there were 2 max hrs, one you could currently reach and one that you could reach under particular conditions. ) Unfortunately Fetch's search on forums no longer seems to allow you to search on keywords posted to forums so I can't find the discussion, it was mid last year on the sub 3:15 thread. I also can't find the study. If someone can show me how to search on keywords in a particular forum, I will pull up the study link. This also led to another couple of things dropping out of this - A Max HR stress will not necessarily reach your max HR - DO SEVERAL. This came around because I had done a Vo2 max test and a bleep test and neither were considered sufficient as tests by people on the HR forum, yet when I did the prescribed stress test, in the manner prescribed , I couldn't get my HR up as high as the VO2 max and bleep test. I suppose ultimately I started questioning HR methods and techniques, not that they were wrong, but there was an awful lot of "accepted knowledge" and I wanted to see the evidence behind the knowledge and it didn't seem to be available. This is because one of the current books "Running Science" by Owen Anderson actually really rains on using resting Heart Rate suggesting you can wake up on any two mornings and your Resting heart rate can vary (without illness) by up to 20 beats and this can play havoc with trying to train to your heart rate. Owen is a very big proponent of short sharp intervals, rather than anything long and slow. I also found in MAFF tests to be totally unreliable as an indicator of fitness that my best MAFF test scores came when I was at my least fit, and during a long period of training, after getting slowly better they suddenly got much worse EVEN though my race times were still improving. There's also a fair degree of skepticism - here's a fairly balanced weighing up of some of the issues: running.competitor.com I think it was agreed finally on 3:15 thread that you should test your Max Heart rate every 6 weeks and be aware of resting heart rate movements (due to stress whatever) and adjust any heart rate training accordingly, and that it does not tell you the whole picture.
Chrisull Jan 2016 3:56pm, 10 Jan 2016 8,381 posts	0 Chrisull PS I'm not trying to argue against El Bee here, as he knows WAY more than me :-), I'm approaching it from the end of I'm a running coach - I'm seeing these improvements and these studies which sometimes show contradictory outcomes, and I'm trying to fit these into a framework to help the runners I work with (including myself).
Chrisull Jan 2016 4:02pm, 10 Jan 2016 8,383 posts	0 Chrisull So if El Bee gets back and says, Chris that study you refer to only had a sample size of 2 cyclists and was conducted by the athletics equivalent of MMR scaremeister Andrew Wakefield, I will hold up my hand and say, ok , I could be wrong.
eL Bee! Jan 2016 5:03pm, 10 Jan 2016 20,022 posts	0 eL Bee! Chris - Studies that are conducted on the higher echelons of elite athletes tend to apply most directly to that particular group of people. I'll be interested to find that study for its academic interest. I approach this particular subject from a more medically based and 'applying to the majority of people' perspective. My background (apart from as a runner and cyclist) is from the perspective of working as a Cardiac Intensive Care Nurse - so the principles of Cardiac Function, at rest, and under stress as well as the effects of regularly increased activity, rather than the minutiae of what happens to the genetic performance outliers at the limits of their performance. Difficult to comment on a study I haven't read - but again whether there is any great benefit in extrapolating results from a very specialised perspective to apply to those of us who are just hobbyists, is something I am not entirely convinced about.
plodding hippo Jan 2016 6:19pm, 10 Jan 2016 50,916 posts	0 plodding hippo Ill just stick to the 210 I saw many moons ago during an aerobics class Not that I use a HRM.I can tell what my HR is by how i feel
hurricanehamlyn Jan 2016 9:45pm, 10 Jan 2016 144 posts	0 hurricanehamlyn I agree that the fitter you are the harder it is to hit your max HR and this is born out by advice I have read in books on the subject.
minardi Jan 2016 9:46am, 11 Jan 2016 3,304 posts	0 minardi I've just bought a strap for my 310xt and was told that I should be able to get into the 2xx eventually - seeing as my eyes on stalks training can't get it higher than 162, I should be in for some interesting training! I'm choosing to believe that it is cos I am fit
eL Bee! Jan 2016 1:26pm, 11 Jan 2016 20,023 posts	0 eL Bee! Minardi. The person that told you that was talking rubbish. MaxHR in the 200s in someone of your age is unusual although it does happen. And don't think of it as an aspirational figure either.
minardi Jan 2016 1:36pm, 11 Jan 2016 3,306 posts	0 minardi OK, thanks Mr Bee