You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Recently started using a Garmin watch, and my Max heart rate is set up as 220-my age, which is the default.
However, I regularly see a max HR recorded on my rides that's higher than that.. should I update my max to that number?
(I realise it's all fairly inaccurate with just the watch anyhow)
Any "formula" that attempts to categorise such a wildly varying figure is unlikely to be accurate. I'm 60 so according to the 220-age "formula" my MHR should be 160. So how come I can hold my HR at 177 for over a minute? That puts my true MHR in the 185-190 range meaning that if I was to do Heart Zone based training I'd consistently be in the wrong zone.
The only way you can truly determine your MHR is through a ramp test and they aren't pleasant.
Yes you should. 220-age is just a rule of thumb starting point. Just watch for obvious spurious values when setting the max.
You should get better feedback on which training zone you are in with the max HR set to your individual value.
That formula has proven to be completely unreliable.
Use your observed MHR and update as appropriate.
Don't rely on the wrist based heart rate monitor on Garmin Watches as they are completely unreliable in my experience. After eleven emails with Garmin 'support' they finally accepted that the heart rate meter was underestimating my heart rate and offered me a free chest strap (which I already had, but had upgraded my watch in order to use wrist based meter, so not very happy). I do find the chest strap meters accurate. If the chest meter is reading higher heart rates than your theoretical max when you are on your bike, then your actual max heart rate is higher than the theoretical one based on 220 minus age.
How much higher are we talking?
Whilst all of the above is valid, I'm had garmin straps read wildly inaccurate figures (e.g. close to max hr when perceived effort is about a 3) when the battery is on the way out.
Have you got something else that can test the watch?
What specsuk said, 100% spot on.
Optical sensors are only any good for sedentary measure, rest hr etc. If you do any physical activity at all, particularly rattling along on a bike, a chest strap is a necessity.
Optical heart rate works for some people, chest straps work for some people. Depends on how you wear it, and what sort of sports you agree doing.
For wrist, usually has to be quite snug. And worth trying different places, eg further up the arm or on the inside.
jimdubleyou
Subscriber
How much higher are we talking?Whilst all of the above is valid, I’m had garmin straps read wildly inaccurate figures (e.g. close to max hr when perceived effort is about a 3) when the battery is on the way out.
Have you got something else that can test the watch?
About 10bpm higher, and was at the highest point of the ride, after doing all the climbing and running out of puff making one last valiant effort to get up the steepest bit, so reasonably happy that I was maxed out.
I know a chest strap would be more accurate, will probably get one eventually.
The wrist monitor works quite well for me, I've got very pale skin though.
I'd definitely trust the HRM on my watch more than 220-age.
prawny
I’ve got very pale skin though.
Yeah, I'm practically transparent too 🙂
I do 220 minus my age but for every year past 30, only take 0'5 per year.
on the Edge 520 you can set it to update your max HR automatically based on what it has recorded, maybe the watch has a similar function.