To set the scene, I am not competing, I just like to ride my bike. I am 61, reasonably fit (I think) 183cm, 78kg. I bought a hr monitor just for interest really. My resting rate is and always has been 58.
But looking at my stats I appear to have, what looks to me a high average and typically a high max (for my age).
Just wondering how this compares with other average Joes out there.
Below is hopefully two images of my last ride. I felt absolutely fine on the climbs but tired on the last big one, but that was also into wind and rain, on a long soft surface climb.
Looks normal to me if you're making a bit of effort.
If you have any concerns then go and get checked medically
There is no point comparing heart rate to other people, every one is different. The only comparison you can do it to your previous self to look at trends.
I was trying. Mrs McM would say very trying!
I'm younger and shorter but the same weight (so must be fatter) 🙁
A brief look at the heart rate picture you have posted and it looks like what I would expect it too look like.
Of course I'm no expert in matters of the heart.
That’s much higher than me. But i don’t think that means much
I’m 58 with a resting heart rate around 50. I think my max is 171. It just varies between people
From a where i put at least some effort in. I’m a bit zone 2
Looks pretty normal to me. Mine would be a fair bit lower but that’s just random genetics and doesn’t mean much. It’s when it hits zero you need to start worrying!
What are you trying to achieve by monitoring your heart rate? It can be a very useful tool but you do need to actually do something like stay in certain zones for certain times. Zone 2 training is popular at the moment. Your chart looks pretty normal for just going for a ride, but possibly not that useful if training (obviously better than being sat on the sofa, though).
That doesn't look odd to me. There's lots of climbing, you're on a mountain bike, HR is quite an individual things depending on your own physiology so hard to compare with anyone else's. The whole 220 minus your age thing is just a very rough approximation and plenty of people fall outside it.
I never paid any attention to my HR until I had long covid, then I monitored it a bit more carefully. All I really noticed was that my HR goes up when I work hard, drops when I don't and is more jagged when mountain biking in hilly terrain compared to riding on the road, where I make fewer really hard efforts.
If you think something weird is going on, then get medical advice would be my take. Otherwise just enjoy riding your bike.
That suggests you have a high max HR for your age. That's usually a good sign.
The graph also suggests a typical ride where an enthusiastic rider will push on the climbs and spend much of their time riding in zone 3 or 4* because it feels like you're working hard without killing yourself.
If you were keen to get fitter, then it would be worth riding at an easier pace for at least 80% of the time (zone 2).
*The only way to really know would be to get done tests done.
I am not a doctor! But have a keen interest in training and things!
Most folk see that 220-age Max HR thing and use that as the "average". However, almost everyone I know that undertakes some regular physical exercise has a Max HR above that.
The numbers you're mentioning look to be ok for a fit, healthy 61 year old. As @nickjb says though, what are you hoping to learn from them? If it's about training then they're a good basis for setting HR Zones. If it's about overall health then they're not as useful as HRV, VO2 Max etc.
FWIW at age 66, my Max HR is around 178 and RHR around 47.
I'll add mine fwiw...
56 years, 48 resting, 166 max, 46 VO2 max
My max was ruined by chemo; I lost about 18bpm and I've never got it back!
Cheers all.
No concerns and currently no real goals, just monitoring for vague interest, but like a lot here I always want to be fitter than I am. Hills never get easier, you just get up them faster!
But I might look into this zone 2 thing although that could be hard as there is naff all flat around here.
The whole 220 minus your age thing is just a very rough approximation and plenty of people fall outside it.
They don’t. It’s just the prediction INTERVAL is seldom mentioned, just the mean. It’s plus or minus 20 bpm. About 19/20 will be inside the interval.
OP your HR profile looks completely normal. Plus be a little lower when climbing if fitter, but you’d probably just go a little harder for same perceived effort. My routine fitness test is HR for 200 W at approx 20 mph on the flat. And that is about 120-130. Reston HR is 48-50 and I am 57 and 179 cm.
Looks fine to me. My max is around 180 at 54 years old. My average would be higher on the road bike than the MTB.
Hr is highly individual, so context is everything. How does it compare to your similar past efforts? similar averages, similar max, and no chest pain or dizziness ?
Taken in isolation that hr graph looks spot on.
Ooh, this is fun, I'll post one of mine (I'm very much an average Joe).
Yours looks fine to my unqualified eye but as others have said, if you have any concerns or symptoms get looked at professionally!
One of mine:
I'm 57, moderately fit I'd say and very much a recreational, not in training cyclist (with a heavy steel bike). Something that will affect things though is that I've had 3 heart attacks and have a damaged heart and I'm also on a lot of beta blockers that cap my heart rate. I've no idea what I'd be like without them.
I'm 71, on recent threshold rides ave HR 130ish, max HR 160ish, so yours look pretty normal to me for a youngster.
That suggests you have a high max HR for your age. That’s usually a good sign.
@stanley how so? I've not heard that before.
I always understood that folk who have maintained a high max HR, is an indicator that they have kept active. Much like having good grip strength.
Although, some highly trained athletes actually end up with a reduced max HR iirc
My max has always been low, strikingly so when I was younger (rarely seen much over 170), now it's closer to what is considered "normal" as it hasn't dropped much while I've aged. Doesn't really mean much either way, seems to run in my family (along with a very low min, currently around 36 and that's not well trained). I was always reasonably fit but never an exceptional athlete.
I'm 65, those are very similar numbers to mine.
My Boxing Day ride was 146 avg, 173 max.
60 years old with a threshold heart rate of 173-174 and top out at over 190 (was 208 two years ago) and a rating heart rate of 50 bpm. My easy rides I do with a HR of below 150 bpm and can now do this even up 1:4 sections. So what I'm saying is, that it is all very individual
It does differ according to the individual - but there does seem to be a lot of us around 60, with similar profiles...
+1 for asking a doctor.
HR is a wonderful rabbit hole to go down.
We're all different, and the only way to evaluate your HR data is to compare your current stats with your norms over time. So keep gathering HR data and see how your results change over time. Try exercising at Z2 for a period and see what changes. Try some HIT sessions and see what changes. A good guide of fitness that your HR might do is a VO2max fitness test, and monitor that and see how that changes with different programs. You might also be able to monitor/work out your aerobic and anaerobic threshold HR and see if they change w different training.
Your monitor might also give you HR variability data (HRV) possibly as part of the watch sleep monitoring algorithm. This is another good metric to follow, and compare when you had a sober evening versus a big bottle of red w a steak night
Anyone understand HRV? Mines generally over a 100 and declines as the day goes on. Not seen much info related to HRV but not looked that hard either. How does it relate to riding and fitness?
A good place to start.
I attended an academic presentation by an HRV researcher last year and took the opportunity to ask him about the worthiness of the Garmin type devices. He said that while they wouldn't be used for research purposes or comparing individuals they are good enough for monitoring your own trends.
A good place to start.
https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/heart-rate-variability-new-way-track-well-2017112212789
The whole 220 minus your age thing is just a very rough approximation and plenty of people fall outside it.
The 220 - age is an approximation to the best fit line to a population (a better fit line is 208 - 0.78xage but no one can do that in their head). Like all stats it describes the population, not individuals within it. The SD is about 10 bpm, so you will have 98% of the population within +/- 3xSD = +/- 30 bpm of the best fit line. (You can find the original study online from the 1960s IIRC).
That suggests you have a high max HR for your age. That’s usually a good sign.
There is a huge variability between the shape of the stroke of the heartbeat between individuals. Those with high max HRs tend to have fluttering hearts, where the chamber doesn't fully fit before expelling the blood. Those with low max HRs tend to fully fill the chamber. So they achieve the save flow rate, just using different strategies. (I only know this as I ride with several Cardiologists from Papworth Heart Hospital).
Ride around the Peak a couple of weeks ago. I'm 56, averagely fit. I think HR is intensely personal isn't it? I think you can only take the broadest of brush stokes from comparing people. Like "The average range", or the "average max" beyond that, not much.
Ride around the Peak a couple of weeks ago. I’m 56, averagely fit. I think HR is intensely personal isn’t it?
Yes. I'm ten years younger and my max hr is your average!
When I was 20 and playing uni football I'd have struggled to get your max.
I'm 49 (50 in a couple of months), 182cm and 87kg, and relatively fit (ride about 100km a week on average). Resting HR is normally 49/50 BPM.
Here's mine from a pretty average ride yesterday...
and these stats are from the only race I did this year (on a single speed 🙂 )
