Max HR test

I know the 220-age estimate, for which I'd have a max HR of 177.  But I know that's pretty general, so just did the test that Fink describes (a hard 5k run), and my max over the last mile was about 183.  

Is this about right?  Am I doing it right? 

Comments

  • Sounds about right to me.. I get 192 running, I did a differant test that involves a hill 5m warm up gentle then 2 * 1 min hard as posibble. I use the same test on the bike ang get around 178

  • The usual test is to run as hard as you can for three minutes, jog for a couple of mins, repeat two more times. 

    You can do this on a treadmill (which avoids hazards such as kerbs, padestrians and dogs) on an incline, or on a hill.

    You should get your max HR in the last hard repeat.  

    Your MHR could be anything - by the formula mine should be 169, but even a moderate run sends mine to well over 170, often over 180 and on a really steep hill over 190.  On the test mine was 198.

  • Impossible for us to tell you if thats right. Its ballpark for most I suppose. 

    I like hill repeats to do mine like TB and Wilkie say. 

    I'd give it a week or so before repeating it though.  Just that you're asking the question makes me think that you're not convinced.  Do it properly and you won't have doubts. 

     

     

  • Wilkie wrote (see)

    The usual test is to run as hard as you can for three minutes, jog for a couple of mins, repeat two more times. 

    You can do this on a treadmill (which avoids hazards such as kerbs, padestrians and dogs) on an incline, or on a hill. You should get your max HR in the last hard repeat.  

    This is the correct method

  • Thanks everyone.

     

  • related but slightly different is the importance of your resting HR, working to max HR is ok but HRR ( heart rate reserve ) can be a better guide for training: 

    if 2 people have the same max hr and one has a 40 resting and the other 60 there will be a bit of difference in the amount of effort they are applying at the lower end of the scale. this might not add up to much but it could have the same magnitude of error as the difference between calclating your max HR by the 220 - age and doing it properly. imo / im not an expert image

     

  • That certainly makes sense, DK, and this point is important at a point where many are training at the lower HR level, z1 and z2.



    Anyone else has a take on this?
  • Very good point, first time I've heard this mentioned.  But if all zones are derived from  max, difficult to know how to adjust.

Sign In or Register to comment.