Your Heart Rate Is Not My Heart Rate (And Why That’s Important)
By Lars Hundley
Last week’s article about my AC failure and Zwift racing sparked an interesting response. One reader unsubscribed with this parting shot: “Reading about that guy’s AC failure and his disappointment not to exceed 165 bpm confirmed that your publication and my cycling experience occupy separate universes.”
I get it. When you see someone lamenting they “only” hit 165 bpm, it might seem like we’re not even doing the same sport. But here’s the thing: we are. Heart rates vary widely, and especially between different age groups.
Before I go further, let me be clear: I’m not a doctor or cardiologist. This isn’t medical advice. Always defer to your healthcare providers who know you personally rather than some guy on the Internet writing about heart rates. What I want to share is why understanding YOUR heart rate matters. Many of our RBR readers are in their 60s, 70s, and even 80s and have been with us since the early 2000s, and are as interested in heart health as I am. I love reading all their terrific comments each week.
The Point Wasn’t the Number
When I shared those heart rate charts, the point wasn’t that 165 bpm is a low or high heart rate. The point was that I couldn’t reach MY OWN Zone 4. After 13 plus years of recording all of my rides on Strava, I know what’s normal for me. I know how a typical perceived effort lines up with a certain heart rate range on my rides. I’ve watched my maximum heart rate decline from the low 190s in 2011 to the low 180s today. That’s normal aging, even with consistent training.
Your own Zone 4 might start at 130 bpm. Someone else’s might start at 175 bpm. Both are completely valid. What matters is knowing YOUR baseline and YOUR patterns. We have readers of all ages.
Why “220 Minus Age” Isn’t Very Useful
If you’re still using that old “220 minus your age” formula, please stop. The study “Revisiting age-predicted maximal heart rate: Can it be used as a valid measure of effort?” from Ball State University and the FRIEND Registry examined nearly 5,000 healthy subjects and concluded that the prediction error from age-based formulas is “unacceptably high.” The researchers explicitly stated that “using APMHR in this capacity should be discouraged.”
Our own Dr. Gabe Mirkin has written extensively about this topic, noting that the standard formula “is based on averages and is not accurate” and that “your actual maximum heart rate depends more on the strength of your legs than it does on the strength of your heart.” He points to the same Ball State research showing that those who exercised regularly had the least drop in their maximum heart rates over time, regardless of age.
The max heart rate calculator from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology’s Cardiac Exercise Research Group puts it even more bluntly. “The variation in maximum heart rate within age groups is fairly large. Genetics contribute more to maximum heart rate than physical fitness.” They emphasize that “it’s hard to make a calculator that can estimate maximum heart rate precisely.”
At 56 years old, the old 220 formula says my overall max should be 164. Yet I can still hit 180 plus during hard efforts. If I trained by an out of date formula rather than paying attention to my own body and heart rate monitor data, I’d be riding at a low perceived effort and getting dropped on every ride. And by the way, that so-called “high” heart rate doesn’t mean I’m a terrific cyclist! I am an extremely mediocre Zwift racer, currently stuck in the C category.
Your Patterns Are Your Early Warning System
Here’s why all of this stuff matters. One of our readers wrote to us about how he noticed his performance suddenly nosedive during what should have been a normal pace group ride. He went to his doctor, who ordered tests that revealed an 80% blockage in his “widowmaker” artery. He got two stents in April 2024. He paid close attention to how he was feeling and had enough cycling experience to recognize something was wrong!
Stories like that are why I pay attention both to my numbers and how I’m feeling. I check my blood pressure regularly. I use a sauna four times per week, both for relaxation and also for its proven cardiovascular benefits. I have even paid out of pocket for an arterial sonogram to check for plaques after a friend of mine had a heart attack. I care intensely about my own health, and hope that you do too.
Yes, High Intensity Can Be Safe (and Beneficial) for Older Athletes
Many older cyclists worry about pushing into higher heart rate zones. Is it safe? Is it beneficial? The research is encouraging.
The study “High-Intensity Interval Training in Older Adults: a Scoping Review” published in 2021 examined HIIT programs in adults 65 and older. The analysis found that HIIT was both feasible and safe when properly implemented. The cardiovascular improvements were associated with about a 22% reduction in all-cause mortality. That’s not a typo – twenty-two percent.
Even more impressive, a 2024 study titled “Superior effect of long-term community-based high-intensity interval training on cardiovascular and functional parameters in low-income older women” examined 92 elderly women. The research found that high-intensity interval training combined with resistance training provided superior cardiovascular benefits compared to moderate exercise. The training actually slowed vascular aging, with improvements lasting three months after the program ended.
The key word here is “properly implemented.” These weren’t people jumping off the couch into sprint intervals. They were supervised, progressive programs. But they prove that intensity isn’t just for the young.
The Bottom Line
We all occupy the same cycling universe. We’re all working to maintain or improve our fitness, to keep riding the bikes we love, to stay healthy and active as we age. The difference is that we’re each working with our own unique cardiovascular system.
My 180 bpm threshold effort isn’t “better” than someone else’s 130 bpm threshold effort. We’re both pushing ourselves appropriately for our individual physiology. What matters is that we know our numbers, track our patterns, and notice when something changes.
Your heart rate zones are as individual as your fingerprint. The goal isn’t to match someone else’s numbers – it’s to understand your own. Because when you know your baseline, you’ll know when something’s off. And that knowledge might just save your life.
Readers, I am curious about your thoughts on your heart rate max or zones, whether you use a heart rate monitor, and if you’ve ever made any health discoveries by monitoring your training data. Let us know in the comments.
Good article! Eight years ago I had quintuple bypass surgery after “knowing something was wrong” initial tests showed nothing. Presently I’m 81 and my cardiologist fully supports my interval training and hard bike rides. I regularly push my heart rate into the 150s and recently kept it above 140 for about forty minutes on a big ride.
Lars, I was very glad to read your column about AC failure and Zwift racing.
I’m 73. For about five years I was a member of ZRL racing team, a great group of riders, all of whom are twenty or more years younger than I am. I had fun, though I quickly realized that my principle contribution to the team was to provide “finish points” to help our totals; my personal goal was to be the NEXT to last finisher on our team, which I sometimes managed. In those intense races, my heart rate often reached 170 and could go higher. That felt ok sometimes, but at others I needed to back off for a while. Often in those intense races, I discovered that beyond my general fitness, the conditions around me in my upstairs cycling “cave” made a very big difference in my capacity to sustain. If the room was too warm, keeping up was far harder. Your experience rang true.
I stopped team racing on Zwift last year, largely because we moved from Minnesota–where there are five months of winter–to the edge of the Blue Ridge in South Carolina, which means I can ride outside all year. And yes, when it’s really here, we ride early in the morning when there’s a bit natural AC. Thanks again for good column.
Bill Craft
I use a heart rate monitor on all my rides. It’s definitely a great indicator of effort and how I’m feeling for a given ride. At 50 years old, my max is in the mid 180’s so I base my training on the appropriate zones along with power data. I raced years ago but took an 11 year break as I got heavily into powerlifting. I started back on the bike this past january and it’s been great seeing improvement to my riding and cardio health.
What a great article. I have personally struggled with always running a high heart rate while cycling. It was frustrating to see my peers with a heart rate well below mine until I understood that heart rates are different for each individual. After working with my cardiologist over the past two years, I better understand where I need to be during my workouts. Thanks again for a fantastic article and keep the rubber side down….
Yes, I’ve tracked my HR forever. 5 years ago I had the same experience. HR maximum was getting lower on my hard climbs. Short version, after many tests I ended up with open heart surgery. 5 bypasses & a aortic valve replacement. Started riding again 3 months after surgery. Not sure why but my maximum HR isn’t as high as b4 nor my strength. Now it’s in the middle 150’s. Still do long rides, Up to 75 miles but mainly 40-50 miles. 5,000 plus miles a year. Male rider & 76 years old.
I am a 72 year old life long cycling male and ride always with a heart rate. Im not sure exactly why since im sure my max heart rate is somewhere around 160 and I usually ride in the 115 to 130 zone. I do know that when faced with a tough extended hill climb – I need to keep my HR under 140 or I will “blow up” as they say. As an aging cyclist ( slowing down and in denial) it just gives me peace of mind keeping an eye on it.
I agree the most important thing is to use HR for your own intra-person comparisons. Sudden drop off in HRmax or mismatch between HR and perceived effort are important to notice and should trigger seeking help from a medico. Comparisons between one person and another are not that useful and could be harmful. I’ve had three riding buddies now who have picked things up, just based on the above. One had paroxysmal AF, one had a critical lesion in his R coronary artery and a third had sudden deterioration in performance which flagged the development of giant cell arthritis. Being aware of their normal performance, and then noticing deterioration resulted in ealry diagnosis and better outcomes.
Treadmill tests in my 30s and 40s put me close to the 220-age formula. At 78, I find steep ascents more challenging, so I adapt, adjust, and seek lower gears. So, here, years into the training thing, I’m going to see, medically, if things are ok.
I hear you David. I just installed lower gearing on my gravel bike yesterday, and my road bike will be next. I’ll be doing the same on my girlfriend’s gravel bike when the parts get here next week. The natural progression as we age is that our legs get smaller and our rear cogs get bigger. 😉
Electric bikes are not a lot of exercise. Just diagnosed with a serious cardiac issue yesterday when 1) road 30 miles 2) ran out of battery before the last rise 3) was soaked with 10 miles of sprinkles THEN had a stress echo showing Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. Making a bumper sticker for the car “I brake for sudden cardiac death…we hope”.
Sudden cardiac loads are uncomfortable. Literally tyeing shoes is worse than any bicycling.
And maximal heart rate is a breeze for me, The cardiologist told me I would have to do several maneuvers after reaching maximum so I only hit 10% over the predicted when I just did more than that in the gym.
I’m barely symptomatic and with weight loss I’m not symptomatic. Electric biking is totally stress free (yeah, except for the cars, Of Course).
We are going to hit a time when people with a restriction on driving are going to be doing electric biking.
Does that mean we’re going to get the stink eye at the biker bars because we are too soft or too outlaw?
I disagree with your comment about e bikes being “stress free”. I ride with as much or more effort on my e bike as I do on my analog bike! The effort one uses on an e bike is only dependent on the riders decision to “ride” or relax. Recently did 2 rides on consecutive days of 30 miles. Average heart rate and power were basically identical. The difference? 15 minutes faster on the e bike!
At 83 yrs I am mostly riding my mountain bike on challenging trails in North Georgia after years of road racing, 100-200 mile rides, weekly 30-70 mile training rides. And after all this my max HR is around 150, Years ago at 65 yrs it was around 155, so it hasn’t changed much. Recently , I took a particular supplement ( containing arguna bark ) which promised to boost cardiac output ( not sure how) and my max HR went to 170-180 and I became hypoxic — had to stop until HR recovered. So watch out for promising supplements .
I regularly ride my e-bike and my road bike and monitor my heart rate on both. I generally have a slightly higher heart rate with my e-bike because I tend to work harder to keep my speed up. At 81 it’s easy to give yourself excuses for going slow on the road bike. Can’t really make excuses with the e-bike so usually work harder, have a higher heart rate and burn more calories.
Good article and it was nice to see references I could access. My personal concern is safety. I’m in my 80th year, my calculated Max HR is 140-155 depending upon formula you use. My actual seems to be 144-146, based on riding up long, steep hills or chasing a faster rider for a few miles. My CAC score is 1300 [lots of arterial plaque-not good]. I’m trying to determine what are safe levels for interval training for me. Anyone aware of published peer-reviewed studies on safety guidelines?.
For reference, the standard deviation on the various “age and max heart rate” formulas is large. One of the “best” formulas has a SD of 7 bpm, meaning that 95% of people will be within about 30 bpm of the prediction. In other words: useless. I rode with a heart rate monitor for a few years doing time trials, and what I learned was “this is what my HR is when I’m feeling like this.” Perceived exertion works pretty well for most of us.
Monitoring my HR, especially during indoor rowing and cycling, led me to my cardiologist after my HR wasn’t going down quickly after a tough effort (and I was also a bit short of breath). Turns out I had atrial fibrillation, which led to my ablation, and now my 69+ year old heart is working fine again. But keeping tabs on your vital signs and your body in general is a necessity, especially as you age.
Great article! I’m a long-time runner who has more recently shifted to bike riding. But that didn’t save me from a triple by-pass back in 2004, when I was 49 years old. My cardiologist cleared me for running but only while using a heart rate monitor, which I have used ever since. I soon discovered my maximum heart rate was higher when running than when riding a bike, which was confirmed in some articles I read. I also quickly figured out the 220-age maximum is a useless number. Now, at age 70, my heart rate can still peak around 165-170 when running if I push it (but I am flogged when it does). I don’t track it as closely when riding, but I rarely get over 140. The great thing about using a HRM for so many years is I have a great feel for my level of exertion and what my heart rate is without even looking at the monitor.
My max was 185 when I was in my late 50s (female cyclist). I did the all-out VO2 max test to find out. Now, at 73, I suspect it is at least mid 170s. 160 feels like zone 3. But a guy I worked with, a serious athlete who ran the Western States 100, said he was working very hard at 120. He’s 10 years younger than I am. So it’s great to see an article reminding us not to rely on that 220 minus age formula.
I’m gonna guess your buddy who ran the Western States 100 has a resting pulse in the 30’s to low 40’s, or maybe even in the high 20’s. To him, 120 BPM must be racing!
You got it. Later, he developed a-fib & couldn’t take the ideal meds because they might lower his already very low heart rate.
Somewhat the same story as others before me. I fashioned myself a runner in my younger life having run many 5ks, 10ks and marathons. In 1993 at the age of 59 I had a double bypass – one of which was the left anterior descending. After a recovery period I returned to road racing until lower back problems in my 60s forced me to switch to a bicycle for conditioning and competition. What a wonderful change this has been! The guideline of 220 minus one’s age has always had me scratching my head. At the National Senior Games in July my 10k TT average HR was 136 with a max of 146. Using the 220 minus my age of 91 would have had me at 129. I think Dr. George Sheehan in his book Running and Being written in the ’70s had it right when he said, “Each of us is an experiment of one.” Each of has to experiment with our own mind and body to find what we can do.
I’m 71. I started using a HRM regularly a few years ago. For me high intensity is in the 140’s. I think 152 is as high as I’ve gone in a very long time. The guys I ride with all seem to be much higher but we manage to stay close. I even tried several different brand monitors because I thought something was wrong. But it seems like that’s just where I am for whatever reason.
Love the article. I’m 66 and hit 168 on big hills, and I use Strava and a HRM . We are not all the same!
Cheers.
Great article! I’m 70 years old, male, and I’ve been cycling regularly for 15-20 years. Maybe longer. For most of those years I have then and now used a HR monitor. Like the article says, my Max HR has dropped as I grow older. From about 163 ten years ago to 159 now. I feel the cycling has slowed the decline. Cycling has clearly benefited my health, I’ve never hade high BP or cholesterol although I do have three stents in my heart. My cardiologist says it’s from bad genes. My body apparently process cholesterol But I’ll continue to ride and use a HR monitor of smart watch to monitor my HR.