# Which max HR to use?

Hi (and sorry if this has been asked before, i tried everything to find the answer before posting):

Which ax HR should I use for TR? It says “All we need to estimate TSS is your maximum cycling heart rate. Please use the recent maximum heart rate you’ve recorded while riding a bike.”

That would be 176 which was achieved during an event. Apple Watch estimates my max HR at around 181 (last time I checked it was 183). Different formulas come out at 185 to 189 (just for reference).

My thoughts:

• Although 176 might be the highest HR ever achieved while riding a bike, it might go higher if I tried more?
• I don’t know the Apple Watch algorithms but maybe they have a better way of estimating max HR (using HRV or whatever data they have available)?

Happy to hear your thoughts !

I’d use the actual observed HR ( your event 176) as estimates are just that,… unless you have a hill nearby you can actually go out and specifically try to max out on, or a hot club ride. Not sure how much difference the TSS would be affected by a 5-7 BPM difference which is something TR may be able to answer with an email. Of course you would always retest every few months as you get stronger.

1 Like

The answer is in the question

4 Likes

If you were training of HR alone I wouldn’t limit yourself to what you have achieved, Apple etc thinks you can achieve more, but for a TSS calculation/ estimate I doubt a few beats is going to make a massive difference. The apple number is probably good for just now IMO.

2 Likes

Bingo

FYI, different sports often result in different max HR. This is because you have different muscles being used and the one that works the most muscles the hardest (like XC skiing) will demand a higher HR than cycling.

Your Apple Watch might be grabbing that max HR value from a run or other non-cycling data point.

Consider the 220 minus age formula for maximum HR. This formula does not calculate your max HR. It is an estimate of the average maximum HR for a given age.

If you know regression, 220 minus age is a regression with intercept = 220 and slope = -1. In the paper they said their were close to those numbers, so they published those so people would remember them easily.

But back to my point. Any formulas for max HR are going to come from some sort of regression on some sample of people. The main thing is that you will be getting the average max HR given age and whatever other characteristics might be in the regression. Some people will be above that max HR. My actual max HR is at least 6 beats/min higher than the average max HR for my age from the 220-age formula. Some people will have their max HR under-predicted by more than 6 beats. Conversely, some people will have their own max HR be lower than the formula’s prediction. This is the nature of averages.

OK, then what even is the point of estimating average max HR? Well, imagine that maximum HR is a useful training parameter, imagine that it isn’t easy to test, and assume that most people don’t know their own max HR. In that situation, plugging in the average max HR for your age until you have a better estimate is not a terrible idea. Just like with an FTP test, you would have to adjust your predicted max HR according to outside inputs, e.g. if you feel you’re working very hard but you’re still 10 bpm below your max HR.

What counts as a better estimate? If that effort during an event was something like a 1-5 min max effort, then I think that should get you pretty close to your actual max HR. I think that your max HR during a ramp test is going to be close to your actual max HR - I think that I could go a few bpm harder than my last ramp test max HR, but you get the point. If that effort during a race was more like a threshold or sweet spot effort, then I think it’s still an underestimate.

Going a bit further from the topic, regression can have two uses. First, how much do we think the average max HR declines with age? Well, we know from the slope that it’s about 1 bpm per year. (I think most of the ‘better’ formulas have it as a bit less than 1 bpm, and in that original paper it should have been a bit less than 1.) That’s a reasonable goal in itself. That’s using regression for inference.

Second, we could use regression for prediction. OK, so some of you with entry level statistics might remember that you want the regression’s R^2 to be high. You might see a paper, and see that the R^2 is low, and go ok, that’s the main critique of the paper. Actually, this may be a shallow understanding of R^2, and it doesn’t matter as much if your only goal is inference. However, if your goal is a reasonably accurate prediction of some quantity, then yes, you need the R^2 to be high. I don’t think that original paper published the R^2. If you look at papers on predictions of max HR, you can check the R^2. I am guessing that they won’t be that high, maybe in the 0.3-0.4 range. R^2 ranges from 0 to 1, and predicting biological parameters in this context is probably going to have low R^2s. R^2s in psychology are also low.

What are some other contexts where we might use regression for prediction? The Framingham heart risk score is one. It predicts coronary heart disease from various risk factors. That’s a binary event, whereas your standard regression is for continuous outcomes. But the principles are still similar. Not regression, but when we use screening tools for things like depression or cognitive impairment, we are also trying to predict the presence of something, and we validate them in different ways.

1 Like

Per their question, use the highest heart rate you’ve recorded while riding a bike (what JoeX said).

You can always update it if you record a higher number.

Now, back to that lecture on digression regression.

1 Like