It seems to me that about the biggest factor limiting top-end fitness as we age is simply the decline in HRmax (maybe the second biggest is increased recovery time?).
HRmax decline with age is well-known as has been for decades, and yet I’ve hardly ever seen any advice on how to minimise it. Is it basically just inevitable?
Is there any particular type of exercise, diet, or whatever that’s been shown to help slow down the rate of decline? The weird thing is that these days I always record my highest HR numbers when I’m returning to training after a week or two off. Obviously that makes sense in terms of reduced plasma volume and the corresponding need for a higher HR to compensate, but why can’t we achieve the same heart rate after plasma volume increases again? Is it something to do with the elasticity of the heart muscle wall, which perhaps isn’t pushed so much if blood volume is less?
Perhaps this is just the same sort of thing as age-related presbyopia - inevitable and unavoidable? Or is there anything that might help increase heart elasticity?
My max HR has decreased very little (over 50 now). I can’t hold that max for very long any more, though. I do a lot of sprint swimming, longish hypoxic underwater stuff. No idea if that helps, but otherwise I don’t do anything special.
I’m not sure this is the thing to worry about. Usually, HRmax decreases when you get fitter. And, anecdotally, the data top athletes share indicate that they have pretty low max heart rates.
For example, Lionel Sanders, a pro Ironman athlete, does a lot of YouTube and his HRmax is really low, somewhere around 170 IIRC. He can almost do Zone 2 efforts in the double digits, it’s nuts.
Not a clue about the biology, but I’ve never heard anyone worry about MaxHR for fitness.
Hmm, I think there are two separate things going on though. Yes, HRmax certainly decreases when you get fitter and increases again when you are less fit, but at the same time your HRmax when fit decreases with time, which does put a limit on high intensity efforts (if perhaps less on FTP and much less on endurance).
While it won’t answer your question, I suggest you read ‘The Midlife Cyclist’ by Phil Cavell, ‘The Road Map for the +40 Rider Who Wants to Train Hard, Ride Fast and Stay Healthy’.
Among giving some good advice, a major point in the book is that we are pioneers. Never before in human history have people in significant numbers actively sought to not just stay active, but perform at a high level into mid life and older age. We are essentially the test subjects in our own experiment. In other words, there may not be an answer to your question in part because there’s been such a small number of people to test that it’s been scientifically pointless.
Another point in the book is that in a group of athletes MRI scanned, containing both amateur and pro, every single male had scar tissue somewhere in/on their heart. The women didn’t. There isn’t an explanation as to why, or what it means, but it’s probably not ideal.
Those two points, and a few others, result in the conclusion that we absolutely should go out and ride etc, but maybe be careful, accept a certain amount of decline, and just enjoy being able to achieve athletic levels into older age that our ancestors would never have imagined (mostly cause most of our ancestors would have already have been dead by what we now call middle age), even if those athletic levels are lower than what you managed in your 30s.
Thinking about this a little more, perhaps @caley_fretz a chat with Phil and an exploration of the points in his book, with takes from others, would make for an interesting article and/or podcast? One for @Ronan_Mc_Laughlin and performance process maybe?
My training for years (du to work and other obligations) consisted of optimizing my time, AKA hammering. Max HR was 160 and as a 50+ rider that way under my old max of 210 when I was young, but acceptable. The last 5 years I’ve really focused on Z1/Z2, with occasional very hard efforts. Recently I decided to test out my max and it’s now 171. Not bad for a 65yr old.
The question I have is was that always my max or did the changes I made to my riding influence the new max HR. Someone with a PhD in exercise physiology might clarify that for me. But for now I’m pretty convinced that max is flexible to a degree and not fixed. With the right training and rest it can improve.
I’m not sure HR max is actually a limiter on performance? I don’t know either way but anecdotally based on my performance over the years it’s not.
for instance: 10 years ago, at 33, I could max HR at 204 but hit say 330 for 5 minutes, 300 for 20, etc. Now at 43, I max HR around 185-190, but can do almost 400 for 5 minutes, 340 for 20, etc. Would those numbers be off the charts if my 185-190 still got to 204? Maybe, but I’ve never heard anyone suggest that that’s the case.
Interesting, and very heartening! (excuse the pun). I’m also a 50+ rider (59) and also do a lot of “hammering”… My HRmax varies a bit but when I’m training a lot I can rarely get it above the mid-160s. But if I give it a rest for a week or two and then do an intense effort I can get it into the mid 170s. But I’m producing more power when I’m fit and beating slower…
Now, if I could just up all of the numbers by 10 bps and keep the same stroke volumes, I’d maybe be able to push the numbers I did 20 years ago. That said, my actual fitness decline (in watts) in that time has been quite subtle - less proportionately than the decline in HRmax.
Hypothesis: HRmax does get less (both your fit HRmax and your higher unfit HRmax) with age, and this is performance limiting to some extent, but less than might be expected, perhaps because of other compensatory changes. I wonder if stroke volume might actually increase with age for the same level of fitness..?
Hypothesis 2 (very speculative and intuitive): maybe as we get older it’s good to have a couple of weeks off every now and again to allow the heart to recover. It’s sort of reassuring that it can “remember” how to beat a bit faster if you give it the space to do so.
I like JC1979’s suggestion about an EC piece on what sounds to me a discussion on age and performance. Training and performance data all seems based on late 20s elite athletes and gives feedback as if every activity has to be a max effort PR. Similar to the lack of good data among female athletes there is a lack of data on aging athletes and thus we all still use metrics for younger riders.
So back to HR. I’ve always understood that it is unique to an individual, not a comparative performance indicator like VO2max. A higher max HR (in an otherwise fit individual) isn’t better or worse, just “is”. So like some other benchmarks the data it most useful for comparison with yourself.
As I age (mid 60s) my max HR more or less follows the calculated estimates for max regardless of how I train, is what is (to use my favorite Saganism). I see three things happening. First, overall I actually feel better than ever. Second, I need more recovery between efforts. Third, while I still have good endurance, I’m just not as fast in some conditions, climbing for instance.
You may want to look into how recovery and peaking function. Recovery from rest varies depending (somewhat) on how hard you ride and for how many days. Put another way, I used to bounce back nicely with a two week taper and rest. Now it’s three weeks. I’m also planning those breaks into my riding vs just stacking miles 52 weeks a year.
I also learned early on to somewhat ignore the HR numbers (and now power) when going hard. But I watch it closely when I’m aiming for Z1/Z2 for base work and recovery days,
I had afib and then an ablation at 72 years old. 2 months before the ablation my max hr was 175, when I got back to riding hard a few months later I could barely do 145 max.
3 years on and it is still at about 155 max.
Not exactly what you were asking , but thought it might be of interest.
Perhaps your heart is just “tired” if you’re training heavily? I’m 54, max is around 180-185 though I rarely do intense efforts. Even as a competitive swimmer as a kid, my max was never over 200 (measured at neck w/ finger for 15secs x4 ), so it probably hasn’t declined all that much in the last 30+ years.
Anyway, recently started training again with 3 weeks load, 1 rest, and my HR regularly ends up 10-15 bpm “low” in a ride when I’m properly fatigued. Perhaps that’s the same for you and why you can hit higher max after a test week?
HRmax as an absolute figure is of no or little relevance. But HRmax decline with age does happen to everyone (this is very well established), irrespective of the magnitude and precise timing. Decline in VO2max, FTP etc also inevitably occurs with age. It would be very odd if these things weren’t related.
I just find it odd that there seems to be no information or research I can easily come across that explains exactly why this happens, and whether there’s anything we can do to control it.
But there is no answer as to how to stop or slow the decline. As you pointed out, it happens to everyone, whether you are an athlete or not. You are basically asking how to stop aging.
The best you can do as an athlete is to keep active and keep training.
I’d need to read up a bit to fully understand that article, but the “reduced β-adrenergic responsiveness” is interesting. Maybe we just need to get psychologically more worked up to go faster.. Perhaps we just aren’t bothered enough to push ourselves when we are older…
I’m 70. Life long athlete. My max heart rate a couple of years ago was around 155-160. Lately it seems to be more like 150-155. I’ve been riding more regularly and more seriously the past few years and these days I’m quite a bit faster and stronger than I was when my max HR was higher. I wonder if getting in better condition results in a lower max HR, i.e. more efficient, or if it’s just the inevitable aging process, or maybe both. I asked my cardiologist about this and I just got a blank look.
Getting fitter (reversibly) reduces HRmax in a good way - stroke volume increases, which means that your heart can pump the same amount of oxygenated blood in the same time at a lower beat rate. It stands to reason too that the upper limit of your HR at any given age / state of health will be modulated by stroke volume. Whatever your heart’s functional capacity, it’s not going to be able to beat quite as fast if it’s taking in more blood and pumping out more with each stroke. It’s like walking faster with an increased stride length - you can walk at a greater speed with a longer stride, but your maximum number of steps per minute will be less than it would be if you walked as fast as you could with a shorter stride.
But with age, I guess that the functional capacity of the heart is reduced such that it can’t beat as fast overall. But it will still be able to beat proportionately faster when you are less fit and stroke volume is less.
), so it probably hasn’t declined all that much in the last 30+ years.
Perhaps we just aren’t bothered enough to push ourselves when we are older…