Which goes back to my previous post … we are pioneers - test dummies in our own experiment as the first humans in history to, en-masse, look to ‘perform’ into older age - and so as there is little to no data/research into performance (or just high fitness levels) in older age people and the potential negative effects (the positive effects seem to stand regardless of age), it’s no surprise that experts have no answers.
2 Likes
Getting more fit/being fit does not decrease MaxHR in most adults, and especially in trained athletes.
This is well documented.
N=2
I’ve been tracking HR specifically for sport performance since 1990.
My maxHR has not changed (still 191bpm).
My LTHR has not changed (still 171).
My measured overnight resting HR is still <45bpm; this is a 10% increase.
My phenotype has not changed (I’m still “fast twitch”).
My measured VO2Max has dropped by about 20% over the same period; mostly in the past 6yrs.
My bodyweight is unchanged during the same period.
I’ve not had a muscle comp score/diagostic recently.
My wife indicates some similarities as above w/ the exception that having a bunch of PEs a few years ago dropped her observable maxHR and corresponding LTHR by ~10bpm from 202 to 191bpm. And she’s slowtwitch phenotype.
What has changed is my ability to generate max power, and sustained power levels at every corresponding HR for Zone 2 (HR) and above. I believe the common term for this is “aging.”
There are studies of (mostly male) pro cyclists, triathletes, XC skiers, and rowers (all endurance sports in which power vs HR is measured) that can be found if you use Google’s scholarly search tools that may answer your questions. Most are available as abstract only, but you can find a few full text available.
I’m 60. My max HR stayed considerably higher than the rule-of-thumb 220-age for a long time, then declined quickly over 18 months. Currently it’s at 165.
But an interesting thing I’ve noticed is that normal HR zone ranges don’t work anymore. Riding at 70% FTP, my HR is still within 1 bpm of what it’s been for years. Conversely even at threshold HR, although my HR is lower, my power is the same. What I’ve found is that it has gotten harder to push myself into zone 5.
I do make it a point to do VO2 work, even though my riding goals don’t really call for it, in the hope that it will minimize further maxHR loss, but I don’t know if there’s anything to that.
1 Like
Correct. These are medical facts. Most of these answers are not helpful. I am 57 and the predicted max heart rate for a man my age is according the American Association of Cardiologists is 165 - through training and rest I can still manage 175-178 occasionally if I am climbing.
I think a structured age appropriate training regime combined with the additional rest days required as you age - is really the only way to minimize max heart rate decline. Whether that is a meaningful goal is another kettle of fish entirely.
1 Like
I don’t think that’s right. Getting fitter reduces resting heart rate, and reduces heart rate for any given power output, but the max heart rate is unaffected (you are just putting out more power/going faster/maybe able to hold it very slightly longer when you hit it).
1 Like
That’s not my experience though, and anecdotally many others seem to be the same.
Although I think timescale may be the confusing factor here.
My highest HR numbers in a given year, say, always seem to be recorded after I’ve taken a week or two off, and I’ve temporarily lost my peak fitness. OK, I’m not “unfit” as such (not de-trained), and I’ll be back to my previous power numbers after 2 or 3 sessions, but in that first session after time off when pushing as hard as I can, I can’t quite reach the same power, although my maximum HR will often be the highest I’ve seen it in months.
I suppose you could say that the reason I can’t reach the same HRmax when I’m training regularly is due to a type of fatigue - but if so, then I’m fittest in power terms when I’m fatigued.. 
Couldn’t it simply be due to reduced plasma volume, meaning the heart is able to beat faster with a reduced stroke volume until plasma volume increases again after a few days?
I am not a heart specialist or coach, but making a judgement on a period as short as two weeks seems unwise.
Well, that may or may not be my point. It’s an observation (corroborated many times), and the “judgement” may be a case of definitions.
Is your “HRmax” the maximum rate you can achieve in “optimal” circumstances (optimal for that metric alone) within a certain time window (a week, a month, whatever), or is it your “operating” HRmax (the maximum you can achieve while doing what you normally do)?
What I’m saying is that maybe “fitness” doesn’t decrease your HRmax as such, but to accurately measure your HRmax at any given age you need to rest for a week or two beforehand.
“the highest number of beats per minute your heart can safely achieve during maximum physical exertion before reaching complete exhaustion ”
That’s the recognised definition.
If we go by that definition, then HRmax is a metric that varies over quite short time periods. And it would be misleading to think of it as a fixed number over medium-term periods.
Indeed, but perhaps not quite how you think, because it’s not your max heart rate that varies, but your ability to access it, which will depend a lot on things like how fatigued you are, but you may be missing the point. It’s the maximum, when in your best state. The fact that an hour later, a day later, or a week later you can’t reach it again, and can only get back to that heart rate some unspecified time later doesn’t matter, you max heart rate is your max heart. It does not vary like resting heart rate.
It is extremely unlikely people will hit their max heart rate during normal exercise - very few people put themselves into that state very often, if at all.
The extension of the quote I posted further up is ‘in a lab’. In other words, you won’t ever know you HRmax unless you go take test in a controlled environment.
Just do an internet search, and you’ll find that max heart rate is primarily a factor of age and genetics.
So, the variance you are seeing in what you think is your max heart rate is actually a result of other things - your ability to transfer oxygen into your blood on that day, fatigue, allergens, pollutants, maybe even diet, all affecting you ability to access your full cardiovascular potential.
I.e. your max HR on a given day is likely not your HRmax.
I’m going to see if I can find some research papers and read up a bit more - its certainly an interesting subject.