I can't buy into the 220-age number at all .. since at my age I can reach ~180+ during hard climbs (even hitting 191 last summer) and I'm a long long away from 30 years old. My (new, young and fairly wet behind the ears) oncologist is a believer on this and claims that I'm overtaxing my system by doing that and has scolded me frequently for exceeding 150.
I think that historical fitness plays a huge role in this number. A paper by Londeree and Moeschberger from the University of Missouri-Columbia indicates that the MHR varies mostly with age, but the relationship is not a linear one. They suggest an alternative formula of 206.3 - (0.711 * age). Similarly, Miller et al from Indiana University propose the formula 217- (0.85 * age) as a suitable formula to calculate MHR. Neither one of those "newer" formulas gets close to my number though they do raise the max per age.
There is supporting evidence to this, Biology of Sport, Vol. 24 No2, 2007
http://biolsport.com/fulltxt.php?ICID=890642 published a fairly well researched article on this, but they the age limit they stopped at was much lower than one could have hoped. I've not found a good study on older athletes .. Apparently we dont draw in the grant money
Quote from Phantom Rider on Jan 29th, 2017, 10:25am:I recently joined a gym (9Round) and began working out 2-4 days a week. My thought was I've been riding for a few years and do no other type of exercises so this may be good during the winter to help offset the loss of leg strength and cardio. Let me say I am not a racer and don't do all day rides anymore, I typically ride 125 miles a week with the long being 50-70 miles at about 18mph pace, average HR is typically 135 and the max will vary from 160-180 depending on the route and Hills.
The first time I did the 9round workout with a HR monitor I thought the trainer was going to die. Using their scale of which is calculated at 220-age is max and then scaling 10bpm intervals for zones set my max 161 and I was always in the red(90%+). We had the very same discussion as you mention from the magazine and her theory was the same. Work at 70-80% 99% of the time to strengthen the muscle rather than taxing the muscle in hope of it becoming adjusted to your new norm. I am not a medical practitioner and make no claims to any knowledge thereof. The discussion with her did take me back to my days of marathon training and endurance running. I recall the same concept being the "rule"back then, unfortunately there were no smart watches or HR monitors for the common working person in those days.
I am buying into this concept and have started working toward it on all my rides and workouts. I will say if nothing else recovery seems to be much easier, I don't feel any loss of ability since starting it and I'm not as tired after an exercise period. I will say that at times I struggle to stay in the range because I'm accustomed to pushing hard most all the time.
I have found a few different calculators for HR that I like much better than just 220-age. A simple internet search will reveal them and you can use your own judgement as to which sounds best for you. My personal issue with 220-age is there no consideration for any historical physical activity that has strengthened the heart over time. I am a garmin user and noticed in the connect profile there is a question about your current level of physical activity, this is using some type of algorithm to set your Max and zones based on your response.