Higher for the same "perceived effort" level also, which I find interesting.
Probably something to do with running being more weight-bearing, so for the same level of PE there's more 'going on', as it were. (More muscle activity being recruited, so higher demands for blood and oxygen.) I don't habitually monitor HR when cycling but I don't think I've ever had it much over 180, compared to observed HR max of 202 when running. Incidentally I've only ever gone over 200 at the end of races, generally 5k or 10k, compared to a measly 186 when I first attempted a standard max HR test using a hill. Put simply, your true max is probably a few beats higher than you've observed, cos there's always another gear available if you really dig into the hurt-box!
Probably something to do with running being more weight-bearing, so for the same level of PE there's more 'going on', as it were. (More muscle activity being recruited, so higher demands for blood and oxygen.) I don't habitually monitor HR when cycling but I don't think I've ever had it much over 180, compared to observed HR max of 202 when running. Incidentally I've only ever gone over 200 at the end of races, generally 5k or 10k, compared to a measly 186 when I first attempted a standard max HR test using a hill. Put simply, your true max is probably a few beats higher than you've observed, cos there's always another gear available if you really dig into the hurt-box!