2 replies to this topic

[TheFountain]

So, 

 

What if you are 33 but your maximum heart rate is that of a 23 year old?

 

In other words, 220 minus 33 is 187 right?

 

Whereas 220 minus 23 is 197. Right?

 

So let's say you're 33, and you're reaching 85% of 197 instead of 85% of 187?

 

Ya know what i'm saying?

 

So, that would make your maximum heart rate of about 168 right?

 

Could that mean you are physically younger than your actual number?

 

That you're physiologically younger than your actual age?

 

Do you follow my quasi scientific logic?

 

 

[zompy]

That is not how it works, the 220 rule is simply made as a guideline. It's better to test your own maximum heart rate by doing intense exercise. You could you this every X weeks/months to test if your condition improved. A lower max is usually a sign of better condition, the same goes for heart rate in rest after wake up for example.

[Oakman]

I agree with zompy, except for a lower max rate shows better condition. Better condition results in a lower resting heart rate. For myself, the HR calculation above simply doesn't work well. You need to determine your own numbers through empirical methods. Your body, your heart, your exercise.

 

Now the formula mentioned says, "It is recommended that you exercise within 55 to 85 percent of your maximum heart rate for at least 20 to 30 minutes to get the best results from aerobic exercise. The MHR (roughly calculated as 220 minus your age) is the upper limit of what your cardiovascular system can handle during physical activity." 

 

For myself 220-69=151 max rate for a recommended exercise rate of 55% or 83 bpm to 85% or 128 bpm.  I use a HR monitor and record everything in real time while exercising. Have been for 3 years and 1000's of cycling miles.  My typical average HR for a 2 hr ride is 125-140 bpm for ~60% of the time.  In general, I don't breath hard, just moving along, and  ~160 bpm  is reached on hills where I actually have to work the gears pretty hard. 

 

If I were to go by the above calculator, I'd be doing almost nothing, because my "hardly any effort HR" would be my recommended maximum.  A revised formula developed using actual individual data resulted in a different formula: MHR = 208 – 0.7(age) would give me a MHR of 160 ... spot on for MHR, with a still pretty far off exercise range of 88-136. Go figure, YR will V.