|
|
|
Rustyboy
LA, CA
Joined: 14 Dec 2004
Posts: 225
|
|
Max heart rate question Posted: Tue May 24, 2005 1:16 pm |
|
|
So we all know the 220 minus your age formula for estimating one's max heart rate. We also know that this formula is definitely not reliable, so my quesiton is: Has anyone had their MHR checked and compared it to the formula's MHR? If so, how great was the difference?
|
|
|
terrysquier
Canon City, CO
Joined: 09 Jan 2005
Posts: 44
|
|
Re: Max heart rate question Posted: Wed May 25, 2005 2:30 pm |
|
|
While I've never had my max heart rate tested professionally, I do wear a heart rate monitor pretty much all the time. During half marathons that I run and other races or hard training runs, I've had my heart rate go as high as the mid 170s and even higher. If I used the traditional formula of 220 minus my age, 61, my heart rate should be 159. I use a max heart rate of around 175 when I design workouts using my heart rate reserve as I feel this is probably a more accurate figure.
Terry
|
|
|
Rickshaw
Runworks 2005 5M Racer
San Francisco, CA
Joined: 26 Nov 2004
Posts: 1157
|
|
Re: Max heart rate question Posted: Sat May 28, 2005 10:12 am |
|
|
From my experience and other runners I know, measured MHR usually ends up being higher than predicted MHR using 220-age. I've measured my heart rate up to about 202 a couple of time, but at age 34 it should max out at 186 according to their formula.
My highest measured hard rates seem to happen after a hard workout after a long time off, when I'm relatively out of shape. Once I'm back in shape, I find it very difficult to impossible to get my HR above the mid 180's, which is more in line with the formula.
|
|
|
Jsphsl4204
Joined: 22 May 2005
Posts: 22
|
|
Re: Max heart rate question Posted: Mon May 30, 2005 11:40 am |
|
|
220 - 14 = 206...
I find that rather funny in a mild way...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 8 Hours
|
Page 1 of 1
|
|
