On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 10:54:33 -0800, Dot wrote:
On 7/9/2010 3:23 AM, pithydoug wrote:
On Jul 8, 4:16 am, Heywood wrote:
220 minus you age has never been accurate. It goes down with the
check is in the mail as a myth or at least a **** poor measure for
about 95% of athletes.
And this one's even more wrong for me - almost 30bpm too low, rather
than 20bpm too low. At least the 220-age hits my approximate LT bpm.
This one's in my subLT range. And I've been using the same HRmax and
training zone numbers for almost 9 yrs.
That formula has always been wrong for me, too. I've been retired for
over 15 years, but when I was still working I had periodic physicals
that sometimes included a bicycle or treadmill stress test. I nearly
always topped out at 162 bpm; the formula would have called for over
170 at the beginning with a drop to the mid-150s by the last test.
As I typed this I counted about 52 bpm and my dozing count is normally
in the mid-30s. Some people just don't fit formulas.
Somebody should send NYTimes a copy of Roberg's paper.