A Fitness & exercise forum. FitnessBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » FitnessBanter.com forum » Fitness & Exercise » Running
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Max heart rate formulas for women are wrong



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 9th 10, 05:10 PM posted to rec.running
I2Run
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default Max heart rate formulas for women are wrong

Parker Race:|
| 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.
|
| My theoretical max is 168 based on that formula. I hit 177 during a track
| workout this past Tuesday morning.
I agree, mine is 196 about 20 bmp more, with rhr of 45 or so.


  #2  
Old July 10th 10, 10:22 PM posted to rec.running
Don Kirkman[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 50
Default Max heart rate formulas for women are wrong

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:
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/0...ormula-eases-w...


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.

--
Don Kirkman

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Heart Related health question - decreasing heart rate during training dangerous? PT Swimming 5 April 26th 07 01:40 AM
Resting Heart Rate vs Max Heart Rate vs Training Heart Rate He without an e-mail gets no spam Running 10 April 6th 04 10:34 PM
Heart Rate Monitor Shows High Heart Rates at Beginning of a Run William Richmond Running 12 February 5th 04 07:52 PM
Using Heart Rate monitor...where should I have my heart rate t General 1 September 25th 03 03:18 AM
Why do so few women use this group? Whats wrong? Kraftee Walking in the UK 0 August 9th 03 11:45 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:32 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 FitnessBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.