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.

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