220 less my age is accurate measure of Max heart rate?

[carbon29er]

Lots of noise around the Vitality programme makes me wonder what the actual variances on heart rate are for active cyclists on the hub.

 

2 simple questions in the poll.

[fanievb]

Max is supposed to be 188 according to the formula.

 

Actual max is 205

[Skubarra]

Think about it - does it makes sense that every person age x would have the same heart rate despite different weights, sex, length, level of fitness, family background etc?

 

That formula would probaby be wrong for most people, I guess it is only a starting point when no other info is available

 

ps - and mine is out by almost 30

[EmptyB]

Mine is out by less than 5bpm.

 

Just a guideline is all it is....

[Malpiet]

According to the formula my max is also supposed to be 188 but actual max is 201

[usxorf]

Mine is 195 (Tested in a lab just over a year ago). Never really seen more than 191 out on the bike or running up a steep hill. 220-37 = 183.

 

There are probably a crap load of scientific studies (like this one) unable to replicate the findings of the 220-age calculation.

[R-squared]

This equation is imprecise and derived in the 1970s.  The attached figure is from a textbook by Cooper and Storer - published 2001.  The estimated standard deviation is 10 so a normal population would be the calculated value ± 20!

 

A normal 30 year old could range from 171 - 211 beats/ min.

 

Using a fixed and faulty equation without allowing for natural variation shows a complete lack of understanding of human physiology.

[Thor Buttox]

This equation is imprecise and derived in the 1970s. The attached figure is from a textbook by Cooper and Storer - published 2001. The estimated standard deviation is 10 so a normal population would be the calculated value ± 20!

 

A normal 30 year old could range from 171 - 211 beats/ min.

 

Using a fixed and faulty equation without allowing for natural variation shows a complete lack of understanding of human physiology.

I am assuming you are in the physiology field, so forgive me if I am wrong - I haven't been able to get a conclusive answer for this in the normal channels.

 

Is it also fair to say that accessing your maximum heart rate or a percentage thereof depends very much on your fitness/health goals and whether or not you are doing Base training/anaerobic work/recovery? So while many of us on here will do 80% of Max for hours without trying, many average people shouldn't until they are much further down the path to fitness? Or if they want weight loss/fat burning it should be in a lower band?

 

Way,way back, even as a 18 to 20 year old doing ludicrous training distance my MHR never went much passed 180. Now the most I have registered is 173bpm against 180 Max, but that was for a 20s absolute red-line push, and I couldn't continue.

[R-squared]

I am assuming you are in the physiology field, so forgive me if I am wrong - I haven't been able to get a conclusive answer for this in the normal channels.

 

Is it also fair to say that accessing your maximum heart rate or a percentage thereof depends very much on your fitness/health goals and whether or not you are doing Base training/anaerobic work/recovery? So while many of us on here will do 80% of Max for hours without trying, many average people shouldn't until they are much further down the path to fitness? Or if they want weight loss/fat burning it should be in a lower band?

 

Way,way back, even as a 18 to 20 year old doing ludicrous training distance my MHR never went much passed 180. Now the most I have registered is 173bpm against 180 Max, but that was for a 20s absolute red-line push, and I couldn't continue.

Maximum HR is an individual thing and untrained individuals will reach it, but at a lower workload than when trained.  Improved physical conditioning will increase the workload at which maximum HR is achieved so work at any lower load will also require a lower HR.  Metabolic /lactate (not anaerobic!) threshold also increases with improved conditioning and this is the level of exercise above which you cannot maintain a steady state so will fail faster.  Untrained individuals will (in general) have a higher HR at a given workload and will also be operating closer to metabolic threshold.  Training will influence both of these a fair bit.

[raptor-22]

220-age is just a formula derived by curve fitting Hrmax data of a population of untrained individuals. It's not a rule but a starting point.

 

It's not really very important anyway since threshold heart rate is of more value to an athlete

[Rudi Pollard]

The 220 - age formula is very inaccurate, but what else can discovery use for their rewards program? I agree that the targets can be adjusted especially taking into account the standard deviation involved in the formula.

 

As a 30 year old my Max HR is 190 according to discovery. If I take into account that the formula can be out by as much as 20 beats it can be either 170 or 210(In my case it as 203). If you take the 80% discovery wants you to train at it can then be anything from 136 - 168 which is a huge range.

 

The only way discovery can fairly use the 220 - age formula is to bring the standard deviation into account somehow. It is not a problem for people with naturally high heart rates but people on the other end of the scale is getting a rough deal.

[carbon29er]

The only way discovery can fairly use the 220 - age formula is to bring the standard deviation into account somehow. It is not a problem for people with naturally high heart rates but people on the other end of the scale is getting a rough deal.

 

Which is why I posted this poll.I'm smug as my max rate is 42 beats higher than age based but I wanted to see what the distribution looks like. Just for interest.

[Skubarra]

This equation is imprecise and derived in the 1970s.  The attached figure is from a textbook by Cooper and Storer - published 2001.  The estimated standard deviation is 10 so a normal population would be the calculated value ± 20!

 

A normal 30 year old could range from 171 - 211 beats/ min.

 

Using a fixed and faulty equation without allowing for natural variation shows a complete lack of understanding of human physiology.

 

I think the contents of your post is very fitting to your hubname

[V12man]

Which is why I posted this poll.I'm smug as my max rate is 42 beats higher than age based but I wanted to see what the distribution looks like. Just for interest.

Time for a proper stress ECG.... I would suspect you have a conduction anomaly.....

[deanbean]

Time for a proper stress ECG.... I would suspect you have a conduction anomaly.....

I've also got a big difference, but have got a planned visit to the Cardio soon. Interested to hear what he has to say.

[jcza]

Mine is 25 beats higher. I go for a check up and stress test annually.

 

With all the noise around Discovery and Heart Rate I think a IQ test would be more appropriate for participants. With the current level of 600 (haven't heard of anyone with a higher target) a Parkrun (walking the dog) without heart rate gets you 300 points and collecting 2 x smoothies a further 200 points (also no heart rate) which leaves only 100 points. How difficult can it be?