nonky Posted August 31, 2016 Posted August 31, 2016 Saved on sheet. Why does this feel like a competition, even tho i know it isn't. Wahaaaa.
Edition 507 Posted August 31, 2016 Posted August 31, 2016 1. CarbonBoy aka ElectricSexDoll aka HardcorePunkHead 2. 55 3. 190 4. 50 5. Scorpio 6. Yes please 7. +- 1400
slickjay007 Posted August 31, 2016 Posted August 31, 2016 1. Slickjay007 2. 55 3. 187 4. 37 5. Aries 6. Male 7. 85
andydude Posted September 3, 2016 Author Posted September 3, 2016 Great.. thanks guys and girls!! I will get all the data sorted and then this afternoon we'll investigate the first question; what is the relationship between age and max. hr. One way of doing it is to say that our null hypothesis (H0) would be Age factor = 0 (meaning no influence on Mhr). If <> 0 and statistically significant we can say Age does impact Mhr. We can also look at a few studies to hopefully confirm our analysis and also look at the linear regression (what line/formula best fits with the data). Will report back this evening! And please correct me if I'm doing something wrong or if you can explain things better. I'm learning here.
Thor Buttox Posted September 3, 2016 Posted September 3, 2016 Great.. thanks guys and girls!! I will get all the data sorted and then this afternoon we'll investigate the first question; what is the relationship between age and max. hr. One way of doing it is to say that our null hypothesis (H0) would be Age factor = 0 (meaning no influence on Mhr). If <> 0 and statistically significant we can say Age does impact Mhr. We can also look at a few studies to hopefully confirm our analysis and also look at the linear regression (what line/formula best fits with the data). Will report back this evening! And please correct me if I'm doing something wrong or if you can explain things better. I'm learning here.Well, whatever you find, you can inform Discovery!
Pulse Posted September 3, 2016 Posted September 3, 2016 Well, whatever you find, you can inform Discovery! Yes please!
andydude Posted September 3, 2016 Author Posted September 3, 2016 Regarding the question whether age can predict maximum heart rate? Answer seems to be NO! - Sample of n = 100- Average (mean) age = 40.8 years +- 9.4 (one standard deviation)- Average (mean) max. hr = 186.2 bpm +- 12.5 (one standard deviation) Summary output in the attached graph (click to see everything), but in summary: - Only 9.5% of maximum heart rate can be explained by age- Results are statistically significant
andydude Posted September 3, 2016 Author Posted September 3, 2016 To show why the 220 - age formula (or as we'll see, any formula) is bollocks, just take a look at the scatter-plot of max hr and age and how diverse it is. Linear regression tries to draw the most perfect line through all those points and we then get to the red line/formula as on the graph. But, in the second graph you can see the residuals (how far the actual data is different from the formula we created as depicted by zero 'line').
andydude Posted September 3, 2016 Author Posted September 3, 2016 A formula for max. hr based on age is kind of like looking at the average babies per mother being 2.5, but NOBODY has 2.5 babies! Thus, the formula/line can be nicely in the 'middle', but look on the previous graphs how everybody's results differ! Look at this study "The Myth of Maximum Heart Rate = 220 - Age" http://sistemas.eeferp.usp.br/myron/arquivos/3396411/14aae49419c90ebb0002f7d55e4c0a57.pdf - This [220 - age] formula is often quoted without any warning about its potential inaccuracy, and in addition to the inaccuracy, it turns out it has little scientific basis [Kolata, 2003].- A recent review of many attempts to come up with a formula to predict max heart rate concluded that no sufficient accurate formula exists to predict max heart rate from age alone [Robergs, 2002]. In my opinion none is possible because of the large amount of scatter in the data Edit: Fixed the link
Ryinc Posted September 3, 2016 Posted September 3, 2016 Andydude keep in mind you dont have a representative sample here, so the conclusions you come up with here are not transferable to a a different population, e.g. the general public. I think everybody agrees that the age formula is bollocks. Even the guy who came up with it noted that it was never intended to be a hard rule
Ryinc Posted September 3, 2016 Posted September 3, 2016 Also in the data you graphed there does seem to be a reasonably strong negative correlation between age.
andydude Posted September 3, 2016 Author Posted September 3, 2016 Andydude keep in mind you dont have a representative sample here, so the conclusions you come up with here are not transferable to a a different population, e.g. the general public. I think everybody agrees that the age formula is bollocks. Even the guy who came up with it noted that it was never intended to be a hard ruleYes, good point!
andydude Posted September 3, 2016 Author Posted September 3, 2016 Also in the data you graphed there does seem to be a reasonably strong negative correlation between age.The correlation is -0.32 thus not really strong. From https://explorable.com/statistical-correlation -1.0 to -0.5 is strong-0.5 to -0.3 is moderate-0.3 to -0.1 is weak-0.1 to 0.0 is none or very weak (and same for positives)
Edition 507 Posted September 3, 2016 Posted September 3, 2016 So andydude, could you perhaps summarize that in English please?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.