Little hub study related to heart rates

[Dexter-morgan]

It seems like we are a bunch of old toppies, with average age of 40+...

[andydude]

So andydude, could you perhaps summarize that in English please?

According to our results, and also of other real studies, there is NO proof of any formula to calculate someone's maximum heart rate using one's age.

 

Or otherwise, age alone is a poor predictor of maximum heart rate.

[Frosty]

It seems like we are a bunch of old toppies, with average age of 40+...

MAMILS springs to mind

[Thor Buttox]

It seems like we are a bunch of old toppies, with average age of 40+...

Guess this proves young people don't use social media. They are all too busy riding. And having fun on their bikes. #sadbutstatisticallyfalsepositive

[Thor Buttox]

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

On our non-representative sample we have y = 203 - 0.4259x

 

They have y= 220 - x

 

Is this just a fitness thing that shows the disassociation of our lower resting heart rates and higher max for our age categories compared to the couch spuds?

 

Or does it mean our hearts have just beaten a lot more than your average couch potato and we all have a lot fewer heart beats left?

[arendoog]

Info on Sheet .Seems i am the rare person who,s Max heart rate is spot on according to the 220 formula .!70 and 172 

['Kaze Pete]

I read somewhere a long time ago that the stadard deviation for the 220-age formula is about 15 beats per minute

 

 

Wiki gives this as an alternative: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_rate

Robergs and Landwehr

A 2002 study^[21] of 43 different formulas for HR_max (including that of Haskell and Fox – see above) published in the Journal of Exercise Psychology concluded that:

1. no "acceptable" formula currently existed (they used the term "acceptable" to mean acceptable for both prediction of VO₂, and prescription of exercise training HR ranges)

2. the least objectionable formula was:

HR_max = 205.8 − (0.685 × age) This had a standard deviation that, although large (6.4 bpm), was considered acceptable for prescribing exercise training HR ranges.

[andydude]

 

 

I read somewhere a long time ago that the stadard deviation for the 220-age formula is about 15 beats per minute

 

 

Wiki gives this as an alternative: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_rate

 

Robergs and Landwehr

A 2002 study^[21] of 43 different formulas for HR_max (including that of Haskell and Fox – see above) published in the Journal of Exercise Psychology concluded that:

• no "acceptable" formula currently existed (they used the term "acceptable" to mean acceptable for both prediction of VO₂, and prescription of exercise training HR ranges)

• the least objectionable formula was:

HR_max = 205.8 − (0.685 × age) This had a standard deviation that, although large (6.4 bpm), was considered acceptable for prescribing exercise training HR ranges.

Interesting, thanks! 6.4 bpm standard deviation is the smallest I've seen. I will read, but in the meantime, here are calculated standard deviations from OUR sample using different formulae:

 

Standard 220 - age : +- 13.0 bpm (close to the 15 you mention)

 

Our regression 203.6 - (0.426 x age) : +- 13.2 bpm

 

Your mention 205.8 - (0.685 x age) : +- 12.0 bpm

 

Landeree 206.3 - (0.711 x age) : +- 12.1 bpm

[andydude]

Info on Sheet .Seems i am the rare person who,s Max heart rate is spot on according to the 220 formula .!70 and 172

If you throw enough darts for long enough you're bound to hit the bullseye sooner or later [emoji1]

 

But having said that, mine is also pretty close! Out by 3 bpm.

['Kaze Pete]

Some more reaserch based findings:

 

http://content.onlinejacc.org/article.aspx?articleid=1126908 (Journal of the American College of Cardiology)

 

Meta-analytic study

Figure 1 illustrates the decline in HRmax in men and women included in the meta-analysis. Maximal heart rate was strongly and inversely related to age in both men and women (r = −0.90). The rate of decline and the y intercepts were not different between men and women nor among sedentary (211 − 0.8 × age), active (207 − 0.7 × age) and endurance-trained (206 − 0.7 × age) subjects. The regression equation, when all the subjects were combined, was 208 − 0.7 × age. Stepwise regression analysis revealed that age alone explained ∼80% of the individual variance in HRmax.

 

['Kaze Pete]

No real differences there, except for the self selected hub sample (OK, maybe not statisically)

[andydude]

Thanks Pete! I must read that study you posted, because it kind of contradicts a lot of other studies and what people are saying about age not being a great indicator of max. hr.

 

And also, I have 100 people on my excel file (typed in all the replies from the Hub) and will update the Google sheet tomorrow!

[Pulse]

I like what you are doing, Andy.. and its interesting.

 

Just 3 things:

- All the studies I've read assessed HRMax based on running protocols or similar. Using a cycling Max is not a true representation of HRMax, as it would be limited by the muscle volume being used.

- I think lots of people under report their HRMax, as they simply have not pushed thenselves that hard. Perhaps as a follow up, you should post some methodology on how to test it (V12man posted a nice explanation a while back), and then re-run this.

- There are some really weird outlyers in the same, that I cannot see being true (especially those really high ones) - this may be more of a technical/recording error than true HRMax.

 

Look forward to seeing the sample again once the others have been added.

 

PS. Did you differentiate between genders? (I know there aren't that many ladies on here...)

[RockCoach]

Interesting Andy

 

I've been monitoring my max hr since I was racing in my 20's. Seems as though the drop in max is not quite linear...

 

age - max hr (bpm)

25 - 201

28 - 192

33 - 185

45 - 179

[Smurfy]

Smurfy

64

174 (actually189)

48

Taurus

about 750.

[arendoog]

I think you should take your max HR after a proper warm up .Mine can shoot up to 220 if there is a cold fast start in a race and then come down to 170 .With a 30 min warm up my max is 170