Originally Posted by
davester
It is not an average, and it doesn't apply to older people. It was based on some very rough observations of groups of younger people. Once the age number gets large it doesn't really work at all. Since this is the 50+ forum it probably applies to essentially nobody here.
I'm 52 and as mentioned above, it's spot on for me. Maybe I'm an anomaly.
Originally Posted by
davester
That's the whole problem with the bogus formula...it makes people think that they are at a higher training level than they actually are.
For me, I don't train by HR, I train using power. The HR shown above is the byproduct of that, which happens to fall in line with 220-age. Too many variables affect HR and HR is not constant, but power is.