Originally Posted by
Brett A
220 minus age works out to about 10 BPS lower than the highest I've registered on my chest-strap HRM in recent months. Maybe the rule of thumb is intentionally conservative? It seems to be lower than a lot of people's max HR when tested.
I don't think there's any intentionality involved. My understanding is that some researcher took a bunch of untrained individuals and plotted their max HRs and noticed a gross correlation between their age and HR. Then tried to fit a line to the correlation that worked out to 220-age. That's it. It's just a correlation across a population that has no predictive value for any one individual. It's just baffling to me how this has come to be accepted as even a rule of thumb. I mean you see it printed on gym equipment. I don't get it.
It makes as much sense as the "8 glasses of water everyday" nonsense.