Thread: Heart Rate
View Single Post
Old 07-06-21, 01:28 PM
  #11  
genejockey 
Klaatu..Verata..Necktie?
 
genejockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 17,974

Bikes: Litespeed Ultimate, Ultegra; Canyon Endurace, 105; Battaglin MAX, Chorus; Bianchi 928 Veloce; Ritchey Road Logic, Dura Ace; Cannondale R500 RX100; Schwinn Circuit, Sante; Lotus Supreme, Dura Ace

Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10430 Post(s)
Liked 11,908 Times in 6,100 Posts
Originally Posted by spelger
i think that is where you are wrong, my understanding is that the formula is/was based on most people. now i also believe the formula is quite old and our diets have changed (far more processed foods and artificial crap) which might have an effect on what the new "most people" formula might be today.
Apparently not.

The estimation of maximal heart rate (HRmax) has been a feature of exercise physiology and related applied sciences since the late 1930's. The estimation of HRmax has been largely based on the formula; HRmax=220-age. This equation is often presented in textbooks without explanation or citation to original research. In addition, the formula and related concepts are included in most certification exams within sports medicine, exercise physiology, and fitness. Despite the acceptance of this formula, research spanning more than two decades reveals the large error inherent in the estimation of HRmax (Sxy=7-11 b/min). Ironically, inquiry into the history of this formula reveals that it was not developed from original research, but resulted from observation based on data from approximately 11 references consisting of published research or unpublished scientific compilations. Consequently, the formula HRmax=220-age has no scientific merit for use in exercise physiology and related fields.
__________________
"Don't take life so serious-it ain't nohow permanent."

"Everybody's gotta be somewhere." - Eccles
genejockey is online now  
Likes For genejockey: