Maximum heart rate is much higher than formula, is this OK?

jdaigle said:

So my question is, should I worry that the max hr is about 20bpm higher than the "normal" formula
prediction?

No!

--
Perre

You have to be smarter than a robot to reply.

jdaigle said:

stop pushing it. So my question is, should I worry that the max hr is about 20bpm higher than the
"normal" formula prediction? Thanks! Jeff

Alexandre,

You are worrying too much already. That is why your heart rate is elevated.

The usual formula doesn't seem to work very well for actual athletes. I'm in my 50's, and the usual
formula is much more off for me than it is for you -- my maximum approaches 180.

(jdaigle) said:

Last year, I did a test to determine my maximum heart rate that was suggested in one of the books I
read. I am 29 years old, so using the 220-age formula, the result should have been approximatly 191
bpm. When I did the test, I got my heart rate up to around 198 bpm. Which if I multiply by 0.85
(the recommended upper training limit percentage), I get about 168bpm max during training. I found
that during training I usually was way over this number, typically riding in the mid 180s or low
190s bpm. I was beginning to wonder if I had performed the test correctly, so I redid the test last
night on my rollers, I was able to get my heart rate up to 210, when I decided to stop pushing it.
So my question is, should I worry that the max hr is about 20bpm higher than the "normal" formula
prediction? Thanks! Jeff

"jdaigle" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

rollers, I was able to get my heart rate up to 210, when I decided to stop pushing it. So my
question is, should I worry that the max hr is about 20bpm higher than the "normal" formula
prediction? Thanks! Jeff

Not at all. The 220-age formula is a guesstamate of your actual max hr and doesn't work very well
for many athletes. A heart rate of 210+/min doesn't seem out of line for your age at all.

Cathy

Now that you established your max. you might read through training zones literature again
it seems....

I can't tell you your heart is OK, but I was tested by the Arizona Heart Institute with a 197 bpm
max heart rate at age 38. I'm now 59 and I ran it to 193 before I ran out of hill last summer, so it
doesn't seem to drop much with age, either. I have not had it tested recently, so it might still be
around 197. The formula would lead you to believe it's going to drop linearly with age.

Edd

[email hidden] (jdaigle) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Last year, I did a test to determine my maximum heart rate that was suggested in one of the books
I read. I am 29 years old, so using the 220-age formula, the result should have been approximatly
191 bpm. When I did the test, I got my heart rate up to around 198 bpm. Which if I multiply by
0.85 (the recommended upper training limit percentage), I get about 168bpm max during training. I
found that during training I usually was way over this number, typically riding in the mid 180s or
low 190s bpm. I was beginning to wonder if I had performed the test correctly, so I redid the test
last night on my rollers, I was able to get my heart rate up to 210, when I decided to stop
pushing it. So my question is, should I worry that the max hr is about 20bpm higher than the
"normal" formula prediction? Thanks! Jeff

(jdaigle) said:

So my question is, should I worry that the max hr is about 20bpm higher than the "normal" formula
prediction?

As others have said, the formula is only a guess, and 220-age isn't even the best formula for making
that guess. You might be interested in reading the article "The Surprising History of the 'HRmax=220-
age' Equation" by Robert A. Robergs and Roberto Landwehr:

css.eduRobergs2.pdfOpen ↗

The article's conclusions and recommendations are:

1. Currently, there is no acceptable method to estimate HRmax.

2. If HRmax needs to be estimated, then population specific formulae should be used. However, the
most accurate general equation is that of Inbar (17) (Table 3); HRmax=205.8-0.685(age).
Nevertheless, the error (Sxy=6.4 b/min) is still unacceptably large.

3. An acceptable prediction error for HRmax for application to estimation of VO2max is <+-3 b/min.
Thus, for a person with a HRmax of 200 b/min, error equals +-1.5%. If this precision is not
possible, then there is no justification for using methods of VO2max estimation that rely on HR
max prediction formulae.

4. Additional research needs to be performed that develops multivariate regression equations that
improve the accuracy of HRmax prediction for specific populations, and modes of exercise.

5. The use of HRmax is most prevalent in the fitness industry, and the people who work in these
facilities mainly have a terminal undergraduate degree in exercise science or related fields.
These students/graduates need to be better educated in statistics to recognize and understand the
concept of prediction error, and the practical consequences of relying on an equation with a
large standard error of estimate (Sxy).

6. Textbooks in exercise physiology and exercise prescription should contain content that is more
critical of the HRmax=220-age or similar formulae. Authors need to stress the mode-specificity of
HRmax, provide alternate, research substantiated formula, and express all content of items 1-5,
above. Similarly, academic coverage of HRmax needs to explain how this error detracts from using
HRmax estimation in many field tests of physical fitness and in exercise prescription.

--
Michael Fuhr fuhr.org~mfuhrOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

From: [email hidden] (jdaigle)
Date: 1/6/2004 1:14 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Quoted message said:

Last year, I did a test to determine my maximum heart rate that was suggested in one of the books I
read. I am 29 years old, so using the 220-age formula, the result should have been approximatly 191
bpm. When I did the test, I got my heart rate up to around 198 bpm. Which if I multiply by 0.85
(the recommended upper training limit percentage), I get about 168bpm max during training. I found
that during training I usually was way over this number, typically riding in the mid 180s or low
190s bpm. I was beginning to wonder if I had performed the test correctly, so I redid the test last
night on my rollers, I was able to get my heart rate up to 210, when I decided to stop pushing it.
So my question is, should I worry that the max hr is about 20bpm higher than the "normal" formula
prediction? Thanks! Jeff<<

You are obviously a freak and must be segregated from the normal, healthy members of society.

There is no excuse for your failure to conform to a notoriously inaccurate mathematical formula.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I measure success by the degree to which I ruin other people's lives."

THIS COULD BE FATAL. SPRINT DOWN TO YOUR LOCAL E.R. IMMEDIATELY.

(jdaigle) said:

Last year, I did a test to determine my maximum heart rate that was suggested in one of the books
I read. I am 29 years old, so using the 220-age formula, the result should have been approximatly
191 bpm. When I

did the test, I got my heart rate up to around 198 bpm. Which

Quoted message said:

if I multiply by 0.85 (the recommended upper training limit percentage), I get about 168bpm max
during training. I found that during training I usually was way over this number, typically riding
in the mid 180s or low 190s bpm. I was beginning to wonder if I had performed the test correctly,
so I redid the test last night on my rollers, I was able to get my heart rate up to 210, when I
decided to stop pushing it. So my question is, should I worry that the max hr is about 20bpm
higher than the "normal" formula prediction? Thanks! Jeff

Ok, this is not a joke... I had asked Ed Burke this very same question before he died of a
heart attack.

His answer about my "predicted" hr max of 180, when my tests showed much higher:

"I would use the 197 for you max heart rate. This is definitely your truer max heart rate. The 220
minus your age has a standard deviation of 11 bpm, and it is not common to be more than 1 standard
deviation from the mean.

I would also use the Karvonen or Heart Rate reserve method to set up your training zones.

I would also enter your true max into your monitor to get your true fitness score.

You may also consider reading two of my books that would help you with your training and use of the
heart rate monitor.

1. Precision Heart Rate Training, Human Kinetics Publishers, 1998
2. Serious Cycling, Human Kinetics Publishers
3. Fitness Cycling, Human Kinetics (I coauthored this with Chris Carmichael)"

"Bill Lloyd" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:2004013120471717362%thanksforno@spamcom...

Quoted message said:

THIS COULD BE FATAL. SPRINT DOWN TO YOUR LOCAL E.R. IMMEDIATELY.

(jdaigle) said:

Last year, I did a test to determine my maximum heart rate that was suggested in one of the
books I read. I am 29 years old, so using the 220-age formula, the result should have been
approximatly 191 bpm. When

I

Quoted message said:

did the test, I got my heart rate up to around 198 bpm. Which

Quoted message said:

if I multiply by 0.85 (the recommended upper training limit percentage), I get about 168bpm max
during training. I found that during training I usually was way over this number, typically
riding in the mid 180s or low 190s bpm. I was beginning to wonder if I had performed the test
correctly, so I redid the test last night on my rollers, I was able to get my heart rate up to
210, when I decided to stop pushing it. So my question is, should I worry that the max hr is
about 20bpm higher than the "normal" formula prediction? Thanks! Jeff

Bryan said:

Ok, this is not a joke... I had asked Ed Burke this very same question before he died of a
heart attack.

His answer about my "predicted" hr max of 180, when my tests showed much higher:

"I would use the 197 for you max heart rate. This is definitely your truer max heart rate. The 220
minus your age has a standard deviation of 11 bpm, and it is not common to be more than 1 standard
deviation from the mean.

Did Burke mean "it is not *un*common to be more than 1 standard deviation from the mean"? According
to statistics:

68% of a population should fall within 1 standard deviation of the mean 95% should fall within 2
standard deviations
99.7% should fall within 3 standard deviations

Nearly a third of a population should be more than 1 standard deviation from the mean, so "not
uncommon" sounds more like what Burke meant.

--
Michael Fuhr fuhr.org~mfuhrOpen ↗

In article <tL%Tb.219156$na.360562@attbi_s04>, Bryan

Quoted message said:

Ok, this is not a joke... I had asked Ed Burke this very same question before he died of a
heart attack.

His answer about my "predicted" hr max of 180, when my tests showed much higher:

"I would use the 197 for you max heart rate. This is definitely your truer max heart rate. The 220
minus your age has a standard deviation of 11 bpm, and it is not common to be more than 1 standard
deviation from the mean.

I would also use the Karvonen or Heart Rate reserve method to set up your training zones.

I would also enter your true max into your monitor to get your true fitness score.

You may also consider reading two of my books that would help you with your training and use of
the heart rate monitor.

1. Precision Heart Rate Training, Human Kinetics Publishers, 1998
2. Serious Cycling, Human Kinetics Publishers
3. Fitness Cycling, Human Kinetics (I coauthored this with Chris Carmichael)"

No accounting for lactate threshold?

-WG

On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 16:56:06 GMT, warren <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

No accounting for lactate threshold?

-WG

Its a debit. The credit goes to your parents...

Curtis L. Russell Odenton, MD (USA) Just someone on two wheels...