another heartrate question

[Bob Banfield]

I've heard conflicting opinions about calculating % of max HR but for my money: Assuming a max HR of
186 and a resting HR of 48 80% of max HR = (max HR - resting HR) x (80/100) + resting HR
=158.4
As opposed to 80% x 186 =148.8 Am I right?

cheers Bob

 

[Niv]

I've read loads of articles in books & mags about this. The first formula [(Max-Min)*%] +Min is the
Karvonen formula - generally accepted as a good method.

The straight % * is found quite a lot, but I prefer to use the Karvonen one.

Not much help, but as you rightly say, conflicting opinions abound.

Just find what you're comfortable with & stick to it. Also, see if you can read Sally Edwards Heart
Rate book - very good. Niv.

"Bob Banfield" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I've heard conflicting opinions about calculating % of max HR but for my money: Assuming a max HR
> of 186 and a resting HR of 48 80% of max HR = (max HR - resting HR) x (80/100) + resting HR
> =158.4
> As opposed to 80% x 186 =148.8 Am I right?
>
> cheers Bob

 

[James Annan]

"Bob Banfield" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> I've heard conflicting opinions about calculating % of max HR but for my money: Assuming a max HR
> of 186 and a resting HR of 48 80% of max HR = (max HR - resting HR) x (80/100) + resting HR
> =158.4
> As opposed to 80% x 186 =148.8 Am I right?

Both might be 'right', depending who's book you are reading, I think both definitions are frequently
used. If your 'assumed max' is a guess based on 225-age or whatever, and the 80% is supposed to be
some sort of threshold, then it doesn't really matter which you use cos it'll probably be badly
wrong anyway.

James