Age, Sex, Max Heart Rate?

[kipkeino68]

Mine is M/49, 185

[jagmanvdp]

how did you calculate it?

male, 42 years of age

resting heart rate of 60..other pertinent facts?

partial to redheads..especially the female ones!! tend to experience max heart rate when one comes in the room....

Darren

[kipkeino68]

I purchased a HEART RATE RECEIVER ASSEMBLY from CONCEPT2.
https://www2.concept2.com/VIA/index.jsp
I already had the Polar chest strap I use for running.
I got my heartrate up to 185 doing a hard 5k with the last 500M all out.
The "220 minus your age", guessing method is not even close to accurate. 220-49=171.

[Nosmo]

...
The "220 minus your age", guessing method is not even close to accurate. 220-49=171.

The standard deviation for the formula 220-age is about 11, which means it will be common for someone to be off by 22 beats in either direction, and you will even occasionally run in to people who are off by more then 33.

Edit: should have said "standard deviation for heart rate is about 11", irrespective of the formula. Meaning there is a wide variation and no formula will work very well.

[Bob S.]

...
The "220 minus your age", guessing method is not even close to accurate. 220-49=171.

The standard deviation for the formula 220-age is about 11, which means it will be common for someone to be off by 22 beats in either direction, and you will even occassionally run in to people who are off by more then 33.

One that works better is 205-1/2age for those who are fit. That gives me a max of 164, which seems about right. The other one gives 138, but I seem to be able to stay in the mid 150s for long periods with no problem.

There was a long series of messages about this a while back, but I forget if it was on this forum or the U.K. forum. One of the members claimed that the person who first articulated the 220-age admitted that it was not based on any sort of study, but was just something he made up as a reasonable guess. I believe that he was named, but I don't remember any of the details.

Bob S.

[Nosmo]

...
The "220 minus your age", guessing method is not even close to accurate. 220-49=171.

The standard deviation for the formula 220-age is about 11, which means it will be common for someone to be off by 22 beats in either direction, and you will even occassionally run in to people who are off by more then 33.

One that works better is 205-1/2age for those who are fit. That gives me a max of 164, which seems about right. The other one gives 138, but I seem to be able to stay in the mid 150s for long periods with no problem.

There was a long series of messages about this a while back, but I forget if it was on this forum or the U.K. forum. One of the members claimed that the person who first articulated the 220-age admitted that it was not based on any sort of study, but was just something he made up as a reasonable guess. I believe that he was named, but I don't remember any of the details.

Bob S.

Actually what I wrote was not really correct. The standard deviation for heart rate is about 11. That is irrespective of the formula used. This means even a very accurate formula for age vs heart rate would substantially off for a very large percentage of the population.

The 205 - half your age is usually a bit better. But no formula is going to be very useful.

[Citroen]

M, 44, 191 (on the erg).

I've recently seen a 201 on the bike, but I'm dismissing that as a false reading.

[Rocky]

Hi kipkeino68,
I don't know to what degree you are investigating training with a Heart Rate Monitor.

Good information can be found in this book:
Total Heart Rate Training: Customize and Maximize Your Workout Using a Heart Rate Monitor (Paperback)
by Joe Friel (Author)

Here are some interesting points from the book:
(1) Max heart rate formulas are not very accurate for an individual. They are estimates for a population, and as previously noted, an individuals' max HR can vary considerably from the mean.

(2) Max heart rate is sport specific!
For me, running, max heart rate is 175 (I am not a runner).
Erg, max heart rate is 184. I'm 45 years old.

(2) When trying to determine training zones, work from the anaerobic threshold for that sport, rather than the max heart rate. My rowing anaerobic threshold is about 165; that's where I start breathing hard. When I try to run, I'm huffing and puffing at about 152.

(3) Friel says that because heart rate is affected by temperature, humidity, hydration, and a host of other factors, it is better to use an additional source of information to determine level of effort for a given workout. For cyclists there is a new gadget being sold to determine the level of work being done. We already have the gadget on the erg; the PM3!

I'm still trying to understand how to best use the HRM. So far, it works well for identifying when I'm sick and should go easy on the workout (or quit altogether). It also encourages me when I see that I can maintain a given pace at a lower heart rate.

I hope this is helpful!
C

[kipkeino68]

I like using the heart rate monitor as a tool to make sure I'm giving 100%. Obviously I don't make every workout a maxed out effort.
I find it very helpful when running on a hot day when my watch tells me I'm doging it, but my HRM assures me that I'm giving an honest effort.

[PaulS]

I like using the heart rate monitor as a tool to make sure I'm giving 100%. Obviously I don't make every workout a maxed out effort.
I find it very helpful when running on a hot day when my watch tells me I'm doging it, but my HRM assures me that I'm giving an honest effort.

It could just be saying "I need ot pump blood quicker to keep my temperature down by getting it circulating near the surface where the perspiration is taking heat away." HR will vary for a lot of reasons that have more to do with things going on in our heads than in our muscles. I recall getting all hooked up for for a VO2Max test, and HR was bumping along at 39, right up to the point the folks said "go", it was only light resistance at a cadence of 60 on a cycling Ergometer, but the HR went right up to 160+ for the next 10 minutes, and then climbed to 198 over the next 8 minutes when the test ended. The increase in the beginning was so fast that they asked if I felt okay, but I hadn't noticed the change at all. Apparently my mind figured I was in for a tough one and put the heart right to work ramping up. I figured it had a lot to do with how we prepare and race in the rowing world. We have a good amount of time to warm up, but then can sit anywhere from 5-15minutes doing virtually nothing while around the starting line, then there is no choice but to be prepared for maximum aerobic output ASAP when the race starts. Sometimes it can feel like you've had no warm-up at all by the time you get called up, line up, and the starter sends you off.

[turnere]

I got my heartrate up to 185 doing a hard 5k with the last 500M all out.
The "220 minus your age", guessing method is not even close to accurate. 220-49=171.

If you're still interested in estimating max heart rate, there's a discussion under Links and Articles. The discussion off the topic of Links and Articles, with some people expressing their nihilism about all formulas. But if you're OK with an estimate, the study cited there arrived at the formula:

207 - 0.7 x age

The sample size was large and chosen from members of a health assessment/fitness center (so they weren't super-jocks but nor were they couch potatoes).

They compared the performance of this equation with that of the "standby" and found it did far better at predicting their true max heart rates (based on a treadmill stress test protocol). They found that the 220-age underestimates max HR at higher ages, which is consistent with what you found.

Still, the caveat "your mileage may vary" applies, since every estimate is just that, an estimate. On the other hand, I imagine that people who are trying to get back into shape may be more comfortable with a good estimate than with taking the risk of an all-out effort.

[richking1953]

207 -0.7*age is from a study by Gellish et al [Gellish, 2007]. They quote a standard deviation of 6 beats, slightly better than 220-age. But 32% of the population is more than one standard deviation off, so many people will be off by more than 6 beats. The most detailed study I've seen was by Tanaka et al [Tanaka, 2001], involving thousands of subjects. They came up with a similar formula to Gellish et al. But they presented their actual data, and it's a scattered cloud with only a vague trend towards decreasing with age.
Rowing's own exercise physiologist Dr. Fritz Hagerman has called the idea of an age-based prediction of heart rate "ludicrous" [Kolata, 2001]. I discuss this topic at length in an article http://home.earthlink.net/~richking1/articles/220.htm
Refs:
Gellish, R, et al, Longitudinal Modeling of the Relationship between Age and Maximal Heart Rate. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 39(5):822-829, 2007.
Tanaka, H, Monahan, K, Seals, D, “Age-Predicted Maximal Heart Rate Revisited”, Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 37(1), 153, 2001.
Kolata, G, “Maximum Heart Rate Theory Is Challenged", The New York Times Health Page, April 24, 2001.

[RowtheRockies]

Male, Age 38 resting HR 46 Max HR Running = 179 Rowing is 174. These are the highest values I have ever observed while running races from 1 mile to 10K and in any rowing workouts or 2K TT's.

Rich

[fatboyslim]

male 49 resting 45 erg 171 running 177 both 5 ks. I understand that your resting pulse lowers as you become more fit, but what about your max? Will you increase your max or just be able to do more at the same rate? 2k 7:07 5k 18:59.4

[BobD]

During a 10K, run in 1 hour, I held about 150 for most of the run, and got it up to 181 during the last km sprint. Felt fine afterwards, my HR drops by 10-15 beats per minute during cool down. Check my age in the signature