HEART RATE
 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/10/he...xAtCmoDZu+EXPg

HEART RATE
 

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 07:12:40 -0700 (PDT), datakoll
wrote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/10/he...xAtCmoDZu+EXPg

"As for my husband, he knows that my fixation on whose heart rate is
higher is ridiculous. Still, I wish I knew what he thinks his maximum
is and how he knows it."

I was always told the rule of thumb was "220 less your age" - until I
came across this formula today:

210 - (half age in years) - (0.11*(weight in kg)) + 4

HEART RATE
 

On Apr 10, 7:18*pm, Andrew Price wrote:
On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 07:12:40 -0700 (PDT), datakoll

wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/10/he...ST.html?adxnnl...

"As for my husband, he knows that my fixation on whose heart rate is
higher is ridiculous. Still, I wish I knew what he thinks his maximum
is and how he knows it."

I was always told the rule of thumb was "220 less your age" - until I
came across this formula today:

210 - (half age in years) - (0.11*(weight in kg)) + 4

That's my HR when I read the NYT?

Actually that equation works spot on for me.

Joseph

HEART RATE
 

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 11:27:07 -0700 (PDT),
" wrote:

210 - (half age in years) - (0.11*(weight in kg)) + 4

That's my HR when I read the NYT?

Actually that equation works spot on for me.

It's the first time I've seen one which not only takes age, but also
weight into account.

HEART RATE
 

On Apr 10, 9:10*pm, Andrew Price wrote:
On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 11:27:07 -0700 (PDT),

" wrote:
210 - (half age in years) - (0.11*(weight in kg)) + 4

That's my HR when I read the NYT?

Actually that equation works spot on for me.

It's the first time I've seen one which not only takes age, but also
weight into account.

That struck me as well. Particularly since I am losing weight. I can't
see how my max HR is going to change by a few beats in a few months.

Joseph

HEART RATE
 

Andrew Price wrote:
I was always told the rule of thumb was "220 less your age" - until I came
across this formula today:

210 - (half age in years) - (0.11*(weight in kg)) + 4

Does it take relativistic effects into account ?

HEART RATE
 

Andrew Price wrote:

I was always told the rule of thumb was "220 less your age" - until I
came across this formula today:

210 - (half age in years) - (0.11*(weight in kg)) + 4
It's about 30 low for me!

HEART RATE
 

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 21:20:31 +0100, Dan Gregory
wrote:

Andrew Price wrote:

I was always told the rule of thumb was "220 less your age" - until I
came across this formula today:

210 - (half age in years) - (0.11*(weight in kg)) + 4
It's about 30 low for me!

16-18 beats too low for me. Just a bit above my AT HR.

HEART RATE
 

Andrew Price wrote:

I was always told the rule of thumb was "220 less your age" - until I
came across this formula today:

210 - (half age in years) - (0.11*(weight in kg)) + 4

Bzzt. Both give very similar answers for me - both completely useless.

As per the other poster, the above two account for *about* 80% or so of the
population.

That's great, till you find out you're not part of that 80%.

With that class of error range, the only way is to test it. And you don't
need a treadmill and wires hanging off your chest either, self-testing on a
path or perhaps back streets gives a viable enough answer.

Plenty good enough for those who aren't in the same league as those who are
tested for Hr Max, VO2 and such as a matter of course, in which case, this
cruder testing becomes a moot point anyway.
--
Linux Registered User # 302622
http://counter.li.org

HEART RATE
 

I was always told the rule of thumb was "220 less your age" - until I
came across this formula today:

210 - (half age in years) - (0.11*(weight in kg)) + 4

That is amazingly close. The "traditional" 220-age has always given me a
heart rate too low.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA