You are reading a single comment by @Greenbank and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
-
It's the best thing there is if you've got absolutely no other reference point. If you've got any other reference point (like an HRM reading) then you can throw away the 220-age estimation.
There are approximations that give a better fit (population wide) if you use a second order polynomial but that is beyond the branes of most people.
Greenbank-
There are approximations that give a better fit (population wide) if you use a second order polynomial but that is beyond the branes of most people.
I have quite a clear memory of my coach, a hockey Olympian, saying (paraphrasing) "Fuck the models, if you want to find out your max HR,run uphill until you throw up and take your pulse".
Stonehedge
When I did did my coaching badges and A Level Sports Science (over 20 years ago now) we were taught that a good rule of thumb for maximum HR is 220 minus your age.
https://www.cdc.gov/physicalactivity/basics/measuring/heartrate.htm