Prev: Hoodia?
Next: Quiz: Are You Living A Healthy Lifestyle
From: Resound on 2 Sep 2007 03:53
Ok, so I picked up the new bike computer today; a Polar CS200cad. It does
speed, cadence, heartrate and so on. Now, using the 220-age formula, my max
heart rate *should* be somewhere around 183-184 (I turn 37 at the end of the
year). Even given that there's scope for variance from individual to
individual and even given that the exploratory spin down to the shops was a
bit brisker than the usualy commute, and average HR of 173 and a max of 195
seems a bit off base. The heart rate generally seemed reasonable at lower
intensities and there weren't any spikes which would indicate interference
(I was doing the new toy thing and watching it pretty closely). So am I some
kind of freak or this fairly normal?


From: Steve Freides on 5 Sep 2007 09:03
"Resound" <sacredchao(a)bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:46da6bc9$0$13999$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au...
> Ok, so I picked up the new bike computer today; a Polar CS200cad. It
> does speed, cadence, heartrate and so on. Now, using the 220-age
> formula, my max heart rate *should* be somewhere around 183-184 (I
> turn 37 at the end of the year). Even given that there's scope for
> variance from individual to individual and even given that the
> exploratory spin down to the shops was a bit brisker than the usualy
> commute, and average HR of 173 and a max of 195 seems a bit off base.
> The heart rate generally seemed reasonable at lower intensities and
> there weren't any spikes which would indicate interference (I was
> doing the new toy thing and watching it pretty closely). So am I some
> kind of freak or this fairly normal?

That formula generally gives too low a number. The best way to get a
max, IMHO, is under your doctor's supervision, but what I did was put on
the monitor, go out and run a few miles, then as I got closer to the
finish, I kept picking up the pace so that I was doing an all-out sprint
for the last hundred yards or so. I got 187 and I was in my late 40's
at the time. Unless you really know how to push yourself hard on a
bike, you'll do better finding the number by running, IMHO.

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com


From: joeu2004 on 11 Sep 2007 23:44
On Sep 2, 12:53 am, "Resound" <sacredc...(a)bigpond.com> wrote:
> Now, using the 220-age formula, my max heart rate *should* be
> somewhere around 183-184 (I turn 37 at the end of the year).

Your MHR decreases by one at midnight on your birthday.

Just kidding! The point is: there is no need to be so precise,
especially since any such formula has a standard deviation of +/-6 to
+/-12 bpm. Just use your current age; don't worry about
interpolating.

The age-based formulas are not intended to say that any one
individual's MHR will decrease linearly with each passing year.
Instead, the formulas merely say that the __average__ MHR for
"the" (well, some) population decreases with the age of the
__population__.

By analogy: just because the median price of homes are dropping
nationwide (or even in your area), that does not mean that the price
of __your__ home is decreasing or decreasing at the same rate.


> [an] average HR of 173 and a max of 195 seems a bit off base.

These seem reasonable, potentially. But you do not offer enough
information -- like how you felt at those HRs.

If 173 felt like 80%, 85% or 90% (medium-high to high exertion), your
MHR would be 216, 204 or 192; simply divide 173 by the percentage
expressed as a decimal (e.g. 0.80 for 80%). If 195 felt like 95%
(exhausting!), your MHR would be 205. So my guess is: your MHR is
204-205.

(When I was about 40, I estimated that my MHR was in that range.)

Alternatively, by the same rationale, you could conclude that your MHR
is about 216-217 (195/95% and 173/80%), if you do not believe you can
reach 95% MHR. But 216-217 seems awfully high and unlikely to me,
especially at age 37.


> So am I some kind of freak [...]?

No. You are simply not "average". More about that below.

More significantly, the question is: is there anything wrong with
your new Polar HRM?

Probably not, given the generally great(!) quality of Polar HRMs. But
if you are concerned, it would not hurt to ask the store manager if
you could conduct the same experiment, as identially as humanly
possible and resonable, with another receiver, which you could protect
from your sweat.

As for the transmitter, you could purchase another one. You might
want to anyway. If you have the stiff plastic transmitter, you might
want to try the fabric transmitter. I have used only the stiff one;
but I can imagine that the fabric one fits better, which would avoid
any conductivity issues.

But in either case, I suggest that you test them separately.

-----

I could write a book about 220-age. But the long and short of it
is.... Like all such formulas, 220-age is, at best, the MHR for the
"average" person at that age. But the fact is: few of us are
"average". Less than 8% of us are within +/-1 bpm of 220-age, and
about 32% (nearly 1/3) are more than 20 under as well as over 220-age.

(That presumes a normal distribution of MHRs for the population and a
standard deviation +/-10 bpm for the formula.)

Despite the alarmingly non-scientific origins of 220-age, it has been
variously validated and invalidated, for one population or another, by
a large number of later studies. Generally, for healthly individuals,
one of the other formulas seems more appropriate. Two more-recent
formulas are: 205.8 - 0.685*age (Inbar et al, 1994) or 208 - 0.7*age
(Tanaka et al, 2001).

But the differences among the various formulas is small -- an average
of +/-4 bpm for ages 20-60. So it does not matter much which formula
you use. The take-away from all of this is simply: the age-based
formulas are merely a starting point for estimating MHR.

You should also be aware that these formulas -- especially 220-age --
are often used as a stopping point for tests that are conducted in
clinics and fitness centers. Typically, they stop at 85% of the
predicted MHR. If you feel that you can go further, you should talk
to the person conducting the test about allowing you to do so.

From: sycochkn on 12 Sep 2007 00:04

"joeu2004" <joeu2004(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1189568693.694376.152220(a)50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 2, 12:53 am, "Resound" <sacredc...(a)bigpond.com> wrote:
>> Now, using the 220-age formula, my max heart rate *should* be
>> somewhere around 183-184 (I turn 37 at the end of the year).
>
> Your MHR decreases by one at midnight on your birthday.
>
> Just kidding! The point is: there is no need to be so precise,
> especially since any such formula has a standard deviation of +/-6 to
> +/-12 bpm. Just use your current age; don't worry about
> interpolating.
>
> The age-based formulas are not intended to say that any one
> individual's MHR will decrease linearly with each passing year.
> Instead, the formulas merely say that the __average__ MHR for
> "the" (well, some) population decreases with the age of the
> __population__.
>
> By analogy: just because the median price of homes are dropping
> nationwide (or even in your area), that does not mean that the price
> of __your__ home is decreasing or decreasing at the same rate.
>
>
>> [an] average HR of 173 and a max of 195 seems a bit off base.
>
> These seem reasonable, potentially. But you do not offer enough
> information -- like how you felt at those HRs.
>
> If 173 felt like 80%, 85% or 90% (medium-high to high exertion), your
> MHR would be 216, 204 or 192; simply divide 173 by the percentage
> expressed as a decimal (e.g. 0.80 for 80%). If 195 felt like 95%
> (exhausting!), your MHR would be 205. So my guess is: your MHR is
> 204-205.
>
> (When I was about 40, I estimated that my MHR was in that range.)
>
> Alternatively, by the same rationale, you could conclude that your MHR
> is about 216-217 (195/95% and 173/80%), if you do not believe you can
> reach 95% MHR. But 216-217 seems awfully high and unlikely to me,
> especially at age 37.
>
>
>> So am I some kind of freak [...]?
>
> No. You are simply not "average". More about that below.
>
> More significantly, the question is: is there anything wrong with
> your new Polar HRM?
>
> Probably not, given the generally great(!) quality of Polar HRMs. But
> if you are concerned, it would not hurt to ask the store manager if
> you could conduct the same experiment, as identially as humanly
> possible and resonable, with another receiver, which you could protect
> from your sweat.
>
> As for the transmitter, you could purchase another one. You might
> want to anyway. If you have the stiff plastic transmitter, you might
> want to try the fabric transmitter. I have used only the stiff one;
> but I can imagine that the fabric one fits better, which would avoid
> any conductivity issues.
>
> But in either case, I suggest that you test them separately.
>
> -----
>
> I could write a book about 220-age. But the long and short of it
> is.... Like all such formulas, 220-age is, at best, the MHR for the
> "average" person at that age. But the fact is: few of us are
> "average". Less than 8% of us are within +/-1 bpm of 220-age, and
> about 32% (nearly 1/3) are more than 20 under as well as over 220-age.
>
> (That presumes a normal distribution of MHRs for the population and a
> standard deviation +/-10 bpm for the formula.)
>
> Despite the alarmingly non-scientific origins of 220-age, it has been
> variously validated and invalidated, for one population or another, by
> a large number of later studies. Generally, for healthly individuals,
> one of the other formulas seems more appropriate. Two more-recent
> formulas are: 205.8 - 0.685*age (Inbar et al, 1994) or 208 - 0.7*age
> (Tanaka et al, 2001).
>
> But the differences among the various formulas is small -- an average
> of +/-4 bpm for ages 20-60. So it does not matter much which formula
> you use. The take-away from all of this is simply: the age-based
> formulas are merely a starting point for estimating MHR.
>
> You should also be aware that these formulas -- especially 220-age --
> are often used as a stopping point for tests that are conducted in
> clinics and fitness centers. Typically, they stop at 85% of the
> predicted MHR. If you feel that you can go further, you should talk
> to the person conducting the test about allowing you to do so.
>

I use the polar with the fabric strap. I have intermittent high readings due
to connection problems while walking. I tried shaving my chest at the
connection points. The shaving helped some. I think I need to try some
conductive grease. 115 or so at an actual heart rate of ~85.

Bob

Bob


From: Light of Aria on 24 Sep 2007 04:28

"Resound" <sacredchao(a)bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:46da6bc9$0$13999$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au...
> Ok, so I picked up the new bike computer today; a Polar CS200cad. It does
> speed, cadence, heartrate and so on. Now, using the 220-age formula, my
> max heart rate *should* be somewhere around 183-184 (I turn 37 at the end
> of the year). Even given that there's scope for variance from individual
> to individual and even given that the exploratory spin down to the shops
> was a bit brisker than the usualy commute, and average HR of 173 and a max
> of 195 seems a bit off base. The heart rate generally seemed reasonable
> at lower intensities and there weren't any spikes which would indicate
> interference (I was doing the new toy thing and watching it pretty
> closely). So am I some kind of freak or this fairly normal?
>


Snap. I'm the same age as you and use a Polar RS800SD. I do several KM runs
at about 150 HBM and a few KMs at about 170 HBM sustained.

The highest I've seen was 187 which is 4 above the forumla.

I've seen spikes of 220 and 250 on my charts on a very small number of
occasions during weights, combat and body attack. Clearly I'm still alive so
its just erroneous data. May be someone else in the room has a transmitter
on or fired up something on the 2.4GHZ band or may be the sensor belt
jumped.



 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Hoodia?
Next: Quiz: Are You Living A Healthy Lifestyle