Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:For a healthy adult, your target heart rate is 220 - your age. That’s the number most people should be aiming for during cardio work.
No! This is absolutely wrong. 220-Age is a rough estimate of MAXIMUM heart rate, not target heart rate. Depending on what someone is trying to do, you would expect your target to be anywhere between 60 and 95% of maximum.
To OP's question, it's easier to use your breathing as a guide. Unless you're trying to do sprints, aim for a pace that has you breathing just a little bit hard and you can only say a few words at a time. Too hard would be barely able to talk, too way would be having a full conversation.
+1. 220-your age could easily kill someone. Most 35 year olds are not capable of maintaining a 185 for any length of time
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:For a healthy adult, your target heart rate is 220 - your age. That’s the number most people should be aiming for during cardio work.
No! This is absolutely wrong. 220-Age is a rough estimate of MAXIMUM heart rate, not target heart rate. Depending on what someone is trying to do, you would expect your target to be anywhere between 60 and 95% of maximum.
To OP's question, it's easier to use your breathing as a guide. Unless you're trying to do sprints, aim for a pace that has you breathing just a little bit hard and you can only say a few words at a time. Too hard would be barely able to talk, too way would be having a full conversation.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Max heart rate is not really a scientifically based thing.
THE SURPRISING HISTORY OF THE "HRmax=220 -age" EQUATION. Robert A. Robergs, Roberto Landwehr. JEPonline. 2002;5(2):1-10. The estimation of maximal heart rate (HRmax) has been a feature of exercise physiology and related applied sciences since the late 1930's. The estimation of HRmax has been largely based on the formula; HRmax=220-age. This equation is often presented in textbooks without explanation or citation to original research. In addition, the formula and related concepts are included in most certification exams within sports medicine, exercise physiology, and fitness. Despite the acceptance of this formula, research spanning more than two decades reveals the large error inherent in the estimation of HRmax (Sxy=7-11 b/min). Ironically, inquiry into the history of this formula reveals that it was not developed from original research, but resulted from observation based on data from approximately 11 references consisting of published research or unpublished scientific compilations. Consequently, the formula HRmax=220 -age has no scientific merit for use in exercise physiology and related fields. A brief review of alternate HRmax prediction formula reveals that the majority of age -based univariate prediction equations also have large prediction errors (>10 b/min). Clearly, more research of HRmax needs to be done using a multivariate model, and equations may need to be developed that are population (fitness, health status, age, exercise mode) specific.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237258265_The_surprising_history_of_the_HRmax220-age_equation
It's a rough rule of thumb, and there are newer formulas that may be more accurate. However, max heart is definitely a thing, it's just a matter of how to accurately estimate it.
Too bad science does not back you up.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Max heart rate is not really a scientifically based thing.
THE SURPRISING HISTORY OF THE "HRmax=220 -age" EQUATION. Robert A. Robergs, Roberto Landwehr. JEPonline. 2002;5(2):1-10. The estimation of maximal heart rate (HRmax) has been a feature of exercise physiology and related applied sciences since the late 1930's. The estimation of HRmax has been largely based on the formula; HRmax=220-age. This equation is often presented in textbooks without explanation or citation to original research. In addition, the formula and related concepts are included in most certification exams within sports medicine, exercise physiology, and fitness. Despite the acceptance of this formula, research spanning more than two decades reveals the large error inherent in the estimation of HRmax (Sxy=7-11 b/min). Ironically, inquiry into the history of this formula reveals that it was not developed from original research, but resulted from observation based on data from approximately 11 references consisting of published research or unpublished scientific compilations. Consequently, the formula HRmax=220 -age has no scientific merit for use in exercise physiology and related fields. A brief review of alternate HRmax prediction formula reveals that the majority of age -based univariate prediction equations also have large prediction errors (>10 b/min). Clearly, more research of HRmax needs to be done using a multivariate model, and equations may need to be developed that are population (fitness, health status, age, exercise mode) specific.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237258265_The_surprising_history_of_the_HRmax220-age_equation
It's a rough rule of thumb, and there are newer formulas that may be more accurate. However, max heart is definitely a thing, it's just a matter of how to accurately estimate it.
Anonymous wrote:Max heart rate is not really a scientifically based thing.
THE SURPRISING HISTORY OF THE "HRmax=220 -age" EQUATION. Robert A. Robergs, Roberto Landwehr. JEPonline. 2002;5(2):1-10. The estimation of maximal heart rate (HRmax) has been a feature of exercise physiology and related applied sciences since the late 1930's. The estimation of HRmax has been largely based on the formula; HRmax=220-age. This equation is often presented in textbooks without explanation or citation to original research. In addition, the formula and related concepts are included in most certification exams within sports medicine, exercise physiology, and fitness. Despite the acceptance of this formula, research spanning more than two decades reveals the large error inherent in the estimation of HRmax (Sxy=7-11 b/min). Ironically, inquiry into the history of this formula reveals that it was not developed from original research, but resulted from observation based on data from approximately 11 references consisting of published research or unpublished scientific compilations. Consequently, the formula HRmax=220 -age has no scientific merit for use in exercise physiology and related fields. A brief review of alternate HRmax prediction formula reveals that the majority of age -based univariate prediction equations also have large prediction errors (>10 b/min). Clearly, more research of HRmax needs to be done using a multivariate model, and equations may need to be developed that are population (fitness, health status, age, exercise mode) specific.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237258265_The_surprising_history_of_the_HRmax220-age_equation
Anonymous wrote:I'd suggest trying to run by perceived exertion (feel), not by heart rate. If your treadmill run is supposed to be an easy, moderate run, you'd want to be able to carry on your end of a conversation during the run. If you're doing intervals, etc., it would be different. You should be able to find more info in a google search.
THE SURPRISING HISTORY OF THE "HRmax=220 -age" EQUATION. Robert A. Robergs, Roberto Landwehr. JEPonline. 2002;5(2):1-10. The estimation of maximal heart rate (HRmax) has been a feature of exercise physiology and related applied sciences since the late 1930's. The estimation of HRmax has been largely based on the formula; HRmax=220-age. This equation is often presented in textbooks without explanation or citation to original research. In addition, the formula and related concepts are included in most certification exams within sports medicine, exercise physiology, and fitness. Despite the acceptance of this formula, research spanning more than two decades reveals the large error inherent in the estimation of HRmax (Sxy=7-11 b/min). Ironically, inquiry into the history of this formula reveals that it was not developed from original research, but resulted from observation based on data from approximately 11 references consisting of published research or unpublished scientific compilations. Consequently, the formula HRmax=220 -age has no scientific merit for use in exercise physiology and related fields. A brief review of alternate HRmax prediction formula reveals that the majority of age -based univariate prediction equations also have large prediction errors (>10 b/min). Clearly, more research of HRmax needs to be done using a multivariate model, and equations may need to be developed that are population (fitness, health status, age, exercise mode) specific.
Anonymous wrote:For a healthy adult, your target heart rate is 220 - your age. That’s the number most people should be aiming for during cardio work.