220-age fallacy
Ramanujan
Posts: 352
Does anyone know the origin of the much quoted 220-age formula for max heart rate? Just wondering where this originated.
0
Comments
-
Ramanujan wrote:Does anyone know the origin of the much quoted 220-age formula for max heart rate? Just wondering where this originated.
Don't know but probably has something to do with a normal distribution and a bit of mathematics which is quite ironic given you've picked the username and picture of one of the greatest mathematicians. If only he'd lived longer hey!
What's your link with the great man?0 -
Sorry double post.0
-
There's some info on topic here
http://www.machinehead-software.co.uk/bike/heart_rate/heart_rate_calculator.html
But others might have more comprehensive references.0 -
The Karvonen Formula.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_rate
Not designed as a tool to find one's MHR - designed to PREDICT it! As with any prediction, there is room for error.
Still used in the industry by personal trainers and health/fitness professionals as it makes a good starting point when training a novice/beginner to exercise. Once said beginner becomes used to the feelings of working at high intensity a more accurate method for obtaining (actual) maximum heart rate can then be used.
0 -
chrisw12 wrote:
Don't know but probably has something to do with a normal distribution and a bit of mathematics which is quite ironic given you've picked the username and picture of one of the greatest mathematicians. If only he'd lived longer hey!
What's your link with the great man?
my only link is that I did a masters in Mathematics 30 years ago and wrote a thesis on hypergeometric series and mock theta functions: an area Ramanujan worked on.0 -
Chrissz wrote:The Karvonen Formula.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_rate
Not designed as a tool to find one's MHR - designed to PREDICT it! As with any prediction, there is room for error.
Wrong.
Karvonen formula takes into account resting heart rate as well as maximum heart rate. It does not predict a single thing with regard to maxHR. It does however help you establish training zones based off it. Nothing much new there then. Its just another formula which adds another layter of complexity which may or may not offer the user something. Different things work for different people.
The formula is:
(maxHR - RHR)*UHRZ/100+RHR for calculating upper heart rate zone and just change the UHRZ for LHRZ for calculating the lower range
maxHR = maximum heart rate
RHR = resting heart rate
UHRZ = upper heart rate zone
LHRZ = lower heart rate zone
For instance:
If you have a maxHR of 200, Resting Heart Rate of 50 and you want to find the training range for 70-80% then:
UHRZ bpm = (200-50)*70/100+50 = 150*0.7+50 = 105+50 = 155bpm.
LHRZ bpm = (200-50)*80/100+50 = 150*0.8+50 = 120+50 = 170bpm.
So your training range is: 155 to 170 bpm.
Hope that's clear.
As to 220-age I think I remember reading somewhere that it was devised as a general guideline by which Doctor's could inform patients about safe levels of exercise ie for the very unfit or those with medical conditions. I don't think it was ever intended for use in the fitness industry and almost certainly was not intended to be misused in the way it has been. It is for the incredibly lazy only.0 -
0
-
Tom M wrote:
Excellent stuff. That really was an interesting read. I think a link just to that for future questions relating to 220-age will say it all.0
