MAX BPM..........................

There is a widely held view...and held by many in the medical profession..that an individuals max heartrate during excercise can be estimated as 220 minus age.

I am 67 next month, so.....220-67 = 153.

Today on the treadmill I backed off when I reached 171 bpm..dropped down to 138 on slow speed then repeated to 171...standard Interval Training stuff.

Now, using the 220 minus theory I have a heart of a 49 year old.....?

Also,...my backing off at 171 was by no means me being at the limit, just the kind of 'good workout' rate...by no means sprinting.Recovery rate was approximately 1 bpm every 2 deep breaths..so 171 to 138 took about a minute

As a younger sportsperson I regularly used 175 as a manageable fast race guide and In Extremis would see high 190s and up to 200 on one occasion.

Anybody out there with a similar experience ..or a better explanation of this ,somewhat 'catch all'  220 Minus rule of thumb ??

My rate response is 'off'.  My PM is set at 50bpm. Sitting here, writing this my bpm is 80.

Thanks in advance

Tattoo Man

PS...sorry about the pong..I've not been in the shower yet !

 

3 Comments

nice article that explains it

by jcb - 2017-04-26 04:24:36

The traditional formula for determining HRmax – age subtracted from 220bpm – can underestimate HRmax by up to 40 bpm in seniors, and starts becoming inaccurate already at an age of 30-40 years.

https://www.ntnu.edu/cerg/hrmax-info

 

 

Thanks jcb , very interesting article !

by IAN MC - 2017-04-26 05:59:55

I see the article suggests that 211 - 0.64 of age may be more accurate

. That would give Tattoo Man a revised  max of 168 bpm. BUT the authors concede that the only accurate way is to somehow deternine your own HR max

It has always seemed crazy to me to even suggest that everyone of the same age would have the same maximum heart-rate regardless of their fitness, weight, height  , gender etc

.. and yet the whole fitness industry with its personal trainers , Fitbits, Garmins and exercise wall-charts seems to propagate this nonsense.

It is fascinating to look at the history of the  "220 minus your age "  formula. Apparently it was suggested aver 30 years ago by a Dr William Haskill at Stanford University. He was looking at a very small group of patients, most under the age of 55 , heavy smokers and most with heart disease . He has since said that the formula " was never supposed to be an absolute guide to people's training "

He goes on to say :-

" I've kind of laughed about it over the years - it's so typical of Americans to take an idea and extend it beyond what it was originally intended "

So Tattoo Man where does that leave you ?  You have a far more serious problem to consider :-

Next time you stagger back from the Five Bells after your daily beer intake read an article in today's press . It seems that nearly one in three attendees at a German Beer Festival were suffering from cardiac arrythmias because " Drinking four pints of beer in one night is enough to destabilise the heart's natural rhythm " 

Isn't life becoming difficult !

Cheers

Ian

 

Thank you JCB.........................................

by Tattoo Man1 - 2017-04-26 10:02:00

...........................I have read the article and feel somewhat vindicated as I have held this view for many, many years.

As IAN MC points out, my HR Max would now be 168..factor in the ' Standard Error of 10.8 BPM ) mentioned by the Hunt Report and it just might be that my max is potentially up to 179 BPM.

I'm in the gym this afternoon I may well go beyond the 171 that I reached yesterday...I'll keep you posted.

IAN...as ever, i am indebted to you for your sagacity regarding beer consumption...as of this evening I shall only consume bootleg Absinthe....TM

Once again many thanks.

Tattoo Man

You know you're wired when...

You’re a battery-operated lover.

Member Quotes

It is just over 10 years since a dual lead device was implanted for complete heart block. It has worked perfectly and I have traveled well near two million miles internationally since then.