Thoughts on Target Heart Rate?

[Irulan]

ditto, I've always been told "the formula" is not accurate at all. I too have done sub max tests.... essentially you warm up for 20 minutes, and then ride at the consistent maximum that you can ride in for the next 20 minutes at a fairly high cadence( 90-100), take an average of your highest HR and then calculate:

http://lwcoaching.com/?p=138
http://lwcoaching.com/trainingplans/levelCalcs.htm

[Jiffer]

ditto, I've always been told "the formula" is not accurate at all. I too have done sub max tests.... essentially you warm up for 20 minutes, and then ride at the consistent maximum that you can ride in for the next 20 minutes at a fairly high cadence( 90-100), take an average of your highest HR and then calculate:

http://lwcoaching.com/?p=138
http://lwcoaching.com/trainingplans/levelCalcs.htm

Yeah, the problem with that is I can't ride for 20 minutes at a high intensity. I've had this same discussion with my husband.

Thanks for your comments.

[OakLeaf]

I think as long as you seem to have found by trial and error what's a safe HR zone for you, stick with that and don't even worry what your max might be.

It's true that just like any "predicted" formulas, the "predicted" HR tables might be true across large populations, but not much use for individuals. It's also true that whatever your max, it does go down as you age. When you're 100% and you want to start getting really strong really fast, then you can do a test ... for now, it seems like you already know what you need to know.

[goldfinch]

I think as long as you seem to have found by trial and error what's a safe HR zone for you, stick with that and don't even worry what your max might be.

It's true that just like any "predicted" formulas, the "predicted" HR tables might be true across large populations, but not much use for individuals. It's also true that whatever your max, it does go down as you age. When you're 100% and you want to start getting really strong really fast, then you can do a test ... for now, it seems like you already know what you need to know.

From what I have read the predicted HR tables are not even that accurate for large populations. Here is an article that discusses a study of a large number of healthy women and their maximum heart rate: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/0...mens-workouts/

It suggests using the formula 206 minus 88% of your age.

However, the result is as you say only based on averages and the number may be too low or too high, depending on the woman.

Anyway, 220 minus age is too high. On average. At least according to this one study. Though the sample size was really quite large.
In my own case, if I do a hard set of intervals with a personal trainer (which I did last fall, hated, and quit) my heart rate maxed out at 158 and for very short time periods. Oddly, this is exactly the number I get with the 206 minus 88% of my age.

[Crankin]

My HR has always been high compared to what it's "supposed" to be. I quit wearing my monitor long ago, because of this. I know what my pattern is, and it only deviates if I am getting sick or have over trained (which for me, doesn't take much).
When I wake up, my HR is about 55-58. As soon as I get up, my HR at rest is about 68-70. It goes up very quickly, just with walking and normal activities. When I am riding, it's between 120 and 150. At my age, 80% is in the 130s, which seems low; I am not out of shape and while my max has gone down in the last 10 years, it hasn't gone down that much. But, it's very consistent. So... I stopped thinking about it.

[Jiffer]

I think as long as you seem to have found by trial and error what's a safe HR zone for you, stick with that and don't even worry what your max might be.

I agree and that's pretty much what I'm doing. I was mostly curious what other's thoughts were on the subject of HR and I'm finding it interesting that not one person so far thinks the formula is a good way to calculate it.