... they took the search facility away!
I'm puzzled. Just bought a basic HRM. Two ways to calculate max - 220 minus age or do it yourself. First method equals 177 (I'm 43).
Then had a go at DIY. After warming up and 2 miles or so at steady pace did a sequence of short (50-yard) absolutely flat-out sprints with same distance recovery. Could do no more after half a dozen. Max reading - 167.
Got my breath back and jogged home. On the way - a 100-yd hill, not steep but decent gradient. Approached it at steady pace, went flat-out to top, back down at steady (not recovery) pace to do second pass still slightly panting. Repeated, and on third pass got nearly to the top before calling it a day. Reading - 167.
I thought the usual complaint was the 220 calculation underestimated.
So is 167 a credible figure? Seems low. Am I doing something wrong? Or not pushing hard enough to find the max? My resting HR is 40 to low 40s.
0 ·
Comments
if you really want to get a decent estimate without entering a short race, try (on a day when you feel well rested) 800m hard, 1 minute recovery, 800m flat out.
- and it's best done on a track or a flat course, preferably with someone faster or on a bike to pace you.
I'll recruit my boy to cycle just in front with a bag of jelly babies taped to his back. That should spur me on.
The age formula gives an estimated average, not aware that there is a systematic error. therefore there should be some folks who have a real max that is higher - like me - and some folks who's real max is lower - like you?
I don't think you tend to see much posting from folks with low maxHR's - that's beacuse they'rr too knackered from training too hard whne using the age formula.
Missed a chance this morning. Just had a filling at the dentist's. If I'd thought to put on the HRM ... doh!