I believe the physiology research shows folks do have max heart rates, but trying to predict an individual's max from the published formulas is not appropriate. The published formulas are based on statistical fitting of large numbers of people, and the spread in the data is quite large. Though the formulas are correct on average, the standard deviation is bigger than the trends in the average.
On Jul 16, 9:15 pm, Corwin <ernf...@gmail.com> wrote: > I got a copy of "Just Ride" and read it. I agree with 99% of what Grant > says. > > One thing I take issue with is maximum heart rate. Not explicitly what's in > Just Ride. But more the concept of maximum heart rate as it's currently > portrayed in health and medical literature and on the web. I think the > purpose of discussing maximum heart rate in Just Ride is to get people to > listen to their bodies. This is highly desirable. But the general concept > of maximum heart rate is seriously flawed. > > In general, I don't think there is any magic number (or formula) for > maximum heart rate. The only thing I think you can say is that if Joe is in > good health and reasonably fit and Jack has a history of heart and/or > circulatory trouble and is not very fit - then Jack should not push himself > as hard as Joe. That's not to say that Jack should not get his heart > pumping on a regular basis - just that he should probably limit himself to > walking (potentially including hills). > > I did a thorough search of the web looking for research on maximum heart > rate. Also consulted several experts. The only research I could find was > anecdotal statistical data reporting heart rates for various groups based > on age. But drawing a line through statistical data is just a curve fit. > This is without any scientific basis to back it up. > > In order to establish a scientific basis for maximum heart rate, I think > you would need to apply a stress test (bicycle, treadmill, etc.) to a > rather large population. The population would need to be pushed near the > point of failure - till an undesirable EKG pattern could be detected. At > that point, you would have a good idea of the maximum heart rate for a > given individual. > > It's very likely that the point of failure/danger would be radically > different based on the health and fitness of the individual. For some > people - that point could be as low as 140 beats/minute or lower. For > others it could be 190 beats/minute or more. Also, based on the book "Born > To Run", I don't think there is any basis for saying a limit on heart rate > must trend down inversely to age. > > Personally, I regularly get my heart rate well beyond the 160 beats/minute > or so recommend for a 53 year old male. Since I've been doing this all my > adult life (and my workouts seem to be growing in intensity), I'm not > worried. I'm comfortable deciding when to back off. In my opinion, you > should know your own limits - but should not let your limits be defined by > a gross yardstick. And you should carefully establish your own maximum > heart rate, and use it as a tool for your own training - but realize that > it's a personal measurement/limit. > > Corwin -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
