Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 11 of 23

Thread: Searching for original Max HR formula research

  1. Default Searching for original Max HR formula research

    Can anyone direct me to the original research (or any research for that matter) conducted on Max HR? I would like to have it at my fingertips since I am trying to discourage my riders from using it.
    “Patience, persistence and perspiration make an unbeatable combination for success.” ~ Napolean Hill

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Golden, Colorado
    Posts
    2,712

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by owl_girl View Post
    Can anyone direct me to the original research (or any research for that matter) conducted on Max HR? I would like to have it at my fingertips since I am trying to discourage my riders from using it.
    If by "the original research..." you mean the source of the 220-age formula, this is the paper when the equation first saw the light of print

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4945367

    It wasn't actually "original research" per se but a review article where Max HR formula to guide exercise intensity was one small part and based on a meta-analysis of available, credible research of different Max HR formulae generated from good quality studies on different populations (the Gold Standard of evidence based data)

    Better than actively discouraging the formula out of hand, just explain the shortcomings of using this sort of statistical average for everyone (even though it's a decent enough ballpark figure for most when it comes to describing relative intensities) You could then use this as a lead-in to explaining how using heart rate as a standardised, totally reproducible marker for intensity has the same shortcomings whether you base it off maximum heart rate, heart rate at "lactate threshold" or anything else that doesn't (can't) make adjustments for the things that affect heart rate other than exercise intensity.

    Vivienne
    Last edited by Vivienne; 05-19-2011 at 11:57 AM.

  3. Default

    Thanks Vivienne! Your article (which I could not view ) led me to this reference:

    http://www.cyclingfusion.com/pdf/220...s-Problems.pdf

    Does anyone have any thoughts on it?
    “Patience, persistence and perspiration make an unbeatable combination for success.” ~ Napolean Hill

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Simi Valley, CA
    Posts
    1,836

    Default

    What's most important to understand is that even the best mathematical equation that could possibly be devised will just be a simple linear regression (if you've never taken a statistics class, don't worry about what a linear regression is). This is simply a tool for predicting the average, in this case, MHR for a large group of people of a certain age. The best formula imaginable could conceivably predict the average max HR of a large group of people of a certain age, but the individuals within that goup will vary around that average. Therefore even the best possible formula that can predict the average max HR for a large population of people of a certain age will be essentially worthless for predecting the max HR of an individual within that group.

    Make sense?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Golden, Colorado
    Posts
    2,712

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by owl_girl View Post
    Thanks Vivienne! Your article (which I could not view ) led me to this reference:

    http://www.cyclingfusion.com/pdf/220...s-Problems.pdf

    Does anyone have any thoughts on it?
    This was another article I wanted to give a link to and couldn't remember the author's name or title.

    Fox, Haskell et al. was easy as these are the "two cardiologists on an airplane....." from the urban legend-type explanation of the origin of the formula (actually an exercise physiologist and a cardiologist.....the meme goes downhill from there)

    I read another similar historical critique in Science a few years ago but can't find that one or remember the authors either.

    So these articles can add up to a neat explanation of the shortcomings of basing training zones off a formula (either Fox and Haskell's or any of the formulae from any of the studies in their analysis that corresponds with your demographic .... as you can see, the stats aren't based solely on men with heart disease) Still don't address some of the mistakes you can make if you use HR alone as a reproducible *intenisty-ometer*, which in some ways introduce an error that can be far greater than one produced by the "wrong" formula......

    I started using an HR monitor back in 2001, before I'd ever set foot in an IDC class. I was coming back after 2+ years of virtual crippledom from plantar fasciitis and my daughter had bought me a Christmas gift of a month's intro membership to the local Gold's gym, a Runner's World training log ...... and a basic HR monitor. No zones etc. just on-off and "average" HR when you turned it off. Although I had half a clue about cardiovascular physiology from a "medical" standpoint, it didn't automatically comport with the picture of ex. phys. cardiology......but I still knew the difference between "average" and "me".

    I started my journey back to fitness by walking on the treadmill. Can't remember exactly why I did it, but set about building up my treadmill time by working between 140-145 bpm after w/u (it felt a bit like "work" but I wasn't sucking wind)....

    Anomoly #1.....became obvious after very few sessions that 3.8 mph was the speed that kept me there.....but only for about 15-20 minutes. Without me making any change whatsoever to the treadmill and without my breathing rising much at all, my HR started to creep up and by the end of about 45 minutes or so could be as high as 150+. If I couldn't get my fave treadmill under the fan and A/C outlet this happened much quicker. Consistently. If I upped the speed on the treadmill from the get-go, however, 150 bpm would have me sucking wind and be unsustainable. Obviously, 150 bpm isn't always 150 bpm. Found out about Cardiac Drift.

    Anomoly #2.... hopping on the treadmill and going through the routines mentioned above produced different HR responses depending on whether I hit the gym at 7 am on the way into work, grabbed a lunchtime workout or at the end of the day. Whiskey, Tango, Foxtrot?? Hit the books again and rediscovered the fluctuating neurologic and hormonal impact on cardiovascular responses to exercise.

    Found plenty more anomolies since then but the laborious point I'm trying to make is that the shortcomings of using an HR monitor alone as a guide to intensity are there whether or not you use a standard formula, result of a time trial or a VO2 Max test and can influence effort quite dramatically over the course of an IDC class if not taken into account.

    I suspect that, if you have any class members intellectually curious enough to wonder if they have the "right" training zones, they're even more likely to wonder why those zones don't seem to feel the same under the different circumstances I mentioned......and ask you why if you've opened the door on a discussion of Max HR.

    Vivienne.....apologies for the long explanation.....didn't have time to write a short one!!
    Last edited by Vivienne; 05-20-2011 at 06:12 AM.

  6. Default

    Thank you Vivienne and Todd. I understand everything you two are talking about since I have an extensive biology background.

    I always end up telling my riders that "it depends" when they ask me about max HR. They want the easy answer. They are afraid to have a different HR than what the chart on the wall tells them.

    One of my riders had a form that her doctor was to fill out before she could engage in any personal training. One of the questions on the form asks the doctor to list a HR which should not be exceeded. When he gave his answer to this HR question, she was surprised by his answer and asked him if she had something wrong with her of which she was unaware. He told her that he used the 220-age formula to come up with the number. He then told her to do whatever she wanted in regards to HR because she knew her body.

    That formula is used everywhere!
    “Patience, persistence and perspiration make an unbeatable combination for success.” ~ Napolean Hill

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Simi Valley, CA
    Posts
    1,836

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by owl_girl View Post
    He told her that he used the 220-age formula to come up with the number.
    I would doubt most doctors have ever been asked to prescibe HR guidelines. And most of those that are would not know where to start.

  8. Default the heart rate myth

    I strongly urge you to read what Sally Edwards has to say. She is widely respected in the field and breaks it down so it is easy to understand. She has several books out all available at amazon.

  9. #9

    Default

    Just to add - I find that they are much more receptive to the rejection of the theoritical max HR formula after they have gone through a lactate threshold field test. It's important to explain both before and after the test, of course, but there's nothing like experiencing an LT test to demonstrate that the old formula is useless.

  10. Default

    Research conducted by Gulati et al. (2010) identified that the traditional male-based calculation (220-age) overestimates the maximum heart rate for age in women. They investigated the association between HR response to exercise testing and age with 5437 women. It was found that mean peak heart rate for women = 206 - (0.88 x age).

    Evidence from USA researchers, Jackson et al. (2007) , identified the following formula as more accurately reflecting the relationship between age and maximum heart rate.
    • MHR = 206.9 - (0.67 x age)

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Golden, Colorado
    Posts
    2,712

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lindsay McFillin View Post
    Research conducted by Gulati et al. (2010) identified that the traditional male-based calculation (220-age) overestimates the maximum heart rate for age in women. They investigated the association between HR response to exercise testing and age with 5437 women. It was found that mean peak heart rate for women = 206 - (0.88 x age).
    Well, the thing with using this formula and believing it to better reflect any one individual's max HR is that it has the same problems as any other in that it's a statistical average and has an inbuilt bias toward the demographic tested.......in this instance a self selected group of women who volunteered to be tested at a cardiac rehab facility. Additionally, the study authors used peak heart rate as a measurment......so it's hard to see how they could infer that the 220-age formula overestimates maximum

    I've actually started to recommend the 2 threshold/3 zone assessment that's the sticky thingie at the top of this heart rate section. Carl Foster showed us an even better example at the ICI conference last Fall. Although I've used the 20 min LT test and liked it a lot in the past (it can make up a whole class if you time it right) I just don't have enough people who *get* the idea of a sustained effort to make it workable.

    This is what I'm going to do with the person who won my HR monitor+training session prize at last night's bash at the gym. She's a "general" gym attendee. Has taken a couple of my classes (can't say I remember......but why would she lie) so isn't likely to be up for something that takes a lot of "doing" and to then follow a 5 zone training programme.

    Vivienne

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •