Haert rate confusion

malcolm fisher wrote:
> I am 61 years old and am a little confused about using a heart rate monitor
> when jogging. I sem to remember that to calculate max heart rate you take a
> figure of 200 and take away your age to give you your 100% heart rate.

The typical formula is 220 minus age. However, there are other
formulas. The "100% heart rate" is called the "max heart rate" -- MHR.

> This give me 139 and when jogging I find anything more that a very gentle jog
> takes me to this figure. I have found that I am quite comfortable jogging at
> around 160. Any comments are welcome.

All of the formulas only estimate MHR for a large population. They are
determined by statistical methods. They have a large standard
deviation -- typically 10-12. So it is not unusual that the formula
under estimates or over estimates an individual's MHR by a wide margin.
We usually only hear from those for whom the formula under estimates
.

Some people advocate throwing away your heart rate monitor (HRM) and
just using "perceived exertion". I do not go that far because
"perceived exertion" is very subjective. However, I do use a
combination of "perceived exertion" and heart rate monitoring to
estimate my MHR over time. I find that my MHR is about 30(!) higher
than "220 - age" would predict. (That should be highly unusual.)
 >> Stay informed about: Haert rate confusion