I've heard conflicting opinions about calculating % of max HR but for my money: Assuming a max HR of 186 and a resting HR of 48 80% of max HR = (max HR - resting HR) x (80/100) + resting HR =158.4 As opposed to 80% x 186 =148.8 Am I right?
I've read loads of articles in books & mags about this. The first formula [(Max-Min)*%] +Min is the Karvonen formula - generally accepted as a good method.
The straight % * is found quite a lot, but I prefer to use the Karvonen one.
Not much help, but as you rightly say, conflicting opinions abound.
Just find what you're comfortable with & stick to it. Also, see if you can read Sally Edwards Heart Rate book - very good. Niv.
"Bob Banfield" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
I've heard conflicting opinions about calculating % of max HR but for my money: Assuming a max HR of 186 and a resting HR of 48 80% of max HR = (max HR - resting HR) x (80/100) + resting HR =158.4 As opposed to 80% x 186 =148.8 Am I right?
"Bob Banfield" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...
Quoted message said:
I've heard conflicting opinions about calculating % of max HR but for my money: Assuming a max HR of 186 and a resting HR of 48 80% of max HR = (max HR - resting HR) x (80/100) + resting HR =158.4 As opposed to 80% x 186 =148.8 Am I right?
Both might be 'right', depending who's book you are reading, I think both definitions are frequently used. If your 'assumed max' is a guess based on 225-age or whatever, and the 80% is supposed to be some sort of threshold, then it doesn't really matter which you use cos it'll probably be badly wrong anyway.