UK and Europe · Public discussion

another heartrate question

Started by Bob Banfield · · Last activity · 3 posts · 817 views

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
UK and Europe
Published
12 March 2003
Last activity
12 March 2003
Original author
Bob Banfield
Posts
3
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
817
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–3 of 3
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. 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?

    cheers Bob

  2. 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?

    cheers Bob

  3. "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.

    James

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.