[thesame7lbs]

This article was in the NY Times last week. Interesting stuff for those who like to monitor heart rate.

Here's an excerpt:

In a study of nearly 5,500 healthy women, scientists discovered that a decades-old formula for calculating heart rate is largely inaccurate for women, resulting in a number that is too high.

The news may be a vindication to many women who have struggled to keep up with lofty target heart rates espoused by personal trainers and programmed into treadmill displays.

The commonly used formula subtracts a person’s age from 220. But based on the data collected in the Chicago study, the right formula for calculating a woman’s maximum heart rate is a little more complicated: 206 minus 88 percent of a woman’s age.

The findings are significant because many runners, cyclists and other exercisers obsessively monitor their heart rates by taking their pulse and rely on the old formula to gauge the intensity of the workout. The typical goal is to stay within 65 to 85 percent of the estimated maximum heart rate, depending on whether the athlete is trying to build aerobic capacity or increase endurance.

But the new study shows that for women, the number typically derived from the standard formula is far off the mark. Using the old formula of 220 minus age, a 40-year-old woman would achieve an average maximum heart rate of 180 beats per minute. That means her pulse should stay around 153 beats per minute during her workout to achieve a target heart rate of 85 percent.

But based on the new calculation, the same woman’s average maximum heart rate is 171 beats per minute, meaning her desired target heart rate is just 145 beats per minute, 8 beats a minute slower than under the old formula. Although the gap seems small on paper, it can be the difference between an exhilarating workout or a frustrating one that ends in exhaustion.

The article concludes with some good (IMHO) advice:

But many researchers say it is ridiculous to base exercise goals on a person’s age rather than individual fitness level.

“The fitness industry, by attaching this to every treadmill ever made, kind of perpetuated this formula,” says Dr. Tim Church, an exercise researcher and director of preventive medicine at the Pennington Biomedical Research center in Baton Rouge, La. “There’s the idea that the formula was somehow not working out for women, but I’d make the argument that it doesn’t work out for anybody.”

In 2001, a University of Colorado team also concluded that the standard heart rate equation was inaccurate for both men and women. They devised a similar formula they said applied to both sexes — maximum heart rate equals 208 minus 0.7 times age — but the equation never caught on with the public.

Dr. Church says that except for elite athletes heart rate monitoring is not very useful and can distract from finding an exercise program you enjoy and will stick to. “Everyone kind of has their own natural pace,” Dr. Church says. “If you like to work a little harder, then work harder. If you like to work less hard but a little longer, then do that. Find what works for you.”

[LotusMama]

Very interesting; thanks for posting this!

J

[ennay]

I've always thought the formula was bogus. I also think the new formula is EQUALLY bogus. If you are going to do strict heart rate training, then find out your REAL MHR. Otherwise go by perceived exertion or pick a number out of thin air.

FWIW last time I measured mine it was about 5 beats higher than forumla #1 and 14 beats higher than formula #2.

[thesame7lbs]

Agreed, Ennay. That's why I included that last paragraph.

I think this applies to a lot of exercise theory. I was reading about post-workout nutrition the other day and one article pointed out that most of the research is done on elite endurance athletes and serious bodybuilders. I realized that I overthink a lot of this stuff, and that while elite athletes, and maybe even my friends who run really fast marathons, do need the proper carb/protein balance within 30 minutes of their workout, I'm probably fine eating my usual healthy snack whenever I get around to it.

But, I do enjoy data and information, and it kind of gives me something to think about.