Old 09-19-06, 05:00 PM
  #1  
Raketmensch
Senior Member
 
Raketmensch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 367
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Maximum heart rate vs. age... the results

Hi all: Okay, as promised, here's a summary of the results of my little non-scientific study of maximum heart rate vs. age for BF50+ers. The plot shows all the reported values that appeared to be valid. I left out one individual who said he was on beta blockers, which reduce max HR, and one who suspected a glitch in his data. For some who responded with Max HR but not age I grabbed the age value from the rogues gallery! Also shown on the plot is the oft-cited 220-age line. A few things pop out:

1) As several have noted, 220-age is not a particularly good predictor.

2) Interestingly, essentially all of the reported values are at or above the 220-age line. Even though 220-age is a poor predictor overall, this could perhaps be an indication that the population here has a somewhat higher max HR on average than the general population does in our age group.

3) There's quite a bit of scatter in the data. This surely reflects a combination of factors, including both real variations from individual to individual and variations in the way the measurement was made.

4) There appears to be a weakly-expressed trend of decreasing max HR with increasing age, but it is small in these data compared to the scatter.

Overall interesting stuff, and I thank you for indulging my curiosity. Keep 'em beating!
Attached Images
File Type: gif
HR.gif (9.6 KB, 97 views)
Raketmensch is offline