Originally Posted by
billydonn
Inaccurate within what limits? Any mean will precisely describe only a few members of a population. But it will be very close to a large number of population members and will differ a lot from fewer population members.
This is not an absolute defense of the 220-age formula, mind you. It may not be the very best estimation tool. But I do think people are asking too much of the formula when they use terms like "bogus" and "discredited". If you find that your HR cannot go as high as the estimate, or goes higher, it is easy enough to adjust the limits on the Polar monitor (where this discussion all began).
I based what I wrote on both anecdotal evidence & what I've read. There was a thread here, I think last year, where people were posting their MHRs & ages. 220-age didn't seem to work for many. I've also talked to people over the years and it doesn't seem to work that often.
This is from the NYT article I linked to above:
"If you're trying to improve their aerobic fitness or to train for certain endurance events, then you want to know with a reasonable accuracy what intensity you're exercising at," Dr. Seals said. "If your estimate is 10 or 20 beats too low, then you're pretty far off."
Exercise physiologists say, however, that being pretty far off is more common than most people expect.
"The more information we have, the more we realize that that formula is just a very rough consideration," said Dr. Jack H. Wilmore, an exercise physiologist at Texas A&M.
This is from the article in the Journal of Exercise Physiology:
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on this review of research and application of HRmax prediction, the following recommendations can be
made;
1. Currently, there is no acceptable method to estimate HRmax.
Back to me, It just doesn't seem that the "formula" has the degree of accuracy necessary to be of any real utility. If someone doesn't want to determine their MHR or lactate threshold, they are better off using perceived exertion than 220-age. It just doesn't make sense to use a precision instrument like a heart rate monitor and use faulty input. Problem is, most people (including so-called trainers) don't realize this, treat the formula a gospel and blindly use 220-age or the charts in gyms and as a result are not training in their desired zones.