Originally Posted by
chinarider
I have a problem with this. If they test me with this protocol, they'll only get me to about 77% of my MHR. That may be too low to reveal lurking problems. Conversely, if my MHR was on the low side, they'd be trying to push me to an unattainable figure and might think I have a problem because I can't reach the goal. I just don't see how "standard guidelines" that fail to account for differences in MHR can hold water. Do me a favor. When you discuss the results with your Docs, ask them about this.
Let's drag this thread kicking and screaming back to where it started. If you get an HRM, the formulas they use to set the maximum rate for on the display is intended to be safe for statistically all people, which is why it ends up being reasonably low. If you read the fine manual, you will probably see a note about exceeding that rate only under a doctors supervision. This is because while a very fit life long athlete may be able to exceed that rate by a significant margin, not everyone can. Take for example Jonathan, he is 47, smokes, needs to lose 80lbs, has a desk job, spends all his spare time time in front of the TV, he did kinda play football (his position was bench warmer) decides he needs to get healthy as his 54 year old brother just dropped dead due to cardiac pump failure. So he starts cycling, because his knees bother him so running is not a good idea.
He buys the fancy new plastic computer (with GPS and HRM) for his fancy new plastic bicycle, and needs a MaxHR to put into the machine. (220-age)*.8 is close enough, at this point while still being reasonably safe. If when he is 50 he has lost the weight and the coffin nails and wants to do more, his doctor can send him to a sports medicine specialist to do the proper testing for true MaxHR.