Originally Posted by
Wogsterca
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.
Problem is, the formula can just as easily give too high a number as too low of one.
Originally Posted by
Wogsterca
If you read the fine manual, you will probably see a note about exceeding that rate only under a doctors supervision.
But do they go on to tell him that the rates given are only a rough estimate and may be too high or low for his individual circumstance? Or that the nice, neat training zones they detail may be way off for him? I think Polar et. al. have a vested interest in making HR training easy and simple to follow. I don't think the misleading nature of their literature has altruistic motives. How many monitors would they sell if they told people that they are useless unless they spend a couple of hundred bucks at a physiology lab to figure out their accurate zones or do enough self testing to figure it out themselves?