And a local hill used to kill me at 165 HR, but now I can take it at 135. Thats progress!
That is basically what I do. I use the KISS (Keep it Simple Stupid) approach. SInce I have been unable to use the HRM for exactly one year, I don't really know how I am going to use it from here on out. It will depend on how I adjust to my heart finally being back in rhythm.
Right now I am using my heart rate to keep my heart from going too fast as I don't want it slipping back into atrial fibrillation. Also, since I am still on a beta blocker, it won't go real fast anyways!
Sorry about my rant and the redundant bit. It just seems that everyone continuously takes the 220-age as gospel without ever questioning "Is it really possible to have one formula that so neatly fits everyone?" Especially when we all know our resting HR's are so different - then why wouldn't our MHR's be different also?
That was a good article, and thanks for referencing it again.