View Single Post
Old 03-17-21, 10:14 AM
  #24  
spelger
Senior Member
 
spelger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: reno, nv
Posts: 2,298

Bikes: yes, i have one

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1136 Post(s)
Liked 1,179 Times in 686 Posts
Originally Posted by davester
We bash it because it is complete nonsense and is harmful to older people trying to get in shape because it makes them curtail their effort at a lower level than they need in order to improve. There have been many scholarly articles written and easily accessible on the web that state how useless and misleading it is, yet it persists. That's why.
is it right to bash the formula or to bash those using it without regard to the typical word "estimate" attached to such formula?

i am not defending the formula, it is an estimate, something to use that is quick and dirty. for us that ride a lot it is probably really dirty. i think there is merit to the formula and others, it is just not for us or others that exercise regularly.

for me it is low, i am 54 now and that gives me 166. the highest i have ever seen is 171. i only see this live when on the trainer.

as an aside, how do you even measure max heart rate? i have seen something suggested that is very similar to the FTP ramp test where you increase power and ride until exhaustion, except you take the max heart rate during the ride. is this accurate? probably far better than any estimate but i wonder if on a different day under different conditions one may have a different result.
spelger is offline