Originally Posted by
chinarider
NO,NO,NO (sorry for shouting, but this is a pet peeve of mine). If it worked for you, it is a pure coincidence. At best, the 220-age "formula" is an average. Assuming it is an accurate average (which is subject to doubt), there are many people it doesn't work for. It's like saying the average male is 5' 10", you're a male, so you must be 5'10". You may be 5"10" but that doesn't mean all other males are. It is not a good basis to start from. If you are on the hi end of the bell curve, you will be under training if you base your training on the "formula." Worse, if you are on the low side, following the "formula " could result in dangerous over training and pushing yourself too hard. For more on the genesis of and problems with the 220-age "formula" see:
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/24/he...ea9017&ei=5070 (you have to register with the NYT to read, but it's free and well Worth it.).
Dan
Thanks for the article reference. I checked my heart rate recovery rate, that was mentioned in the article above. It was not in the favorable range, but then I agree that I am probably not a trained athlete at this point despite some exercise that I have recently been doing. I can monitor this and watch my recovery rate progress.