home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: misc.fitness
- Path: sparky!uunet!walter!att-out!cbfsb!cbnews!jmk
- From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
- Subject: Re: More on max heart rate
- Organization: AT&T
- Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 16:32:02 GMT
- Message-ID: <1993Jan25.163202.17422@cbnews.cb.att.com>
- References: <1993Jan25.001438.46713@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>
- Lines: 26
-
- 2fvofloppy@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
- >I've also seen both formulas as acceptable. I think that if you do some
- >calculations (based on a resting heart rate), that it's pretty similar.
- >But, then if you aren't in great health, the heart rate formula is supposed
- >to be better (it allows for a higher heart rate resting and a lower max
- >heart rate if I'm not mistaken). Anyway, I've always seen the target range
- >from 65-80%. I believe that 90% is too high, and that you would eventually
- >overtrain if you constantly worked out at 90% max heart rate.
- >--
- >Jeffery D. Webb
-
- I've been using a treadmill a lot lately along with a pulse monitor.
- That seems to be a good way of finding out your max heart rate empirically:
- just increase the work load until you see that the heart rate increase
- starts slowing down and you're getting close to exhaustion. This isn't
- too dangerous is it? Anyway, I've only tried to max out a couple of times
- and the max for me appears to be around 178. At age 37, this is pretty
- close to the 210 minus age formula. For normal workouts, I like to keep
- it in the 158-162 range for 30 minutes. This is about 90%, but any lower
- doesn't seem like that much of a workout. Actually, the pulse rate goes
- from more like 140 (~80%) a few minutes into the exercise and gradually
- builds up to 160 towards the end of the half-hour. Works for me. Training
- at 65% -- pulse rate 115 -- would make me feel like a geriatric case!
-
- ---
- Joe Knapp jmk@cbvox.att.com
-