At 12:15 PM 11/16/00, Brian D. Williams wrote:
>No kidding, outstanding numbers!
Thanks, but I'm still not back to the fitness level I had 15 years ago.
When I hit that pace again, I'll be sure to brag here. :-)
>For everybody else, we're talking about training based on maximum
>heart rate formulas, the formula:
>220-age=maximum heart rate
>220-age X 65%= start of training range.
>220-age X 85%= top end of normal training range
I've been suspicious of the validity of this guide for a while, even though
it's very commonly cited. While I was at Kronos, I expressed my doubts to
the exercise specialist, noting that I've measured my heart rate above the
age-related theoretical maximum. She agreed, saying that it wasn't a
reliable guide. I expect it's a reasonable first cut so that people have an
idea of their training range, but if you've been exercising consistently I
think you can go higher than those ranges.
>These are the recommended training ranges ( for mere mortals ;) )
>If I remember Max's age right (33?)
>220-33 x 65% = 121.55
>220-33 x 85% = 158.95
>Anything above 85% is anaerobic territory, ultra athletic range.
I'm 36 (37 in two months), so my maximum would supposedly be 220 - 36 =
184, but I *know* my maximum is significantly higher than that. I aim to
keep my heart rate no higher than 175 (though I like to finish by pushing
myself harder, moving it up into the 180 range). Since I can sustain that
for my 23-35 minutes runs I must be in the aerobic zone, though at the
upper range for much of the run. I'll probably stop pushing myself quite so
hard once I improve to a 7.0 minute per mile pace -- still below what I did
15 years ago.
>I've been eyeing a Polar for awhile now, what model did you pick?
I have the Polar Beat, though the Polar Pacer looks even better, especially
if you're running outside and don't have a treadmill to tell you the
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:21 MDT