"HRmax was univariately explained by the formula 211 − 0.64·age, and we found no evidence of interaction with gender, physical activity, VO2max level, or BMI groups. ... Previously suggested prediction equations underestimated measured HRmax in subjects older than 30 years."
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1600-0838....
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/physiology/articles/10....
"HRmax predicted by age alone may be practically convenient for various groups, although a standard error of 10.8 beats/min must be taken into account."
Shall we say 150—190 95% CI for me? (Rarely do I make enough effort to reach 155bpm.)
I've done a good session if I push to 155 bpm. I don't need to worry about finger-sticks for lactate accuracy, because there's no-risk I'll do twice-a-day twice-a-week threshold sessions.
If I'm not even in the low-end of that huge bpm range, I quit and take a recovery day.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43083815
:so please explain why I haven't :-)
Exactly.
My guess is that neither are most other readers and commenters here. (Any evidence to the contrary?)
Meanwhile, what do those error bars tell use about "training based on heart rate percentages." :-)
> someone doing serious training
Care to say what you mean?
Let's say it again — "suggesting it could be used".
And "A simple formula predicting HRmax based on age only may be used when the exact HRmax is not needed or is difficult to obtain."
For me the difference between 202.5 − 0.53·age and 211 − 0.64·age is less than 2 bpm!