220 minus age is WAY off for me

Wyco Loco wrote:

What percentage of max HR should we be able to maintain over a marathon?

This document has a couple of interesting tables, as a guide:

Per the second table, it indicates half-marathon is 88% HRmax, so the marathon would be a little lower.

the real it is, what it is since someone registered the name wrote:

Wyco Loco wrote:

I'm 40, estimate my max at 206 and just averaged 184 for a Marathon wearing a chest strap.

Your average over the marathon distance should not be your max.

Also, your statement "I'm 40, estimate my max at 206..." is confusing because of the bad grammar. What estimated your max?

I didnt find his statement confusing at all. It isn't unusual for English speakers to drop the subject if it is repeated, even if it isn't as common as in some other languages.

Hobby_Jogger_999 wrote:

That formula is basically worthless. IMHO.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Scatterplot-relations-of-HR-max-vs-age-The-line-represents-the-220-2-age-formula-HR-max_fig2_234050494

Looks like a 30-40 points vof ariation for a given age. The only way to get a close estimate is to wear your HR monitor and measure it