Masters max heart rate & Kemibe

KFB-Dude wrote:

Two things:

1. Looking for Kemibe(Kevin Beck)

2. What is a good formula for determining the max heart rate

for a male masters runner.... Is it still 220 minus

age.. or is there a better formula?

Thanks ahead of time!

KFB-Classic

Are you really Alex Filides?

There is no good formula. Formulas for max HR are useless; in fact, they're potentially damaging.

I'm 52. My max HR remains around 199-200. Measured and confirmed many times. According to the tables--all of them--I'm not supposed to exist. But I do. And I know from speaking with my fellow masters runners that many of us do.

I second what kudzurunner said.

I'm 43 and I regularly sustain 180+ on a treadmill and bike, and that is not at 100%. The table would have me at a max of 177.

A cyclist friend of mine, 50 yrs old, also regularly sustains 180+ on the bike, and he isn't at 100% either. According to the table, his max should be only 170.

KFB-Dude wrote:

2. What is a good formula for determining the max heart rate

for a male masters runner.... Is it still 220 minus

age.. or is there a better formula?

Peoples' max HR vary by 30-40 points, making all training intensity formulae based on them dangerously misleading. At least 30% of people will be pushing too hard, and 30% running too easy. Verbal descriptions like "the fastest pace you can talk at" or "half marathon pace" are FAR more useful than heart rates.

If you want to use heart rates, here is the only formula that works. It has the great advantage of working for all ages, sexes and I suspect most species with heart, lungs and legs...

1. Find a good long hill, 1min or more (2min long is best).

2. Run up it several times HARD. 6-8x1min, 4-6x90sec, 3-4x2min would probably be right. If possible get friends to race against. Make sure you're really suffering on the last one.

3. Measure your pulse on the last 2-3 reps.

The last part is pretty hard to do when completely trashed - if you're very fit it will be dropping within 15secs, so a good heart rate monitor may be more reliable.

Wearing a monitor during a near-top-form 1500m or 3000m race will do the job too, but that probably only works in track season. The hills and multiple reps allow anyone, even a marathon type, to work hard enough to get to max.

IMPORTANT: this is a dangerous thing to do unless you are fit and used to some level of hard training regularly. Don't ask your unfit colleague to try it.

captainrobbo wrote:Wearing a monitor during a near-top-form 1500m or 3000m race will do the job too, but that probably only works in track season.

In my experience, I've never reached max in 1500 races. I come closest to max in good quality effort 5k races when near top form. Further away from 5k distance, the further my highest recorded HR has been from HRmax.

I suspect this might be different for different runners, some might hit max in the finishing kick of 1500-3000 races.

Also, I agree with the others... if you want to train by HR, don't use a formula, do some kind of test to get a proper estimate of actual HRmax, which can vary quite a bit from the formula. Mine's ~ 164-66 and I'm 45, so about 10 beats lower than predicted. Also, it's been constant over the last 7-8 years, hasn't changed with age. I find it varies a little with fitness, being a little higher when out of shape.

Haven't broken 170 in over 5 years, even in all out 400 and 800's. about 10 beats less then predicted max. It is more important to me to have a lower resting heartrate, and run intervals by effort.

I'm 50 and I got up to 192 on an elliptical!

My max heart rate is 245ish. Have recorded several over 240 so it wasn't a one time deal.

1.Kemibe is the man

2. max HR when i did a VO2 max test was 191, age 17, and the VO2 came out like 67-68. i was racing kinda slow back then, but i hardly topped 40mpw back then.

Btw, that 220 minus age thing is such a crock...there is a better formula 208 minus something times something, but I mean, who cares, just a predictor

the story behind how they came up with that 220 minus age will show just how awful a predictor it is and how it's just about always WRONG. but it's etched into most chinsy cardio machines at some older gyms throughout the nation.

http://cyclingfusion.com/fanatics/heart-zones/ten-reasons-220-age-plain-wrong/

just some of the reasons i pasted below from this website.

"Here ten reasons why “220 Minus Age” gets a failing grade:

1. The formula’s inventor acknowledges its unscientific development.

The equation was created in the early 1970’s by scientists Fox, Naughton, and Haskell who intended it to be a rough formulation and not meant to be representative of the entire population. All subject in the studies referenced were under 55 years of age and male. Although the equation has become accepted and the standard in the literature and is used widely in clinical and fitness settings, its validity is uncertain.

7. It is an embarrassment.

Savvy consumers can prove for themselves that their Max HR isn’t what the formula says it is, so how much credibility do you think they give training professionals who say otherwise? Yet working this formula is a requirement to pass most personal trainer certification tests. And, worse still, the formula is posted in most health clubs.

Those max HR formulas are godawful. I turn 40 in a few months and my resting HR is around 39 or 40. I can do pregoression runs on my mill where I cutdown conistently an go to failure and my HR might be only 163 when I am dying at the end. If I wear my HRM for a 2 mile race, I won't get out of the 160's. I have a friend who is also 40 but he routinely sees mid 180's during workouts.

I am 65 and my max is over 190. You need to go out and do a max heart rate test.