4 ms·

Yeah, not saying it’s a perfect rule, just making the point that the parent’s 160-170bpm is lower than what I’d expect his max to be, using the rule of thumb a

Yeah, not saying it’s a perfect rule, just making the point that the parent’s 160-170bpm is lower than what I’d expect his max to be, using the rule of thumb a lot of people know. (And for what it’s worth, my max heart rate is the same when cycling or running, within a small margin of error. I’ve never thought to ask anyone if it’s the same for them - I will do now!)

pedrosorio 4y ago
> just making the point that the parent’s 160-170bpm is lower than what I’d expect his max to be Just want to clarify, I mentioned 160-170 bpm as a regular workout I do where I do not feel anywhere near max (I have seen my heart rate get above 190 while running). I was replying to this: > For 80-85% of maximum pulse rate... > If your lungs are burning and you're about to collapse after 30 seconds of activity the intensity is about right. And saying that going at 160-170 (above 80-85% according to rule of thumb) for a prolonged period of time, I feel none of those symptoms.