4 ms·
As-it says in the Abstract I linked: "HRmax predicted by age alone may be practically convenient for various groups, although a standard error of 10.8 beats/mi
by igouy 2y ago
As-it says in the Abstract I linked:
"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.)
- phreeza 2y agoNot sure I understand what you are trying to say, do you find the prediction to be helpful? 150-190 BPM is such a huge range, what useful information can be derived from it?
- igouy 2y agoIt provides perspective and a target training effort. 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.
- wging 2y agoThose error bars are too wide for the formula to be useful for training based on heart rate percentages.
- igouy 2y agoI've already said that I have found it to be useful: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43083815 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43083815 :so please explain why I haven't :-)
- wging 2y agoYou are doing nothing that requires the formula to be precise. A 10bpm standard error, meaning the max is very possibly 20bm off where you think it is, means that you can't reliably distinguish between efforts that someone doing serious training would want to be distinguished.
- igouy 2y ago> You are doing nothing that requires the formula to be precise. 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?