I like using the treadmill at the health club, where the incline varies to maintain a target heart rate. Walking at a brisk pace on an incline can get your heart rate going just fine, and is easier on my knees at least.
Usually I follow the 'cardio' heart rate that the machine comes up with based on your age, and go for 20 or 30 minutes. This is the normal aerobic workout that all the experts say everyone is supposed to do a few times a week.
If I wanted to concentrate on an event like the 500 free, which lasts 5-6 minutes (hopefully closer to 5 if I can repeat my times from 20 years ago), should I alternate the normal cardio workout setting a higher heart rate (still below max for my age of course) and go for 5 minutes?
I've been checking my heart rate for 6 seconds on some swimming sets, and although this method is not as accurate, on sets like 100s or 200s my heart rate is well above the standard 80% of 220 minus age.
Parents
Former Member
The researchers found that the original formula overestimated the maximum heart rate for younger exercisers and underestimated the maximum rate for older ones. The new formula they recommend is 206.9 - (age x .67) = maximum heart rate."
In my case, both formulas are equal to one another, and both are off by at least 10 bpm. What's the matter with just testing one's maximum heart rate empirically? Does it just not work accurately either?
The researchers found that the original formula overestimated the maximum heart rate for younger exercisers and underestimated the maximum rate for older ones. The new formula they recommend is 206.9 - (age x .67) = maximum heart rate."
In my case, both formulas are equal to one another, and both are off by at least 10 bpm. What's the matter with just testing one's maximum heart rate empirically? Does it just not work accurately either?
