According to that, my max is 138. I spent well over an hour in the mid 140s yesterday doing an HM, so I don't think that the calculator results have much meaning.
Bob S.[/quote]
Bob,
The meaning is that you workout over that max you are not in the aerobic range and going into the anaerobic range. You are using more sugar than fat for energy. You may prefer to workout that way but you will not be expanding your aerobic range (fat burning). When you start training in this aerobic zone it almost always feels too easy. Over time you will find that you have to work harder to reach this lower HR but in the beginning it does seem easy. The benefit is that you will burn fat and build endurance.
BTW, I find that Karvonen Heart Rate Calculator result TOO HIGH and think that Philip Maffetone's formula works better for most ages. Those younger than 20 or older than 70 need to make adjustments to his forlmula.[/quote]
No bob max is much higher than 138. This is not 220 min your age. that's a simple quite useless average.[/quote]
I'll stick with what I wrote, I find the Karvonen formula too high, I prefer Phil Maffetone's formula. I've achieved better results using that. This is my opinion and of course your's may vary. I never said that 138 was his max only that he would get better results working at a lower HR. That has been my experience. Remember he posted because he was training so hard yet not losing weight. He can continue to train hard and not lose weight or take a step back and examine what he's doing and consider that if it is not working doing it this way maybe he should consider changing what he is doing.[/quote]
The way I understand it he was doing a Hm not as training but as a timed piece. The fact that his hartrate was above the 138 most of the row says pretty clear that his max is much higher.
I said nothing about how he should train, I only talked about max hartrate and that is a very individual thing. Find you own max, don,t use formula's for that, stick to the fact's
