[nradov]

Age based equations for maximum heart rate are mostly bullshit. More recent research has shown that there is much less decline in maximum heart rate with age, at least for athletes with a decent level of fitness. And there is a huge amount of natural variation between individuals which is often more significant than age effects.

Maximum heart rate is also sport dependent. For an equivalent level of fitness, maximum cycling HR is often about 10bpm lower than maximum running HR. This is because running engages more muscles and doesn't restrict breathing as much.

[carl_dr]

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]

> 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.