Determining Max Heart Rate - Debunking the Myth of 220-Age...at Least for Females

We've all been there: You buy a brand new heart rate monitor, discover that proper use requires knowledge of an esoteric concept called "maximum heart rate," and ultimately figure out that the easiest way to derive your max HR is to subtract your age from 220 (the harder way of course being running until near death).  And then just as soon as you figure it out, you discover firsthand that the formula may not be so accurate -- or at least you hear endless personal antecdotes as to why it's bogus.  Well, let ActiveWatches add to that chorus with some scientific evidence, at least as it relates to women.

According to the New York Times, researchers at Northwestern University discovered that the old school method of calculating heart rate results in a max HR that's simply too high for women.  You can read an article about the study here.  The more accurate formula?  206 minus 88% of the woman's age.  Okay, so earlier physiologists were a bit off the mark.  What about men?  Good question.  The jury's still out on that issue, but I'm sure they'll be delivering a verdict soon.

Perhaps one should just follow the concluding point of the article: just trust your body, and work as little or hard as appropriate given your goals for the particular workout.  Don't get us wrong, ActiveWatches promotes the use of heart rate monitors, but they should only supplement your workout, not dictate it.
And if you do, you won't be kicking yourself the next time researchers agree on a new formula.