>> Wikipedia claims it has no scientific basis.
> 
> I'm guessing the American Heart Association wouldn't make charts on 
> their site if they had no scientific basis at all.  It's also what my 
> doctor told me. So....

Yeah, surely Wikipedia is more authoritative than the American Heart 
Association.

(Then again, I get the distinct impression that maximum heart rate 
varies wildly from person to person, so just about any formula is only 
ever going to be a very rough estimate. Short of actually *measuring* 
your maximum heart rate, that is...)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> (Then again, I get the distinct impression that maximum heart rate 
> varies wildly from person to person, so just about any formula is only 
> ever going to be a very rough estimate. Short of actually *measuring* 
> your maximum heart rate, that is...)

Yes. And that really isn't that hard to do, assuming your heart rate monitor 
works at all.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
    C# - a language whose greatest drawback
    is that its best implementation comes
    from a company that doesn't hate Microsoft.

Post a reply to this message

I have been measuring my bloodpressure over the last few weeks twice a 
day. This machine also gives my heartrate. My heart rate (at rest) is 
68.5+-5.5 (62--87), so 75 is within my range, though not often. (and yes 
I don't know why it was twice above 80, I don't remember feeling different).

Heart rate is also a function of size*. The longer you are the lower 
your heart rate. That is why women have on average higher heart rates 
than men. I don't know why the AHA does not include that in their 
tables. If you are 1.5 -- 1.6 m tall, 75 if quite normal. If, on the 
other hand, you are 2m it is faster than you would expect.



*) one site gives BPM for mammals in general as 241 / fourth root of 
Body weight (kg) I assume this is for healthy animals (yet I should have 
a heart rate of more than 80 in this model). Assuming that the BMI model 
is correct it sort of implies that heart rate goes with the sqrt of your 
length. I think I have a paper somewhere that directly gives these 
scaling exponents for various measures, though I have no clue where to 
look, it is from before the internet :(

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:

>   Measure your pulse manually (using a clock) and at the same time see
> what the device is claiming your pulse to be.

I just looked up how to measure your heart rate manually.

Just FYI, feeling my own pulse seriously grosses me out! >_<

Anyway, I managed to grin and bear it for 60 seconds, and I counted 
about 85 pulses. The monitor is claiming an average rate of 88 BPM. 
These numbers are approximately similar.

On the other hand, while driving home, the monitor did briefly flash up 
206 BPM, which is obviously nonesense. After tonights dancing, it gave 
me a maximum BPM value of 183, which is really quite high considering 
how sidate the dancing was. (Sidate by rock & roll standards, anyway...)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On 19/07/2010 9:03 PM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> On the other hand, while driving home, the monitor did briefly flash up
> 206 BPM, which is obviously nonesense.

Why are you looking at your heart rate monitor when you are driving?
Depending on how it works it could show a high reading if two beats came 
close together. That is normal.


-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mca### [at] aoldotcom> wrote:
> Why are you looking at your heart rate monitor when you are driving?
> Depending on how it works it could show a high reading if two beats came 
> close together. That is normal.

  One would think that it averages more than two pulses.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> I just looked up how to measure your heart rate manually.

  Wait. You didn't actually know how to measure your own pulse? Like
seriously?

  Do you mean that you didn't know where to feel your own pulse (most
common places are the wrist and the neck), or that you didn't know how
to get the beats/minute count? (Both seem like unthinkable to me. How
can a person never during his entire life discover that hey, when I touch
here I can feel my own pulse? And how to measure beats/minute after that
ought to be a rather simple logical deduction.)

  Haven't you seen any movie or TV series where a doctor or someone feels
the pulse of a patient?

> Just FYI, feeling my own pulse seriously grosses me out! >_<

  Why?

> Anyway, I managed to grin and bear it for 60 seconds, and I counted 
> about 85 pulses.

  Not really necessary to wait for a full minute. Just count for 15 seconds
and multiply by 4.

> The monitor is claiming an average rate of 88 BPM. 
> These numbers are approximately similar.

  Was this in full rest?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 16:39:57 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Stephen <mca### [at] aoldotcom> wrote:
>> Why are you looking at your heart rate monitor when you are driving?
>> Depending on how it works it could show a high reading if two beats
>> came close together. That is normal.
> 
>   One would think that it averages more than two pulses.

Generally not, since it's measuring an 'instant read' rate, an average 
over a period of time is not useful for this purpose.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 19/07/2010 9:39 PM, Warp wrote:
> Stephen<mca### [at] aoldotcom>  wrote:
>> Why are you looking at your heart rate monitor when you are driving?
>> Depending on how it works it could show a high reading if two beats came
>> close together. That is normal.
>
>    One would think that it averages more than two pulses.
>
Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. Your guess is as good as mine.

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

>> I just looked up how to measure your heart rate manually.
> 
>   Wait. You didn't actually know how to measure your own pulse? Like
> seriously?
> 
>   Do you mean that you didn't know where to feel your own pulse (most
> common places are the wrist and the neck), or that you didn't know how
> to get the beats/minute count?

I wasn't sure where the best place to measure from is. I know you can 
feel your pulse from *somewhere* in your wrist, but I wasn't sure 
exactly where.

(I've never heard of it being measured from your neck. I especially like 
the way the instructions said "but don't press too hard". Um, why? What 
happens if you press too hard??)

>> Just FYI, feeling my own pulse seriously grosses me out! >_<
> 
>   Why?

Same reason some people are freaked out by the sound of chalk squeeking 
on a blackboard I guess...

>> Anyway, I managed to grin and bear it for 60 seconds, and I counted 
>> about 85 pulses.
> 
>   Not really necessary to wait for a full minute. Just count for 15 seconds
> and multiply by 4.

Sure. But I imagine the longer you measure for, the more accurate the 
reading.

>> The monitor is claiming an average rate of 88 BPM. 
>> These numbers are approximately similar.
> 
>   Was this in full rest?

Well, I was sitting still not doing anything.

On the other hand, I was also trying to count while simultaneously 
watching the second hand on my watch, trying to count my pulse and not 
the ticks of the watch, and trying not to think "ewww! my pulse is so 
pulsey!!" So, a small amount of psychological stress...

(It's also quite plausible that I was holding my breath.)

Post a reply to this message