Talk:Heart rate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Medicine / Cardiology (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Cardiology task force.
WikiProject Physiology (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physiology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article has been classified as relating to the physiology of the heart.

Miguel Indurain[edit]

This reference at the bottom seems questionable. The site that it is referenced from isn't a primary source; and it doesn't give its reference for the fact.,[']] ' \ Also, I saw an ACSM (American College of Sport Medicine) documentary from 2003 which referenced a cross-country skier (not named) they had measured at 28 RHR BPM. So I'm not sure it's appropriate to include this 'record.' Anyone else have an opinion? 15:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Training Zones[edit]

Can people give examples of how training zones are applied in real sports and the like? [[User: This paragraph seems misleading to me, as it makes people think that by doing a low-intensity exercise they will burn more fat than by doing medium/high-intensity activities... Calories burnt in the unit of time is what matters. Low-intensity training is useless, as you will burn less calories and even if you burn 80% fats, food will replace them.

{I agree with the above paragraph that Calories burnt per unit of time would be an important addition. I dissagree with his statement that Low-intensity training is useless. I have done both and found low intensity more successfull at losing weight, and higher intensity better at increasing fitness and endurance. RWP} The person above that said he/she lost more weight with low intensity is completely wrong. as stated above, what matters is the calories more minute, therefore, the higher the intensity the more calories expended, the more weight is lost! [Actually, the person above could be right if they trained at low intensity for a longer period of time. This can use up enough calories and has the advantage of lower injury rates.]

Although I agree that what matters is total calories burned, some authors claim that low intensity exercise burns a higher fat-to-carbohydrates ratio than high intensity. In addition, they claim that if exercise lasts more than some amount of time (claims of how much time vary), the fat-to-carbohydrate ratio of calories burned increases. Sorry, but someone else has the book I got this from, so I don't have a citation. (talk) 20:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Both low intensity and high intensity are important for training adaptation. Low intensity promotes mitochondrial biogenesis, while high intensity affects mainly to the capability of those mitochondria to use oxygen as a fuel. They are both complementary, and if we are looking for a long-term adaptation, they have to be both taken into account.

Could a definition of Resting Heart Rate please be added? Specifically, I am wondering if this is the minimum rate when waking up, or the rate sitting quietly, or laying down quietly. Thank you.

[Resting heart rate in this context is usually defined as morning wake up heart rate.]

In the section on MHR, there is written ``Swimming - 14 beats lower ... because the body is partially supported. I believe this is NOT true for swimming. In swimming you do use all your body, that's not the same as cycling or rowing. I believe the cause is the ,,mamals diving reflex instead. Human's heart rate slows down each time we get into the water in order to save oxygen when we dive under the water. I'm not a medician, so please check this with someone experienced before making a correction, but the difference (2/3 rowing, 5/6 cycling and 14(!) swimming) seems enourmous to me and I know about the mammals diving reflex, so I suspect this is related. User:hhanke

This information came from [1]. To quote:
Londeree and Moeschberger also looked at other variables to see if these had an effect on MHR. They found that neither sex nor race makes a difference. However, MHR does vary with activity and fitness level. Studies have shown that MHR on a treadmill is consistently 5 to 6 beats higher than on a bicycle ergometer and 2 to 3 beats higher than on a rowing ergometer. Heart rates while swimming are significantly lower still, around 14bpm, than for treadmill running. Running and Versaclimber [4] show similar MHR. Londeree and Moeschberger also found fitness levels lead to a variation in MHR.
Johnteslade 07:36, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This looks like a mistake in the source. "5 to 6 beats higher," "2 to 3 beats higher," "significantly higher still" would make more sense, grammatically and physiologically. This "fact" shouldn't be used unless it's confirmed by another independent source. 03:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
The source says "HMR on a treadmill is consistently 5 to 6 beats higher than on a bicycle ergometer [...] Heart rates while swiming are significantly lower still, around 14bpm" The trick here is that "5 to 6 beats higher" refers to the bicycle, while "significantly lower" refers to the treadmill. To sum it up, treadmill = 5 to 6 beats higher than cycling, swiming = 14 bpm lower than treadmill. There is no mistake or inconsistancy, but a backup source wouldn't hurt.
Knuthove 14:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

That the training zones are divided at 10% intervals makes it look like they are based on estimates, or gut feelings. I wonder if there are studies to support this division of zones? (talk) 20:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


Hi, I'm a belgium medical student.

Quote from above: "Can people give examples of how training zones are applied in real sports and the like? [[User: This paragraph seems misleading to me, as it makes people think that by doing a low-intensity exercise they will burn more fat than by doing medium/high-intensity activities... Calories burnt in the unit of time is what matters. Low-intensity training is useless, as you will burn less calories and even if you burn 80% fats, food will replace them.

{I agree with the above paragraph that Calories burnt per unit of time would be an important addition. I dissagree with his statement that Low-intensity training is useless. I have done both and found low intensity more successfull at losing weight, and higher intensity better at increasing fitness and endurance. RWP} "The person above that said he/she lost more weight with low intensity is completely wrong. as stated above, what matters is the calories more minute, therefore, the higher the intensity the more calories expended, the more weight is lost!"

As a cyclist, I would note that sustained high intensity exercise is only possible with sufficient carbohydrate intake. Any long distance cyclist or marathon runner can tell you about the experience of "bonking" or "hitting the wall" when the body runs out of carbs and starts burning through fat reserves. If you want to sustain or regain high-intensity performance you need to eat rather than processing fat, which is at odds with the goal of weight loss. -- Bdentremont (talk) 18:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

End quote You will always burn more calories when you train the same endurance exercise with a higher intensity. For example: when you run 20 kilometers with a speed 15 km/hour you'll burn more calorie then when you run the same 20 kilometers with a speed of 12 km/hour. The misunderstanding among many people is that you'll burn more calories with the lower intensity because they heard that you'll burn more fat, they don't realize though that you'll burn much more glycogen what overcompensates the smaller amount of fatburning.

The best method for training is a good variation, both on the short term as well as on the long term. When you train with a lower intensity your body adapts in a different way from when you train with a high intensity. Variation is the keyword when you want to become a good endurance athlete. The faster and longer you can run the more weight you'll lose on the long term. The big but is that beginners are usually not ready for higher intensity training, their body ain't adapted to it. Most people who start with running train in the wrong way; always the same round, always the same intensity, usually the intensity is too high (they feel ashamed when they run with the correct intensity). The result is overtraining (been there, had it, it sucks big time).

About the maximum heart rate. To my knowledge the biggest factor which decides the maximum heart rate, espcecially for younger people, is the genes. It looks like the maximum heart rate decreases slower among endurance athletes. I don't know though whether their maximum heart rate decreases slower because they are endurance athletes or whether they are endurance athletes because their maximum heart rate decreases slower. If anyone can tell... In past scientists used the formula 220-age + or - 15. The variation can be quite high.

The resting heart rate decreases parallel with the increasement of a persons endurance capacity. That's a well known fact which is very logical because the heart(muscle) gets stronger thanx to the exercise. Excellent endurance athletes have a resting heart rate between 30-40 (little under 30 is even possible), excellent tennissers and footballplayers have often a resting heartrate between 50 and 60, just like many non-excelling endurance sporters. I don't know about any correlation between age and resting heart rate besides the obvious fact that older people don't exercise as much as younger people. Of course the heart rate can be influenced by pathology, older people more often suffer from that.

When it is hot the heart rate can raise because your bodies superficial veing open (sphincters open the connection between the deeper and the more superficial veins). This is what causes the higher heart rate. When more blood flows through the superficial veins your body kan release more heat (a big part of blood is water). There is quite a big difference between indiviuals sensitivity to heat. I personally already get 10 beats more/minute when the temperatur gets close to 25 degrees celcius.

The part about the recovery heart rate doesn't make sense. It's not about the absolute heart rate, it's the heart rate percentage of the maximum heartrate which is important. Since the maximum heartrate differs so mucht it's a very bad habit to talk about exact heart rates with regard to exercise.

(Again, I don't have a citation.) I read that "fat is burned in the flame of carbohydrates." So, even though an ultra marathoner supposedly burns mostly fat, he/she can't continue to perform when carbs are depleted. (talk) 20:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Resting HR decreases with age?[edit]

Does anybody have any sources on this? I used to work on a geriatrics ward, and the resting pulse rates were anything from 40 to 120... admittedly they were PRs not HRs, but I wouldn't expect there to be such a huge difference between the two; and if there is a difference then PR must be less than HR. I'm willing to accept that I could have just worked on a freakish ward, but I would like to see some sources for the info!!! I know that the HR decreases from neonate until the end of adolescence, but I haven't seen any specific research about where it goes after that...--John24601 21:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

If someone were to find a source for this data, would you please expand the number of years covered. I can't imagine that a 14 year-old is expected to have the same resting heart rate as someone in their 80's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I found an article that gives the desired information, and changed the table accordingly. However, I don't know how to change the reference, or how to site, on Wikipedia. Here is the website: [2] Maybe someone else with more Wiki skill —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Section 3 Recovery heart rate Doesnt quite make sense, someone needs to check this. I posted here a reference to another study which puts at risk figure at 12 bpm not 30bpm a big difference

This is the heart rate measured at a fixed (or reference) period after ceasing activity; typically measured over a 1 minute period.

For death, it has been hypothesized* that a delayed fall in the heart rate after exercise might be an important prognostic marker. Less than 30 bpm reduction at one minute after stopping hard exercise was a predictor of heart attack. More than 50 bpm reduction showed reduced risk of heart attack.


The person who led the research team was Dr Michael Lauer, a cardiologist at the prestigious Cleveland Clinic in Cleveland, Ohio. Michael Lauer: Well typically we will exercise people for about 8-12 minutes, that's how long it usually takes to get somebody going very quickly and getting them to the point of maximal exhaustion. Let's say for a typical 50-year-old man, you'd expect the heart rate to rise from about 70 at rest to about 170 at peak exercise. And then what we'd like to see is the heart rate fall by at least 20 beats per minute during that first minute after exercise.

Norman Swan: I think in the paper you defined the heart beat reduction as 12 beats per minute or less.

Michael Lauer: Twelve beats a minute, that's correct.

(........They were the ones who were at really high risk for subsequent death.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

FORT DUDAK: I would like to see the abnormal rate of =<12 BPM in the paragraph about Recovery Heart Rate. The statement currently reads a risk of death from heart attack at =<30 BMP. Looking at the actual study, there is a chart of increasing risk from abt 25 BPM and less, so I gather that's where the current summary of less than 30 BPM comes from. But the study authors picked =<12 so that should be in the paragraph about the study. Fortdudak (talk) 23:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Measuring HRmax[edit]

Maximum heart rate should be defined before it's formulas are shown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The article gives Edward's formula as

For males: 210 - 1/2 your age - 1% of total body weight + 4 = HRmax
For females: 210 - 1/2 your age - 1% of total body weight + 0 = HRmax

But the Heartzones website gives

For males: 210 - 1/2 your age - 5% of total body weight + 4 = HRmax
For females: 210 - 1/2 your age - 5% of total body weight + 0 = HRmax

and makes it clear that weight is in pounds.

MHR revisited[edit]

The maximal heart rate is lower for cycling and swimming as stated above. This is due to the number, size, and resistance(or power) of the muscle groups involved. Treadmill is higher because there is high resistance and large muscle groups. Swimming is lowest because although more muscle groups are involved, the resistance that each meets is significantly less than cycling or running (especially uphill). It is my opinion that the target zone does not need to change in exercise on a bicycle or whilst swimming, since it is cardiac specific and not exercise specific. The MHR is calculated whilst running uphill or on a treadmill with incline (after attaining 80-90% MHR on level or slight incline) in order to use the 'target zone' formulae. Unfit people are unlikely to attain their MHR on first attempt at these tests (it takes a degree of stamina to keep running anaerobically up a hill at 100%MHR, typically for 2 minutes at the end of the test, which follows several minutes of 85%MHR) Zeitnot 19:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Could someone Please Please find the citation to "People who have participated in sports and athletic activities in early years will have a higher MHR than those less active as children". I have been trying to get information like this for a long time. I was a former top x-c skier from ages 5 to 19. Now at 37, while -not- trying to relive the glory days, but be competitive in x-c mountain biking and x-c skiing I regularly see 198-201 peak heart rate (mostly while climbing up steep hills, sprints, etc...). Also if I take the standard age based system by training zone at 70% would be 128 bpm. At 128 I feel like I am not doing anything. 140 bpm feels much more like 70%. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Target Heart Rate[edit]

The section on the Zoladz method need revising, IMHO. The formulas seem to mix two methods without explanation; the section does not explain the meaning of the term "exercise zone"; and the section needs a citation. Andrew.Blucher (talk) 02:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Body temp & heart rate[edit]

change of 10 beats per minute in heart rate corresponds to the change of one degree Celsius in body temperature sounds like total hogwash to me. When I exercise, I can easily raise my heart rate by 100 beats per minute which according to this would give a a tempurature of 47C which according to Thermoregulation#Human temperature variation effects should result in my certain death.--JBellis 18:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Is it perhaps that cause and effect are reversed in the above paragraph? Is the article perhaps saying that an increase in body temperature of 1 degree Celsius would cause an incease in heart rate of 10 bpm assuming that all other factors remain the same.

Steve F.

Restructuring this article -- lots of info[edit]

I just added the restructuring template for this article because, after reading it over, there is a lot of information that is not very well organized. Things like max heart rate, training heart rate, and resting heart rate, for example, could all be organized under an umbrella topic section (cardiovascular health?) and, after a brief definition, could be described in relation to each other towards edification for someone who is not very familiar with any of the seperate topics. Rhetth 01:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


I removed this section: A more reliable MHR (Maximum Heart Rate) calculation is based on the MRHR (Morning Resting Heart Rate) and your age. MRHR is an average of 3 or more samples of your HR at the moment you wake up from a normal sleep cycle. MRHR is used to calculate MHR. Polar has a free web service that will calculate your MHR based on your MRHR and your age [3]. because:

  • it doesn't make sense without using the polar website
  • using that calculator on the polar website simply calculates MHR = 220-age which is described elsewhere. The MRHR is used for calculating training zones but I think that it needs further reference.--JBellis 20:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Possible copyvio[edit]

The section on training heart rates seems to be a paraphrase of other websites, changing "calories" to "food energy" (a weird way to phrase it), possibly to avoid being able to catch it by Googling for those phrases.

Anyone got permission or should I list it as a copyvio? --Frank Lofaro Jr. 16:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Cardiac Pacemakers[edit]

In the "Control of Heart Rate" section, the article says:

The heart contains two cardiac pacemakers that spontaneously cause the heart to beat.

Now, I am aware of at least four different kinds of pacemakers, and all myocardial muscle tissue demonstrates automaticity, which means that in theory there are thousands, possibly tens of thousands of potential pacemakers in the heart. Of the four "kinds," there is the Sino-Atrial (SA) node, which is the normal pacemaker; ectopic Atrial pacemakers (usually, one of which fires escape beats faster than the others, and becomes the dominant pacemaker when not overdrive-suppressed by the SA node); the AV node (again, when not overdrive-suppressed by the SA node or an ectopic Atrial pacemaker); and ectopic Ventricular pacemakers (like the Atrial pacemakers, one will normally be slightly more irritable, or fire earlier, than other possible pacemakers unless overdrive-suppressed by the SA, ectopic Atrial, or AV node pacemakers).

I want to edit this section, but before I do I am hoping someone can defend the quoted text (I might learn something!). If not, I will edit it within the next few days. Aramis1250 03:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

possible error in formula?[edit]

The proposed gender specific formula:

"  For males: 210 - 1/2 your age - 5% of total body weight (in pounds) + 4 = HRmax
   For females: 210 - 1/2 your age - 5% of total body weight (in pounds) + 0 = HRmax "

seems ambiguous: Does the author mean " 214 - 1/2 age -5% (body weight)" or "210 - 1/2 age - 5% (body weight +4)" (which could also be written as "210.2 - 1/2 age - 5% weight."

I would have edited, but wasn't sure exactly which was intended. Meviin 06:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Commercial Links[edit]

The Sally Edwards/Heart Zones links in the text appear commercial. 05:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

not my fault —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Other Species[edit]

This article is very anthropocentric :-) I'm actually interested in finding out about variations in heart rate across species - does anyone know of a good source of data? And if one were to incorporate such info into wikipedia should it go here in this article or should there be a separate article with a disambiguation page, or what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


Key terms in this article have been replaced with proper nouns. Can someone go back a couple of edits to before this page was vandalised? (I'm not sure how to) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistencies about normal heart rate[edit]

In the second paragraph it says, "the average adult human heart beats at about 70 bpm (males) and 75 bpm (females)" and then later in the same para it says "the adult's (heart rate) about 80–100 bpm." And in the table at the top-right, it says "60-101" is the normal heart rate. -Strangerstome (talk) 20:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


This edit appears to be a direct copy from here. The apparent plagiarism seems to have survived in the article as it stands today. I'm not sure how to proceed but thought I'd mention it. (talk) 03:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Taken care of. On another note, this article is a total mess.  CKBrown1000 talk  06:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Removed "dubious" tag[edit]

I've removed the dubious tag from the statement:

The pulse rate (which in most people is identical to the heart rate) can be measured at any point on the body where an artery's pulsation is transmitted to the surface - often as it is compressed against an underlying structure like bone.

I'm not sure what fact the original tagger considered questionable - all three statements seem fairly straightforward (pulse rate usually = HR, multiple sampling points, compression => ability to palpate). -- MarcoTolo (talk) 19:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Maximum heart rate[edit]

Half of the opening paragraph in the "Maximum heart rate" is about resting heart rate. IMO, this indicates that some restructuring is warranted. (This paragraph also says resting heart rate increases with age. I had heard that it decreases with age. That sentence might deserve a "fact" tag.) (talk) 21:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The paragraph states, "The resting heart rate usually rises with age". It is nearly common sense that it decreases with age. This statement needs a "dubious" tag.-- (talk) 04:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Heart Rate diagram[edit]

I have pointed out an error in the heart rate diagram in the Talk:Aerobic exercise#Error in diagram discussion. Best contribute there if you have anything to add.

Zfishwiki (talk) 21:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Valsalva maneuver[edit]

The Valsalva maneuver decreases (early phase), and then increases (late phase), heart rate. This should be mentioned somewhere in the article, but I'm hesitant to add this info without a reference.Fuzzform (talk) 06:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Heart rates of non-humans[edit]

Even if this article is going to focus on humans, I think it would be very interesting and relevant to add a paragraph with a selection of different species and their average resting and active heart rates. For example, what is the heart rate of a typical hummingbird when resting or feeding? How about an elephant or a whale? Or other close relatives like the Chimpanzee or Bonobo? Not only is this information interesting in its own right but it provides a reference point and meaningful context that gives an idea of where human metabolism fits on the spectrum of other animals. Cazort (talk) 16:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

refs are weird?[edit]

In "Recovery Heart Rates" the references are really someone fix that?

--Heero Kirashami (talk) 01:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Recovery Heart Rate Correct?[edit]

30bpm reduction at one minute seems high given some other random webpages I've looked at. The referenced article itself states the measured median value for the 2,428 participants was 17bpm, with a range from the 25th to the 75th percentile of 12 to 23 beats per minute... So... Yea. Seems a bit off (perhaps the intention was recovery rate over TWO minutes?).

Also, my apologies for not making the edit myself, as I'm not particularly familiar with editing articles, but the referenced article is available online: —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this. The description of figure 1 in the referenced article says that heart rate recovery below 10 to 15 beats per minute increases risk of death, and that heart rate recovery above 15 to 20 beats per minute were not associated with further improvements in prognosis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It may be high for couch potatoes, but for people who work out regularly, it should be normal. Yesterday, after 35 minutes of fast running, my heart rate dropped from 162 bpm to 120 bpm in one minute. I've also measured a drop from 160 bpm to 120 in 40 seconds when having to stop to tie my shoe laces after just ten minutes of running, so 60 bpm/minute is a more accurate figure. Obviously, the whole point of exercising is that after the exercise the body is not in the same state as it was before, so recovery after a full exercise will be slower. Count Iblis (talk) 16:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

This whole paragraph is completely false[edit]

«These figures are very much averages, and depend greatly on individual physiology and fitness. For example an endurance runner's rates will typically be lower due to the increased size of the heart required to support the exercise, while a sprinter's rates will be higher due to the improved response time and short duration., etc. may each have predicted heart rates of 180 (= 220-Age), but these two people could have actual Max HR 20 beats apart (e.g. 170-190).»

This is utter nonsense. Working out has absolutely no impact on HRmax whatsoever. It is based solely on genetics and age.

Read any and every study, they are completely non-related. For instance, Hoff & Helgerud has published excellent articles on this very subject.

I suggest deleting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Balls927583 (talkcontribs) 18:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Karvonen's Formula[edit]

I'd like to point out that there is no science at all behind this formula. It's completely arbitrary. Karvonen has said so himself in a later interview (I've seen the transcribed interview on the net but can't find it now). It can't work. Main reason is that the blood volume pumped isn't increasing linearly until a certain heart rate, well above resting heart rate. Also, Karvonen's formula says that the higher span you gain the softer you should train, and vice versa!


"A more precise method of determining pulse involves the use of an electrocardiograph, or ECG"

this is incorrect - an ECG shows the electrical activity of the heart and not necessarily the pulse rate - for example as seen in electromechanical dissociation —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Recovery heart rate for athletes[edit]

I think Indurain's heart rate dropped from 190 bpm to 57 bpm in one minute after the 1992 time trial in Luxembourg. But this is from memory alone, I can't find any sources. Count Iblis (talk) 16:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Change to Recovery section[edit]

I made minor changes; the reference has this: 'In univariate analyses, a low value for the recovery of heart rate was strongly predictive of death (relative risk, 4.0; 95 percent confidence interval, 3.0 to 5.2; P<0.001). After adjustments were made for age, sex, the use or nonuse of medications, the presence or absence of myocardial perfusion defects on thallium scintigraphy, standard cardiac risk factors, the resting heart rate, the change in heart rate during exercise, and workload achieved, a low value for heart-rate recovery remained predictive of death (adjusted relative risk, 2.0; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.5 to 2.7; P<0.001)." ' -- Jo3sampl (talk) 20:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


The section on "children" says that when doing exercise, heart-rates for children can be up to 200. This claim is not supported by the reference given (as far as I can see anyway) and is contradicted by several other sources we're listing.

The claim doesn't seem plausible either, the real number is certainly higher than this. --Eivind Kjørstad (talk) 05:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

True. I've deleted it. I've emailed the corresponding author of the cited Lancet paper, asking for help summarising their findings for this article. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Balance required[edit]

The article treats each formula for HRmax equally but the result imo is a distortion of the facts.

The study cited in the article as "Another "tweak" to the traditional formula " seems to me to be the defining study on the subject: "Age-predicted maximal heart rate revisited" by Tanaka H, Monahan KD, Seals DR, published in Journal of the American College of Cardiology. This paper was the result of BOTH a meta-analysis (of 351 prior studies involving 492 groups and 18,712 subjects) AND a laboratory study (of 514 healthy subjects). The conclusions were unequivocal. The laboraty study verified precisely the statistical predictions.

To achieve the balance required of the article it should imo distinguish more clearly between those formulae that have effectively been plucked from the air (and often derided by their own authors) and those, primarily imo the paper quoted above, which are based on subtstantive research and analysis.
--LookingGlass (talk) 15:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Please make whatever changes you deem appropriate. From what you've said here, you can probably remove everything and just report the Journal of the American College of Cardiology article's results. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Ok .... but I only did some rearranging. I haven't deleted anything. I have separated out the "commentary" (?) into a "criticism" section. Personally I would probably delete it but I didn't feel comfortable doing that. I tried to reword it but found it conflicted with the studies etc hence the "criticism" title.
The "220" Haskell and Fox formula is quoted so widely that it seems to have become "true through repetition". Even the Centre for Disease Control cites it (with no further refs) as if it were fact. It seems to me that this sort of orthodoxy is the sort of thing Wiki should be challenging. All assuming I haven't missed an "Elephant".
--LookingGlass (talk) 17:44, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Request for example calculations[edit]

A formula like this:

HRmax = 203.7 / (1 + exp (0.033 x (age - 104.3)))

Could be made much more useful to non-mathematically inclined athletes simply wishing to quickly figure their personal maximum rate (e.g., runners who may not handy with calculating "exp") if an example or two were supplied perhaps two, one each for 40 and 60 years of age, or just a single example for 50 years of age.

Agreed. Sounds like a great suggestion to me, and even standard practice. GFI LookingGlass (talk) 11:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Low Heart Rate = Criminal Tendencies???[edit]

An anonymous contributor added in the line "Very low heart rate may be associated with an autonomous nervous system impairment and has a high correlation with criminal tendencies" citing a blog post on New Scientist, from April 2013. While there may be a link, the line seems out of place under "Heart rate and cardiovascular mortality risk". If anything, it should be under "Neurocriminology". Anyway, my little investigation found the line was added by on 08:13, 20 May 2013. Fshafique (talk) 08:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Lowest heart rate[edit] has changed the person with the lowest heart rate bit from Martin Brady to Edward Black. I don't have the expertise to verify, but just wanted to leave a note in case this was unconstructive. I won't be watching this page, so if you want to talk to me about this, use {{ping|RainCity471}}. Thanks, RainCity471 (Whack!) 19:26, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Addiction Nonsense[edit]

The Wikipedia article on caffeine specifically states the addiction level of caffeine is LOW or NONE. The source quoted in this article [7] doesn't even support this : Caffeine and nicotine

Both stimulants are legal and unregulated, and are known to be very addictive.[7]  — Preceding unsigned comment added by N0w8st8s (talkcontribs) 23:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC) 

Formulae given are NOT those in the research cited[edit]

The research by Oakland University cited (Gellish RL, Goslin BR, Olson RE, McDonald A, Russi GD, Moudgil VK, abstract at states their results as follows:

Clinical measurements obtained during the administration of the GXT included in this longitudinal study resulted in the generation of a univariate prediction model: HRmax = 207 - 0.7 x age. Model parameters were highly statistically significant (P < 0.001).

Should the section be amended accordingly?

LookingGlass (talk) 15:58, 26 November 2016 (UTC)