Comparison Of Maximal Heart Rate Prediction Formulas When Applied To Golf

Abstract

Prediction of maximal heart rate (HRmax) is commonly calculated for both clinical and healthy populations to be utilized for prediction of VO2max, exercise prescription, and more. Technicians often use a simple, traditional formula (TF) for this calculation: 220-age. While TF has been widely accepted, its variation in accuracy can result in significant discrepancies for technicians applying the formula for exercise testing and prescription. A new formula (NF) may be more precise: [206.9-(0.67-age)]. The NF seems to be more accurate in older adults; though, its accuracy in younger populations has not been greatly analyzed. Since predicted HRmax can be used to establish intensity of physical activities, this study examines measurements from participants who played golf (a lower intensity sport). PURPOSE: To evaluate the discrepancies between the TF and the NF in a young and healthy population. METHODS: Eight males (20.88 years old) completed 9 holes of golf two separate times, once walking (W) and once riding (R). The predicted HRmax was then calculated for each participant using TF and NF. Paired t-tests were used to compare the differences between measurements obtained using TF and NF. RESULTS: There were significant differences between the TF and the NF (p-values for both were .000). The average difference in predicted HRmax for R was 2.02% higher when using NF, while the average difference in predicted HRmax for W was 2.11% higher when using NF. CONCLUSION: The data indicate that the average predicted HRmax using NF was significantly higher than the predicted HRmax using TF. The data suggest that these differences must be taken into account when measuring predicted HRmax, as small variances can greatly alter exercise testing and prescription in healthy and clinical populations.