[ Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Eric T
Time: 3:38:03 PM
Remote Name: 22.214.171.124
I have asked the same question previously to an editor of a running magazine. I have heard reasons for both using the Straight Line method versus Karvonen. This particular editor emphasized the advantage of using the Karvonen is for beginners who resting heart rates tend to drop more drastically, as you witnessed. I am going by memory, which can be dangerous. If I remember correctly, by subtracting the resting HR for beginners, the percentage of the maximum HR more closely resembles the percentage of max VO2max. Lately I have been seeing zones recommendations using the Straight-Line method to be 5 percentage points higher than using the Karvonen. For example; the Aerobic Threshold using Karvonen is 80-90% while the Straight-Line method is 85-95%. For me, using the two sets of ranges, my pulse rates are extremely close using the two methods. Paul answered a similar question that I presented to him last summer. You can search last year's database to see how he viewed the two different methods.