220 – age = age predicted HR max

Step 2: Calculate target heart rate range

HR max x 0.55 = 55% maximum heart rate
HR max x 0.6 = 60% maximum heart rate
HR max x 0.75 = 75% maximum heart rate

Example: Client X aged 55

Step 1: Calculate age predicted max HR

220 – 55 = 165

Step 2: Calculate target ranges of 60 and 75% of max HR

Max HR 165 x 0.6 = 99 (60% THR – target heart rate zone)

Max HR 165 x 0.75 = 123.75 (75% THR – target heart rate zone)

Training heart rate zone 60 – 75% of max HR = 99–124

Adapted from: Lawrence & Barnett (2006)

Karvonen or heart rate reserve (HRR)

This formula calculates the heart rate reserve (HRR) to determine a training
heart rate. The heart rate reserve is the difference between the maximal
heart rate and the resting heart rate. Resting heart rate is that which would
be found after a long sleep or rest. A HRR of 50–70% corresponds to 50–
70% of VO2 reserve. VO2 reserve is the difference between VO2 max and
resting VO2. Ideally, a true maximum HR (as obtained from a maximal test)
should be used when applying the Karvonen formula. However, a more
practical, albeit less accurate approach is to use age predicted max HR.

Step 1: Calculate HRR

Maximum heart rate (or age-predicted heart rate) – resting heart rate = heart
rate reserve.
Step 2: Calculate training heart rate (e.g. 50–70% of HRR)
(HRR x 0.5) + RHR = 50% HRR
(HRR x 0.7) + RHR = 70% HRR

Example: Client X Age 55

Step 1:
165 (age-predicted max HR) – 60 (resting heart rate) = 105 HRR

Step 2:
105 HRR x 0.5 = 52.5 + 60 (RHR) = 112.50 = 50% HRR

105 x 0.7 = 73.5 + 60 (RHR) = 133.50 = 70% HRR

Training heart rate zone 50–77% HR max = 112–133

Adapted from: Lawrence & Barnett (2006)

Monitoring heart rate response to exercise

Manual heart rate monitoring requires a reasonable level of skill and
competence. It is therefore comparatively less accurate than using heart rate
monitoring devices. It may be more appropriate to use heart rate monitoring
in conjunction with other methods, such as RPE.

Rating of perceived exertion (RPE)

Borg (1998) in ACSM (2007: 77) developed the RPE 6–20 and CR–10 to
enable subjective quantifying of exercise intensity. The 6–20 scale is
designed for rating overall feelings of exertion and is generally used for
steady state aerobic activity. The CR–10 scale is designed for rating more
individualised responses such as breathlessness and pain.
When using RPE, the client is encouraged to focus on the sensations of
physical exertion (breathlessness, strain and fatigue in muscles) and then
rate their overall feelings of exertion against the scales. The more
experienced a client becomes at detecting and rating sensations, the more
closely the ratings correlate with the exercise intensity.
The ACSM (2000: 78) indicate that a cardiovascular training effect and
the threshold at which blood lactate starts to accumulate is achieved at a
rating of between ‘somewhat hard’ to ‘hard’, which equates to a rating of
12–16 (RPE) or 4–6 (CR –10) on the respective scales. Fatigue levels
(where lactate builds and cannot be removed at a sufficient rate, requiring
intensity to be reduced to maintain the activity) equate to ratings of between
18–20 and 9–10 on the respective scales.
A key consideration would be that the actual intensity of exercise to
achieve these ratings will be different between subjects, depending on
fitness. For example, an untrained person may subjectively rate intensity at
12–16 when walking at a moderate pace on a very slight incline. Whereas, a
trained individual may rate intensity at 12–16 while running at a fast pace
on a higher incline. The point being, the type of activity to achieve the
ratings will be determined by individual factors, which include fitness and
skill level. What an untrained client finds subjectively hard, a trained client
will find subjectively easy.