Andrew Huberman· PhD
If you take the number 220 and you subtract your age, that for most people, most, is going to be your maximum heart rate. Although for certain people who are very fit or certain ages, that's not going to apply.
Loading…
The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
If you take the number 220 and you subtract your age, that for most people, most, is going to be your maximum heart rate. Although for certain people who are very fit or certain ages, that's not going to apply.
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
you've heard me talk about 180 minus your age fil maon approach totally reasonable but of course the plus or minus on that is 10 so you have to you know it might be a good starting point but but there's some challenges with that