So, I know that wrist worn heart rate monitors are thought to be less accurate under conditions of strenuous exercise. I know that the various age-based formulae for maximum heart rate are very approximate and that this is even more true for people who exercise regularly. I know that the only way to get an accurate figure for my maximum heart rate would be to submit to something akin to torture under medical supervision: and I also know that I don't want to do that.
Now, Fitbit and Strava claim to use the same formula for estimating heart rate. Fitbit calculates it to be 161, which is indeed what the formula yields but it's clearly not right in my case because I can sustain exercise at around that level for half an hour without discomfort so a maximum it ain't. Assuming it's measured correctly of course, see above. But Strava - well Strava uses a figure of 190, which would make me 30 years old and I'm close to completing 30 years second time around! HOWEVER that figure, when used with the data from my Fitbit, gives results for the extent of my effort which fit very well with what I would intuitively expect.
It's almost as if Strava (which gets my heart rate from my Fitbit) is using the data to estimate what Fitbit reading corresponds to my actual maximum heart rate. That would be very clever, and very useful, but their help pages don't indicate that. They say they work it out on age (which clearly they don't in my case) but there's also a statement that they've recently improved their heart rate calculations.
So is it possible they are estimating my maximum heart rate using the empirical data from my Fitbit and just haven't updated their FAQs to reflect that? Does anyone know how Strava works out maximum heart rate, given that it clearly isn't now by the method described on their website?