but "(220-age -RHR)0.85 + RHR = maximum target heart rate" is rocket science to me
FWIW: although it is in common use, "220 – age" is not very good as an estimate of max heart rate. Furthermore, it was never intended to be used that way. For one thing, it tends to underestimate for young people and overestimate for older people (so there is obviously an intermediate point where it is decent). For example, in my case it estimates HRmax=154, and last week I saw 166 in the gym — pretty high, but probably not my actual maximum.
Fortunately, there are better estimating formulae out there (although none are that precise for everyone).
For example, many believe that that the Karvonen formula (205 – age/2)is decent for fit people who exercise several times per week.
Another decent one is by Runner's World: 210 – (0.5 * age) – (5% of body weight) + 4
—-
Plug any of them into the formula you gave — the formula you gave above is the heart rate reserve formula, better worded as (max heart rate – resting heart rate) * (percent you want to exercise at) + (resting heart rate). Many believe that exercising at a percentage of HRR makes more sense than exercising at a percent of HRmax. Different percentages have different training effects — look into that when planning your program.
— MV