Other/Mixed Your Age and Maximum Heart Rate

[Steve Freides]

I periodically find a new max heart rate for myself. The formula is 220 - age, which for me would be 220 - 65 = 155

I hit 179 today and I'm sure that wasn't my max.

I'm collecting statistics - age as a percentage of MHR.

Thanks in advance.

-S-

 

[offwidth]

I periodically find a new max heart rate for myself. The formula is 220 - age, which for me would be 220 - 65 = 155

I hit 179 today and I'm sure that wasn't my max.

I'm collecting statistics - age as a percentage of MHR.

Thanks in advance.

-S-

This is partly why that equation is notoriously inaccurate. It might not even be statistically correct. (And even if it were there would be outliers at either end)

The only way to know what your HRmax is with any degree of certainty is to measure it. And that process if you will pardon the pun, is not for the faint of heart...

 

[vegpedlr]

The 220 formula doesn't give an accurate HRMax. It can give a good starting point for training zones, as I've compared several formulas with similar results. That's why I like Maffetone's 180 formula. The number 180 by itself is meaningless, has nothing to do with a max, it just gives your training zone. It was derived by comparing the data in the field of actual athletes.

 

[Timmer C]

In general, the 220 formula can be somewhat descriptive, but not prescriptive. It can be vicious if one thinks of it as prescriptive and starts thinking of their heart rate as wrong if it doesn’t fall into the formula. That’s like a tall person thinking of their height is wrong if the average height statistics suggest that they should be shorter.

 

[Steve Freides]

I have lately been training with a heart rate monitor, the Polar H10, and using Polar's app. Typically I perform a set of something then wait for my heart rate to return to Zone 2, as shown on the Polar, before starting the next set. So the max HR number I put in will effect all those various zones.

I recall finding my max heart rate 20 years ago by running a few miles and then, as I got closer to the end of my run, increasing my speed until I felt I could go no faster. The max was 184 and I was 45, so that I hit 179 today makes little sense to me, since my actual max is probably at least a few beats higher, and that in turn means that my max heart rate hasn't gone down in 20 years, and that makes no sense to me.

-S-

 

[Deleted member 5559]

37/185

 

[C.A.]

I have lately been training with a heart rate monitor, the Polar H10, and using Polar's app. Typically I perform a set of something then wait for my heart rate to return to Zone 2, as shown on the Polar, before starting the next set. So the max HR number I put in will effect all those various zones.

I recall finding my max heart rate 20 years ago by running a few miles and then, as I got closer to the end of my run, increasing my speed until I felt I could go no faster. The max was 184 and I was 45, so that I hit 179 today makes little sense to me, since my actual max is probably at least a few beats higher, and that in turn means that my max heart rate hasn't gone down in 20 years, and that makes no sense to me.

-S-

I consider formulas like 220 - age to be based on the habits of the “average” person with average habits of diet, exercise (or lack thereof), sleep, stress reactions, etc. The kind of results you, me and anyone who actually upgrades their habits toward greater health and fitness have will not be taken into account, other than as outliers. That is why I prefer to go off things like PRE, skinfolds, speed of recovery, sleep and energy quality, etc. to determine where I stand.

 

[offwidth]

I have lately been training with a heart rate monitor, the Polar H10, and using Polar's app. Typically I perform a set of something then wait for my heart rate to return to Zone 2, as shown on the Polar, before starting the next set. So the max HR number I put in will effect all those various zones.

I recall finding my max heart rate 20 years ago by running a few miles and then, as I got closer to the end of my run, increasing my speed until I felt I could go no faster. The max was 184 and I was 45, so that I hit 179 today makes little sense to me, since my actual max is probably at least a few beats higher, and that in turn means that my max heart rate hasn't gone down in 20 years, and that makes no sense to me.

-S-

Well perhaps you didn't measure correctly 20 yrs ago?
When you've had it tested on an inclined treadmill with electrodes plastered on you and a doc at the ready with the paddles you will know what I mean...

But it does seem unlikely not to have decreased somewhat in two decades.

The highest I have elicited lately (in a non-tested environment) is about 182. All out uphill sprint on bike. And I'm close to 63

 

[Anna C]

180ish max, age 52

 

[Deleted member 5559]

I do think zones shift and the stock zones in polar don't fit very well. I think the Karvonen zones account for more variables and is more accurate.

 

[Timmer C]

I consider formulas like 220 - age to be based on the habits of the “average” person with average habits of diet, exercise (or lack thereof), sleep, stress reactions, etc. The kind of results you, me and anyone who actually upgrades their habits toward greater health and fitness have will not be taken into account, other than as outliers.

And outliers can be mismeasured. Between my 2018 health screening and my 2019 health screening, I gained muscle and improved my body composition. However, this caused my total score to be reduced due to a “worse” BMI score calculation. Of course, the BMI formulas assume a certain percentage of your body weight is fat, even if it is not. While BMI and 220 - age are quite different formulas, they both can unfairly pigeonhole outliers as subpar.

 

[vegpedlr]

The highest I've seen my HR go was 201, years ago. A few years later, 200. Last year I went over 190 not really trying, just overdid it a little on hill interval.

So what? HRMax is not indicative of anything. What matters to me is AeT and LT.

My advice, ditch HRMax and use something else to set your zones for Polar.

 

[John Grahill]

@Steve Freides , I'm 55 and can routinely hit mid 160s. Last year I hit 177 and was crushed for days! I sit with my heart rate monitor on in the mornings before training and routinely it's in the low 40s. I can only assume it's an individual thing ??

As to BMI, I agree that it unfairly screws someone like me. I'm 5'10" and 200 to 201. My ultimate "lean" goal is sub 195 but even at that they say I'm grossly overweight!

I further assume some of these "measurements" are for average people who in today's world munch on chips and drink Pepsi and don't even have to get off a couch to change the tv channel!

 

[Oscar]

@Steve Freides I got 181 at 36 years old.

How do you guys test it? I got it from density snatches. Maybe I could have gotten a few more beats if I pushed further, not sure.

 

[Steve Freides]

@Steve Freides I got 181 at 36 years old.

How do you guys test it? I got it from density snatches. Maybe I could have gotten a few more beats if I pushed further, not sure.

@Oscar, just by pushing yourself as hard as you can. Yesterday, after doing 10 snatches on the 2:00, I did 30 snatches non-stop as 15 per hand as a "finisher." I don't think I pushed myself as hard as I could go because that wasn't my intention, but the HRM does store your maximum pulse in a session, so I noticed that I'd gone past the number I had previously used - so I changed it so that the zones would be, in principle, more accurate going forward. The 10's on the 2:00 was getting my pulse into the low 150's, and this was my "do something hard every now and then."

I am waiting for @Al Ciampa to tell me I shouldn't bother with the HRM at all but it's both a toy and a tool, so I'm interested, for the time being, in what it has to tell me.

-S-

 

[Steve Freides]

@Steve Freides , I'm 55 and can routinely hit mid 160s. Last year I hit 177 and was crushed for days! I sit with my heart rate monitor on in the mornings before training and routinely it's in the low 40s. I can only assume it's an individual thing ??

That's interesting to hear, @John Grahill - I described my session yesterday in my reply to @Oscar above, and while I was certainly huffing and puffing when I finished that last set, I began teaching 10 minutes later and felt just fine, and later and also today, I actually feel more than OK, I feel good - I enjoyed that effort, it seems.

Clearly this varies by the individual, and it may be effected by the decades of run/bike/swim things I did, too - perhaps those effect some sort of permanent change in a body? I have no clue, just experimenting and enjoying hearing about the experiences of others, so thank you for sharing yours.

-S-

 

[North Coast Miller]

Last Summer I hit 185 at 51 yrs old. I didn't have much more in the tank.

I felt fine after.

 

[offwidth]

The highest I've seen my HR go was 201, years ago. A few years later, 200. Last year I went over 190 not really trying, just overdid it a little on hill interval.

So what? HRMax is not indicative of anything. What matters to me is AeT and LT.

My advice, ditch HRMax and use something else to set your zones for Polar.

@vegpedlr is spot on here. Endurance folks really need to care about AeT and LT.

HRmax is really only useful for estimating those two points. If more accuracy is required then an individual needs to explore more elaborate measures such as a Lactate test, or a gas exchange test. Neither of which are likely necessary for average Joe's.

 

[Tim Randolph]

Mine is around 190 at 53 years old. I have been doing HR training on and off for at least 15 years and my max has dropped about 10 bpm in that time.

A few observations:

• Ironically, the fitter you are aerobically the harder it is to get a reading on your max outside of a lab. Since anything over 180 for me is really hard and as Pavel point out not useful, I gave up pushing that last little bit a few years back.
• The 220-age formula is a poor approximation even of the median person. It's creator never intended it to be used for fitness guidelines and it has been supplanted by more accurate approximations of the median along the lines of HRmax = 211 − (0.64 × age)
• Even with the better formulas there is still a large standard deviation. Two similarly trained athletes at the same age can have a 60bpm difference in the max, so the median may not tell you much about you.

As @vegpedlr and @offwidth point out, zones are more useful when anchored on AeT (the talk test) and LT. I would add that suprat-max Zone 5 training doesn't even use a HR as a reference. Cardiac lag is significant enough that a conditioned athlete won't see there max with full out efforts that are always under a minute and usually closer to 10 seconds as in A+A.

 

[John Grahill]

I actually read 210- 1/2 your age is a better measurement of max heart rate....it may have been from Dr. Al Sears??