Understanding max heart rate (2 questions)

What is missing in this topic is your resting pulse matters as well as it’s the range from maximum minus minimum that develops with effective training. Two riders with a max hr of 180 say, but one who resting hr is 32, the other 56, which has more capacity? Obviously the former. Training regularly will lower the resting hr and VO2 workouts will raise the upper limit, thus gain fitness and the ability to ride faster. You can only really obtain a true max hr from an all out sprint at the end of a race. However an estimate can be gained by recording your hr at threshold and set this as 90% of your maximum. These heart rates will differ in cycling and running, however monitoring your resting hr is just as important to track over training or impending illness. HRV monitoring takes this a level further.

1 Like

Use actual data per sport. Set zones from there

So, contrary to what one person may say, the formula is not “useless.” The formula is largely used in stress testing for evaluation of cardiovascular risk stratification during stress testing. The formula allows one to ascertain, during the stress test, whether someone has reached “target” heart rate to make the test diagnostic (85% for most stress testing purposes). However, in cycling and running (and other sports for that matter), everyone is different based on the level of fitness, effort, fatigue, temperature, etc. Probably the most important aspect: just get your data. There are actually multiple formulas, not just Age - 220 = Max HR to get a rough approximation of your HR. The key point is to try to understand your max heart rate after time off, after chronic fatigue, after no sleep, or when your peak physical condition. You just need to understand how your body reacts. And yes, generally, speaking max heart rate declines as you age. A 20 yo can commonly get their HR to 200 bpm, while a 50 yo will likely not be able to do the same (except in cases of atrial fibrillation, SVT, or other arrhythmia).

  • Matt ( and a Cardiologist for what it’s worth, which is probably minimal on this forum)
1 Like

Sure, but usually the comparison isn‘t that simple: people with a lower rest heart rate can have a lower max heart rate, too. So if you compare two athletes, one with a rest heart rate of 32 and a max heart rate of 160 with someone that has a rest heart rate of 50 and a max heart rate of 190, which of the two is fitter? I don‘t think you can tell.

1 Like

Good to hear from someone in the know.
Let me double-check here: if I understand correctly, the 220 - age as an approximation of max heart rate is based on the general population, and because people like us are very much unlike the general population, this simple formula does not apply. Would that be an accurate summary what you have written?

And you mentioned there are other formulas to estimate max heart rate. Do some of them work better for athletes?

Right, the formula is based on the general population, but there are athletes in the general population. The simple formula is a simple formula, and frankly that. It gives you a framework for what to expect. It might be spot on for you (it is for me, like withing 1-2 bpm for max, all out efforts), but there are others that crank up their heart rate. Realistically, HR is is simply a number, and not a metric of fitness relative to other individuals. Now, if you get on a treadmill (on the Bruce protocol) and reach 100% of your predicted max HR withing 2 min, then you’re probably out of shape, or a “deconditioned response to exercise.” However, if you get on the treadmill and your it takes you 21 minutes to reach that same heart rate, then you’re in much better shape. Again, though, this is very individualized.

The other major component of how well you can pump blood around your body (in fact the other component of Cardiac Output) is stroke volume, or the amount of blood pumped out of your left ventricle (i.e. your heart) on a beat to beat basis. So think about it. If you have a massive left ventricle and you can pump out 100 mL per beat then you may not need to get your heart rate as high as someone else that has smaller left ventricular stroke volume. But this also depends on how much blood your muscles need. The key point is that every one is different and heart rate can be affected by many factors.

And, are there different formulas? Yep, see this Lifehacker article here as an example. No, Lifehacker is not scientific, but they’ve summed up the major points. There are more examples but this is easy to read and understand, and the key point that they illustrate at the end of the article: Test yourself. That’s all that really matters.

2 Likes

Follow the links in Lifehacker article and you end up with this:

Gathered data from 3320 people across wide range of ages and came up with the formula:

211 - 0.64·age

and

we found no evidence of interaction with gender, physical activity, VO2max level, or BMI groups. There were only minor age-adjusted differences in HRmax between these groups.

And regarding other formulas such as “220 - age”

Previously suggested prediction equations underestimated measured HRmax in subjects older than 30 years.

Adrenaline will do that to the body not sure if you could force that in competition.

Oh for sure, but “max” HR is a bit of a misnomer. That’s why I think it’s best to look at your race files or hard workout files and go with that. 220 - xxx is nonsense.

1 Like

You can’t tell who is fitter, everyone is different as @matthewcertain pointed out. Get to know your zones and work off these.

1 Like

It’s just as useless as 220-age. They are both population average regressions, and are as useful to determining an individual’s max HR as taking population average body sizing to buy your own clothes.

Agreed. In the absence of a max test, or max effort, these are academic exercises.
-H

41 years old - max 202 that I’ve seen. Hit high 190s quite often at the end of a sprint or REALLY pushing a vo2 interval.

using the study published in 2012, here is the graph if HRmax for all 3320 people:

and the formula is:
Estimated HRmax = 211 - age * .64 with an error of +/- 10.8bpm

So for a 45 year old, we get 182.2bpm +/- 10.8bpm. So the estimate for HRmax is somewhere between 171bpm to 193bpm. Ignoring the range, 182bpm estimate is a lot closer to your actual 188bpm, versus the “220-age” estimate of 175bpm.

3 Likes

That +/- 10.8 bpm error is for a certain % of the population - if you look at the graph, you have outliers at 30 and 40 bpm away. So there is a high probability that any individual will be within that +/- 10.8 bpm error, but a non-zero probability that an individual will be much further away from the estimate.

In other words: if you’re a doctor who needs to run a test at effort to many patients, you use this to get an idea of where each patient’s max HR will probably be, and monitor accordingly; but if youre someone who wants to know his max HR, you have no clue if you’re in the 90% that lies within +/- 10 bpm, or one of the outliers. If you’re a shoe manufacturer, you know you need to manufacture more size 9s than size 7s; but if you’re a shoe buyer wearing size 7, you really don’t want to buy a size 9 just because it fits 50% of the population.

1 Like

I think the key message is - don’t bother with estimates. Go out and collect your own data. And if your 45, anything 193bpm or below 171bpm makes you an outlier.

1 Like

This 220-(.5*age) is way more accurate for me.

I’ve hit 192 on the bike a few times this year, age 42. Figure I can probably hit 195 or higher running. That said, it’s not a terribly useful metric given all the variance with HR.

Trust the data over any formula.

@bbarrera Good study. Thanks for providing.

Two conclusions:

  1. To the extent that the the 3320 people from the 2007-2008 Hunt Fitness Study (“healthy men and women”) are a better representation of TR users than the general population (probably where the 220-age formula came from), then the statistically fit line (i.e. 211 - 0.64 age) is a better starting point as to a guestimate (i.e without field testing) of our Max HR.

  2. The R2 value of 0.36 from the study tells us that relying on the above formula for training zones has a good chance of being way off. For reference, 100% = perfect correlation; 0% = no correlation; 36% . . . ?
    FWIW: According to one blog on statistics, most formulas for modeling human behavior/physiology are below 50%.

1 Like

This makes me feel better about a max of 207 at 39 years old.

1 Like

Any number close to that is (for me) an indication of a) a sensor issue, or b) impending death. Since it would be unlikely that I could read the data and think about it in the b) case, it is therefore usually a sign of a).

(Says the guy whose max has never been above 165-170 - and who finally fits the 220-age formula as I’m getting closer to 60).

2 Likes