Training & Nutrition - What is your age and what is your max HR?

I thought this thread might be helpful for those who thing that the old "220-age" calculation is accurate.

Fill in your details below.

Age: 28 (when I last measured max HR)
Actual Max HR (measured): 210 bpm
220-age calculation: 192 bpm
Error: -18 bpm

Age: 48
Approx MHR: 192.5
220-age: 172

Error: 20.5 bpm

I've only had my HR monitor for 10 days and have used it 8 times so far. My highest observed HR is 164. I'm focusing more on base riding on the rollers right now with a few intervals at the end, so I'm not really pushing it really hard. I calculated my MHR with the 2X20 Lactate Threshold test and then assumed that that number was 80% of my MHR which may or may not be correct.

Edit to add: got it to 171 today doing intervals on the rollers

Age: 48 (almost 49)
Max HR: 195 +/- 2
220-Age = 171
Error: 24 (approx)

My max HR is from a year or two ago (a sprint at the end of a very long run). I don't think it's dropped more than 2 bpm.

I've never gone over 180 on a bike.

47 years old MHR 195

220-47=173 22 BPM error

Age: 54
Max HR: 186
220-age=166, so 20 BPM error.

Huh. So far, everyone is ~20-22 BPM higher than the formula.

So far, everyone is ~20-22 BPM higher than the formula.

That's because this formula is way off for people over ~35. MHR doesn't decrease one beat per year.

Age: 33
Actual Max HR (measured): 187 bpm IIRC is the highest I've seen
220-age calculation: 187 bpm
Error: 0
LTHR (Friel field test on trainer): 171 bpm
I averaged 170 bpm last spring during a 50 minute mtb race

Age: 58
Actual Max HR measured: 165
Projected: 162
Error: 3

Age: 58
MHR (measured): 192
Projected: 162
Error: 30

41. Hit 191 during a 5K run 2 weeks ago. Regularly hit a ceiling of 184 during a Spin class.

Age 31
Resting HR=50
Max HR 200
Projected 189
I can hit 200 pretty easily. I hit 204 in a spin class last year. I rode the chequamegon 40 mile MTB race last fall and averaged 188 for 2:48.
SO related question. If the formula is not accurate. When does your Max HR start decreasing if you excercise regulary?

SO related question. If the formula is not accurate. When does your Max HR start decreasing if you excercise regulary?

That is a great question. Has anyone tracked this? Apparently it is inevitable that your max HR should drop over time, but the question is how much?

I'm 40. Three years ago when I first started riding regularly, I'd hit 189-190 bpm.... though that was on a trainer and I was pretty out of shape back then. The highest I've seen since I've gotten alot more fit is 183-185 bpm (during training or on a trainer).

I have yet to hit 180 bpm during a race though... 179 bpm being my highest ever, although I normally average over 160 bpm for the entire race.

My resting heart rate (laying down) is 45-46 bpm

Age 37 never had my max HR measured, have seen 201 on Hr monitor after an extremely large hill with a 15% grade at end. I didn't die so I guess 201 is my max. The old method I should be 183.

35 years old.
203 max HR many times.

It is not a forumula to determine max HR, it is a statistical representation, a "best line fit" of sample data.

Age: 48 (almost 49)
Max HR: 185 +/-
220-age: 172
Error: 13 bpm

I did an indoor test to 183, but hit 185 at the end of an ITT last spring, and again at the top of a steep climb (intervals workout) last summer.

Yes, it's a statistical linear model, but I'd like to know the variance. My guess is, a 95% confidence contour is going to be pretty wide.

SO related question. If the formula is not accurate. When does your Max HR start decreasing if you excercise regulary?

No, max heart rate is genetically determined, it does not change when you exercise more.

It is not a forumula to determine max HR, it is a statistical representation, a "best line fit" of sample data.


According to these researchers, it's not even a best fit to the "sample data."

http://faculty.css.edu/tboone2/asep/Robergs2.pdf

Age when tested: 54 (14 months ago)
Max HR: At least 182
220 - 54 = 166
Error = 16 bpm

So according to the article Road Fan cited. The 220 graph is junk and wildly inaccurate. Your Max HR is whatever you can hit doing a maximum excertion test. I usually hit my max doing sprints in spin class.

I find it very difficult to hit my maximum HR on a bicycle. I can sprint 200-300 meters and still only hit 175-179 bpm. I'm sure if I sprinted until I fatigued I'd probably hit it but I've never needed to do that! ;)

Age: 26
Actual Max HR (measured): 190 bpm
220-age calculation: 194 bpm
Error: -4 bpm

I seem to be pretty low for my age. It's a rare occasion I see 190bpm on the HRM unless it is a real full throttle effort. I seem to "rev out" at more like 185bpm on the bike. I also have a resting HR of 38 (measured first thing a.m).

According to these researchers, it's not even a best fit to the "sample data."

http://faculty.css.edu/tboone2/asep/Robergs2.pdf

Nice -- thanks for posting that. Interesting to see so many different models.

Nice -- thanks for posting that. Interesting to see so many different models.

+1

Also interesting that they didn't consider any of the methods to have much value. Too much variation among the population to just draw a line.

Age 53
calc'ed MHR = 220-53= 167
Cycling MHR = 192
cycling error = 25
Running MHR = 180
Running error = 13

Age 38
calc'ed MHR = 220-38 = 182
MHR = 215
error = 33

At age 31 during a 5K run
calc'ed MHR = 220-31 = 189
MHR = 233
error = 44

Age 38
calc'ed MHR = 220-38 = 182
MHR = 215
error = 33

At age 31 during a 5K run
calc'ed MHR = 220-31 = 189
MHR = 233
error = 44

233 is really high... are you sure that's not interference?

Age = 41
220-age = 179 bpm
actual MHR = 206 bpm
difference= 27 bpm

Age = 59
220-age = 161 bpm
actual MHR = 191 bpm
difference= 30 bpm

Age=50
MHR=191 (from ride feedback)
Calculated MHR=220-50=170
Difference=21 bpm

I've never used this formula.
Age 41
220-41= 179
Actual Max HR= 201 (hit during lab V02 Max test last fall)
My max HR was in my mid twenties was @ 204.

Age=63
220-63=157
MHR=170
Diff=13

Age = 53
220-53 = 167
MHR = 183
Difference = 16

Age: 48
Max HR: 192

Age: 52 (when I last measured max HR)
Actual Max HR (measured): 201 bpm
220-age calculation: 168 bpm
Error: 33 bpm

Hit my max last night hammering into a 20 m.p.h wind.

Canflyboy

I recently got a degree in exercise physiology. Yes, the 220-age formula is ok up to a certain point, but another formula works better, though it's slightly harder to use. It is: 208 - 0.7*age. This doesn't make a huge difference for most people, but it does correct two faults of the older formula: overestimating the hr of young people, and underestimating it for the old. Of course, these formulae were just developed with regression equations, so though it is an ok guess for people who just want a rough idea, it isn't very accurate for every individual. Like BMI, it does a good job of giving a quick estimate for a good cross-section of the population.

Estimating max HR is only really useful if, for health reasons, you can't measure someone's actual max HR.

I am 24. My max HR is 198.

the Robergs paper (see earlier post in this thread) did determine a best fit to the available data, that was similar to the one tadawdy cited. They also claim it matches the set of subjects (aggregated from a wide range of studies) within an error band of around 6%, or with a standard deviation of around 6%. I haven't been back through the paper for at least a year. Some progressive coaches, such as Joe Beer well-known to Cycling Plus readers, actively advocate the use of the new curve fit rather than the old. But he also recommends measuring your anchor point when setting up a training plan.

Age 36
Actual MHR: 190

220-age= 184

This thread is funny. Although pointless, the discussion does identify how bias can be introduced into any given subject by the status and personal experience of the participants.

We need more fat slobs trying to determine their maximum heart rates - 10 minutes after buying their HR monitors...... the formula just won't do .......

I'll be 50 tomorrow and I guess I'm lucky the stupid thing is even still beating. When I go, I want to go biking.

That is a great question. Has anyone tracked this? Apparently it is inevitable that your max HR should drop over time, but the question is how much?

I'm 56 I estimate my MHR to be in the upper 190s. About 15 years ago I got tested in a physiology lab & hit 208. I havent really tried to hit max in a number of years, but have gotten in the low 190s in recent years with very hard efforts. I think I probably could have gotten at least 5 higher if I really tried.

It is not a forumula to determine max HR, it is a statistical representation, a "best line fit" of sample data.

I've had so-called certified trainers tell me it was an exact formula for everyone & you were risking your life if you exceeded its predicted values.

Some more interesting articles:
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/24/health/24TRAI.html?ex=1161144000&en=cd9b85b786ea9017&ei=5070
(you need an account with the NYT to read, but it's free)

http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Myth-Of-Maximum-Heart-Rate-=-220-Age&id=678707

67 years today.
Woke up still beating.

67 years today.
Woke up still beating.

Good job!

This thread is funny. Although pointless, the discussion does identify how bias can be introduced into any given subject by the status and personal experience of the participants.

We need more fat slobs trying to determine their maximum heart rates - 10 minutes after buying their HR monitors...... the formula just won't do .......

It also illustrates how far misinformation can propagate, which was what Robergs uncovered, and ultimately could not resolve. But I think that's sad not funny.

Personally I think I don't need to know my true maxhr. I can set up HR zones based on a different anchor point that is not as stressful or difficult to achieve. They work for me.

Personally I think I don't need to know my true maxhr. I can set up HR zones based on a different anchor point that is not as stressful or difficult to achieve. They work for me.

Do tell...

Friel in his books recommends you do his LT test and find your HR corresponding to the LT. The coach with whom I did this was trained by Friel, and agrees that it isn't as accurate as blood test, but I'm not headed for the peleton anyway. I just want to improve.

Then Friel has calculations to find the zone boundaries based on that test.

So I told. I'm aware there are other ways.

Age: 52
Projected MHR: 168
Actual MHR: 191
Difference: 23 bpm

I have been using a HRM for about 2 years now. Observed MHR has gone up from 183 to current of 191, so don't know about that "genetic determination" thing mentioned above. The MHR cited is from biking in approximately the same position.

I first started out with the 220 - age guideline and had a lot of trouble keeping my HR that low. Discussed it with a couple of health care people who warned me about pushing higher than the "formula". They warned strictly against exceeding it; imminent death and all that.

During my physical last summer I discussed with my family doc. Since I lacked in other risk factors (such as cholesterol), he felt it was okay to push myself however hard I felt like. Even though I was already doing that at least now I feel validated.