Why I don't use 220-age for HRmax
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Sacramento, California, USA
Posts: 40,865
Bikes: Specialized Tarmac, Canyon Exceed, Specialized Transition, Ellsworth Roots, Ridley Excalibur
Mentioned: 68 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2952 Post(s)
Liked 3,106 Times
in
1,417 Posts
Why I don't use 220-age for HRmax
As I mentioned in another thread (which I didn't want to derail) I mentioned that I'd recently done a ramp test to evaluate my FTP improvement. The graph of HR and power demonstrates why I don't use the 220-age formula. If I'd stopped at the 220-age predicted maximum heart rate that would have been 25 bpm below my actual observed maximum. More importantly, it would have been 130 watts below exhaustion, which is huge.
Obviously, if you have known or suspected heart issues, consult your doctor. But if you've been limiting your efforts to an age-based formula, you may be cheating yourself.
Obviously, if you have known or suspected heart issues, consult your doctor. But if you've been limiting your efforts to an age-based formula, you may be cheating yourself.
Last edited by caloso; 03-16-21 at 04:27 PM.
Likes For caloso:
#2
Habitual User
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Altadena, CA
Posts: 7,997
Bikes: 2023 Niner RLT 9 RDO, 2018 Trek Procaliber 9.9 RSL, 2018 Storck Fascenario.3 Platinum, 2003 Time VX Special Pro, 2001 Colnago VIP, 1999 Trek 9900 singlespeed, 1977 Nishiki ONP
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4955 Post(s)
Liked 8,097 Times
in
3,832 Posts
The 220-age formula is - and has always been - a rough estimate, at best. In my early-mid 30s, my max. was 207, and I could do long efforts at 192. Currently (52yo), my max. is 187.
__________________
"Swedish fish. They're protein shaped." - livedarklions
"Swedish fish. They're protein shaped." - livedarklions
#3
Occam's Rotor
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 7,248
Mentioned: 61 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2366 Post(s)
Liked 2,331 Times
in
1,164 Posts
I'm 220 years old, and that crazy formula would predict that I am no longer alive.
#4
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 16,880
Bikes: 1980 Masi, 1984 Mondonico, 1984 Trek 610, 1980 Woodrup Giro, 2005 Mondonico Futura Leggera ELOS, 1967 PX10E, 1971 Peugeot UO-8
Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1858 Post(s)
Liked 664 Times
in
506 Posts
#5
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: northern Deep South
Posts: 8,904
Bikes: Fuji Touring, Novara Randonee
Mentioned: 36 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2604 Post(s)
Liked 1,933 Times
in
1,213 Posts
Likes For pdlamb:
#6
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: SW Fl.
Posts: 5,619
Bikes: Day6 Semi Recumbent "FIREBALL", 1981 Custom Touring Paramount, 1983 Road Paramount, 2013 Giant Propel Advanced SL3, 2018 Specialized Red Roubaix Expert mech., 2002 Magna 7sp hybrid, 1976 Bassett Racing 45sp Cruiser
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1069 Post(s)
Liked 788 Times
in
505 Posts
220 - age = HOGWASH
#7
Word.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rural New England
Posts: 232
Bikes: Surly Disc Trucker, Orbea Oiz XCountry Bike, Specialized Roubaix, Borealis Echo Fat Bike for Winter, many others out in the barn.
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 64 Post(s)
Liked 99 Times
in
51 Posts
220 minus age works out to about 10 BPS lower than the highest I've registered on my chest-strap HRM in recent months. Maybe the rule of thumb is intentionally conservative? It seems to be lower than a lot of people's max HR when tested.
#8
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: reno, nv
Posts: 2,301
Bikes: yes, i have one
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1138 Post(s)
Liked 1,182 Times
in
687 Posts
Everyone seems to bash this formula and I don't really know why. everywhere I read about this formula is pretty clear that it is an estimate only.
I suspect that it is more accurate for most that do not get regular exercise, unlike the majority on this forum.
I suspect that it is more accurate for most that do not get regular exercise, unlike the majority on this forum.
Likes For spelger:
#9
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Sacramento, California, USA
Posts: 40,865
Bikes: Specialized Tarmac, Canyon Exceed, Specialized Transition, Ellsworth Roots, Ridley Excalibur
Mentioned: 68 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2952 Post(s)
Liked 3,106 Times
in
1,417 Posts
It makes as much sense as the "8 glasses of water everyday" nonsense.
#10
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Sacramento, California, USA
Posts: 40,865
Bikes: Specialized Tarmac, Canyon Exceed, Specialized Transition, Ellsworth Roots, Ridley Excalibur
Mentioned: 68 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2952 Post(s)
Liked 3,106 Times
in
1,417 Posts
I'm sure you could get an estimate for your blood pressure via a formula too, but would your doctor use that? No, they'd put a cuff on your arm and measure it.
#11
I like bike
Join Date: Feb 2021
Location: Merry Land USA
Posts: 662
Bikes: Roubaix Comp 2020
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 267 Post(s)
Liked 283 Times
in
191 Posts
How does the HUNT formula work for folks, it is designed for more active individuals:
211 - (0.64 x age)
It is a ringer for me.
211 - (0.64 x age)
It is a ringer for me.
#12
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2021
Posts: 6
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Probably more, but most MHR calculator formulas run pretty conservative for those of us who put in 10+ hours/week training.
- Gellish2: 191.5 - .007 x age^2 = MHR
- Fairburn: 201 - .63 x age for women = MHR
OR 208 - .80 x age for men = MHR - Gellish: 206.9 - (o.67 x age) = MHR
- Tanaka: 208 - (0.7 x age) = MHR
Likes For steveperseveres:
#13
Life Feeds On Life
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Hondo,Texas
Posts: 2,143
Bikes: Too many Motobecanes
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4426 Post(s)
Liked 4,533 Times
in
3,032 Posts
I saw 220 and that is was about amps
Likes For Hondo Gravel:
#14
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Sacramento, California, USA
Posts: 40,865
Bikes: Specialized Tarmac, Canyon Exceed, Specialized Transition, Ellsworth Roots, Ridley Excalibur
Mentioned: 68 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2952 Post(s)
Liked 3,106 Times
in
1,417 Posts
Likes For spelger:
#16
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Berkeley CA
Posts: 2,537
Bikes: 1981 Ron Cooper, 1974 Cinelli Speciale Corsa, 2000 Gary Fisher Sugar 1, 1986 Miyata 710, 1982 Raleigh "International"
Mentioned: 97 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 930 Post(s)
Liked 1,293 Times
in
489 Posts
We bash it because it is complete nonsense and is harmful to older people trying to get in shape because it makes them curtail their effort at a lower level than they need in order to improve. There have been many scholarly articles written and easily accessible on the web that state how useless and misleading it is, yet it persists. That's why.
#17
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: SW Florida
Posts: 1,673
Bikes: '06 Bianchi Pista; '57 Maclean; '10 Scott CR1 Pro; 2005 Trek 2000 Tandem; '09 Comotion Macchiato Tandem; 199? Novara Road; '17 Circe Helios e-tandem:1994 Trek 2300
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 147 Post(s)
Liked 93 Times
in
61 Posts
Don’t you mean volts?😊
Here’s another formula which worked for me, when I used to try harder:
210-0.5xage-5%body weight in lb
+4 for males
-0 for females
i can’t remember where I found it.
Here’s another formula which worked for me, when I used to try harder:
210-0.5xage-5%body weight in lb
+4 for males
-0 for females
i can’t remember where I found it.
Last edited by Artmo; 03-17-21 at 07:00 AM. Reason: Afterthought
#18
Life Feeds On Life
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Hondo,Texas
Posts: 2,143
Bikes: Too many Motobecanes
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4426 Post(s)
Liked 4,533 Times
in
3,032 Posts
Yeah volts .. 220 with a 50 amp breaker.
#20
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: northern michigan
Posts: 13,317
Bikes: '77 Colnago Super, '76 Fuji The Finest, '88 Cannondale Criterium, '86 Trek 760, '87 Miyata 712
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 659 Post(s)
Liked 595 Times
in
313 Posts
My annual physical with my doc, he always says “you aren’t in that study group”.
Likes For OldsCOOL:
#21
Tortoise Wins by a Hare!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Looney Tunes, IL
Posts: 7,398
Bikes: Wabi Special FG, Raleigh Roper, Nashbar AL-1, Miyata One Hundred, '70 Schwinn Lemonator and More!!
Mentioned: 22 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1549 Post(s)
Liked 941 Times
in
504 Posts
Ok, the formula is not a good rule. Knowing this do you folks limit your max HR to any level, or just go ahead and ride all out when you feel like it and your max HR is whatever it is? (that's what I do, don't even run a monitor) My results of a recent 2 week Zio patch run showed I got up to 182.
When I asked my cardiologist if doing this was safe he said there is no health benefit to going all out at our age. (60) But apparently there may be a performance benefit for whatever that is worth.
When I asked my cardiologist if doing this was safe he said there is no health benefit to going all out at our age. (60) But apparently there may be a performance benefit for whatever that is worth.
#22
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Atlantic Beach Florida
Posts: 1,946
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3777 Post(s)
Liked 1,047 Times
in
791 Posts
220-age was never intended to be a formula for the masses. It definitly doesn't apply to me and I've never come across any other formula that fits me. Bottomline, you have to become familiar with your own HR and understand that there are times when even your HR show extreme anomalies.
https://edisciplinas.usp.br/pluginfi...%20-%20Age.pdf
https://edisciplinas.usp.br/pluginfi...%20-%20Age.pdf
This formula is often quoted without any warning about its potential inaccuracy, and in addition to the inaccuracy, it turns out it has little scientific basis [Kolata, 2003]. Some people are aware that 220-age was never intended by its original authors to be a universal formula (it was intended to come up with a safe exercise level for patients in cardiac rehab and was based on a not very broad sample of subjects). But the problem is also in the basic assumption that max heart can be predicted on the basis of age alone. If you think about it, it seems nonsensical- regardless of family background, fitness level, whether we're tall or short, underweight or overweight, etc, we all have exactly the same heart rate at a certain age, and maximum heart rate declines with age in all of us at exactly the same rate?
Last edited by work4bike; 03-17-21 at 01:00 PM.
Likes For work4bike:
#23
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Sacramento, California, USA
Posts: 40,865
Bikes: Specialized Tarmac, Canyon Exceed, Specialized Transition, Ellsworth Roots, Ridley Excalibur
Mentioned: 68 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2952 Post(s)
Liked 3,106 Times
in
1,417 Posts
This.
But the problem is also in the basic assumption that max heart can be predicted on the basis of age alone. If you think about it, it seems nonsensical- regardless of family background, fitness level, whether we're tall or short, underweight or overweight, etc, we all have exactly the same heart rate at a certain age, and maximum heart rate declines with age in all of us at exactly the same rate?
Last edited by caloso; 03-17-21 at 12:30 PM.
#24
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: reno, nv
Posts: 2,301
Bikes: yes, i have one
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1138 Post(s)
Liked 1,182 Times
in
687 Posts
We bash it because it is complete nonsense and is harmful to older people trying to get in shape because it makes them curtail their effort at a lower level than they need in order to improve. There have been many scholarly articles written and easily accessible on the web that state how useless and misleading it is, yet it persists. That's why.
i am not defending the formula, it is an estimate, something to use that is quick and dirty. for us that ride a lot it is probably really dirty. i think there is merit to the formula and others, it is just not for us or others that exercise regularly.
for me it is low, i am 54 now and that gives me 166. the highest i have ever seen is 171. i only see this live when on the trainer.
as an aside, how do you even measure max heart rate? i have seen something suggested that is very similar to the FTP ramp test where you increase power and ride until exhaustion, except you take the max heart rate during the ride. is this accurate? probably far better than any estimate but i wonder if on a different day under different conditions one may have a different result.
#25
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Sacramento, California, USA
Posts: 40,865
Bikes: Specialized Tarmac, Canyon Exceed, Specialized Transition, Ellsworth Roots, Ridley Excalibur
Mentioned: 68 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2952 Post(s)
Liked 3,106 Times
in
1,417 Posts
I don't set out to purposely test it, but I will note the highest observed reading during a maximum effort. For me that's usually been during races. Nevada City would typically be my maxHR each season. Since I haven't done any races or race-like group rides in a year, it's been during ramp testing. Since you ride those to exhaustion, that seems like a pretty good indication of your true personal max HR.
Likes For caloso: