220-age heart rate formula. What's the what's the widest deviation you've heard of?

This formula varies a lot.

I reached 2:1x for extended periods of time and heard of many others working out >>200.

Tastes Like Chicken wrote:

Here's a better formula, based on lab tests using only non-smokers w/out heart disease who are not on meds that affect heart rates:

209.6 - .72(Age) for men,

207.2 - .65(Age) for women.

Figure Two in their article is a scatter plot of MHR and age. The spread is huge.

https://www.jacc.org/doi/full/10.1016/S0735-1097%2800%2901054-8

I was not aware of this. It is spot on for me. Great info!

The story of how the formula became an established "fact" is amusing.

"In preparation for a medical meeting , Dr. Haskell culled data from about 10 published studies in which people of different ages had been tested to find their maximum heart rates.

The subjects were never meant to be a representative sample of the population, said Dr. Haskell, who is now a professor of medicine at Stanford. Most were under 55 and some were smokers or had heart disease.

On an airplane traveling to the meeting, Dr. Haskell pulled out his data and showed them to Dr. Fox. ''We drew a line through the points and I said, 'Gee, if you extrapolate that out it looks like at age 20, the heart rate maximum is 200 and at age 40 it's 180 and at age 60 it's 160,'' Dr. Haskell said.

At that point, Dr. Fox suggested a formula: maximum heart rate equals 220 minus age."

From

https://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/24/health/maximum-heart-rate-theory-is-challenged.html

Great information!

Max HR isnt important, and if you have been a serious runner for very long you will know this

what is important is how long you can maintain certain HRs.

who cares if you have a resting HR of 39 and a max of 180, if you can only maintain 130-140 for 5 min before you fly to 180 and become overwhelmed with lactic acid and oxygen debt.

for runners the most important thing is to run at 150-160 or so for as long as possible and get to the point where you are going at a fast pace. its not complicated when you sit down and look at it

lets take 2 hypothetical runners, A and B
runner A is hitting 5:30 mile pace at 150-160 bpm and runner B can hit 5:05 mile pace at 150-160 bpm. who is going to have a faster 5k? or marathon? to many people train at too high of a HR, instead of training at the anaerobic threshold. as long as you can convert lactic acid back into the system and are at equilibrium with oxygen usage thats where you want to train, and its also where you want to race. the plan is to keep increasing the pace while HR stays 150-160.

I'm 64 and have never not been in shape. I've seem up to 178-180 for my heart rate.

Typically, obviously, it's much lower than that.

I was told a more accurate measure is 220-30 minus 6 beats per decade after that. Which would be 175 for me. That seems to work better. (I have two full decades and half a third decade that's 15 beats.

45, 190+ MHR according to watch, 184 in hospital stress test (that wasn’t maximally hard though).

220-age would give me 175, but I can run at 175 for like 30+ mins and maybe even closer to an hour.

guac, look at my post above. I'm interested in what you think. I'm 64.

71 yo - I've always used this formula and it's kept me out of trouble with the results I've wanted.

I'm 42 (male) and have hit 212. Will sit at 190-195 during threshold workouts.

Formula seems like bollocks. Mid 50s and not in great running shape but still touch high 170s (on my watch) on runs and rides. My guess is my max is 180+ and if actually got back in competitive form, maybe 190.

More correct would be that scientists agree the 220-age formula means nothing, especially not to athletes. It could, in the total absence of all other data, have some minor utility in starting a workout program with sedentary adults.

That said, I'm 50 (51 in March) and am still running a max HR around 200. 220-age would have me at 170 for a "deviation" of 30 bpm.

If you look up the scatterplot for max hr vs age, you can readily see that the formula should be: max hr = 220 - age over 20, and that there is an inflection at around age 35, so those younger than 35 might do better with max hr = 220 - age over 10. So, I'm 76, my max hr is somewhere near 175, and the above revised formula predicts 164 - not too bad.

You're using the formula incorrectly. You solve for age. You are 8 years old.

You're welcome.

After 50+ posts, we have over a dozen response where the 220-age formula was off by 30-50 beats. Yet the obsession with using the formula continues to exist among recreational runners.

I agree with Markeco that the formula means nothing. That said, I looked at the posts in this thread and saw this.

If age = or > 45 and runner for 20+ years, then...

220 - (.5 x age) = ~ MHR

...comes pretty close for many of us. For me... 220 - .5x76 = 220-38=182. That's very close to my 184 MHR.

Anyway, if you're over 45 and have been running for many years, try that formula and see how it works for you.

My buddy and former training partner would regularly exceed 200 bpm during races and workouts when he was 43. He was solid for a Masters dude. 4:35 road mile, 15:35 5k. I think the highest he told me was 204. So that is a deviation of 27. Not quite as wild as 39.

I'm 77 and don't enter races but train from an hour to two hours a day.
I train by feel, not by heart rate and only check it periodically for the novelty.
My heart rate was recently in the 180s from early throughout a one hour time trial.
I have several times hit over 200 and up to 212 pushing hard to the finish of time trials.

My resting heart rate was 35 when I ran the mile at age 18. After a break it was 43 when
training for marathons at age 30. I think it's about the same now but don't keep track of it.

59 guy here.

I use HR for safety reasons, trying not to exceed 180. Above 170 I am using energy at a high rate, so use the watch to ease a bit as needed.

Recently went to 186 during a harder interval session, some others were high too. May be due to atmospheric conditions (a bit wet).

So taking MHR as supposedly 190, normally stay below 150 for normal training.

I hope running is a way to keep your heart healthy, including a low RHR (mine around 45).

Stay fit !