So, I'm 57 and my max heart rate should be 163 according to the 220-age formula
However my heat rate can get to 190 after a hard run.
Not sure this means much, but am curious to know what others think and what their numbers are.
For reference, my resting heart rate is 47 and I'm a reasonable, but not fast, Hobbyjogger. (20:00 5K these days)
Cool story bro. The 220-age formula is wrong if not wildly wrong for almost everybody which is why no one seriously uses it. You're not special.
It's WAY off for most all of us.
That formula is basically worthless. IMHO.
HOW TO CALCULATE MAXIMUM HEART RATE WITH A FIELD TEST
Besides estimations and tests, you can calculate max heart rate by putting on your running shoes, firing up your heart rate monitor, and heading out into the real world.
You won’t need fancy laboratory equipment for the field test but you’ll still get an accurate and personal estimation of your maximum heart rate. The premise is simple: you warm up properly and then do an exercise that brings you close to your maximum effort.
Please note that for a maximum effort field test it’s best to call a friend and have them join you, just to be on the safe side. Also, make sure you have some hard training under your belt from recent weeks.
MAX HEART RATE FIELD TEST EXAMPLE
Do this field test with a training partner. Use a heart rate monitor and note the highest heart rate you can reach. This is your maximum heart rate.
1. Warm up for 15 minutes on a flat surface. Build up to your usual training pace.
2. Choose a hill that will take more than 2 minutes to climb. Run up the hill once (for at least 2 minutes), building to as hard a pace as you estimate you could hold for 20 minutes. (You don’t have to keep running for 20 minutes, you just need to build up to a pace that you could hold for at least 20 minutes.) Return to the base of the hill.
3. Run up the hill again with a faster pace. Get your heart going as hard as you can, building up to a pace you estimate you would be able to hold for 3 kilometres. Observe your highest heart rate on the display.Your max HR is approximately 10 beats higher than the now-noted value.
4. Run back down the hill, allowing your heart rate to drop 30–40 beats per minute from where it was.
5. Run up the hill once again at a pace that you can only hold for 1 minute. Try to run halfway up the hill. Observe your highest heart rate. This brings you close to your maximum heart rate. You can use this value as your max HR to set your heart rate zones.
6. Make sure you cool down for a minimum of 10 minutes.
Source:
https://www.polar.com/blog/calculate-maximum-heart-rate-running/
have a heart wrote:
So, I'm 57 and my max heart rate should be 163 according to the 220-age formula
However my heat rate can get to 190 after a hard run.
The Tanaka formula (208 - 0.7 x age) is a closer approximation for me.
I’m 57 also. Right at 20 minutes too. I’m about 190 also.
Are you me?
Hobby_Jogger_999 wrote:
That formula is basically worthless. IMHO.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Scatterplot-relations-of-HR-max-vs-age-The-line-represents-the-220-2-age-formula-HR-max_fig2_234050494
This. Look at the spread for people about the same age. From less around 130 to over 210 for the subjects around 55-60 years old.
Also, getting to max heart rate is difficult. We often talk about hard it is to get to the real max, even at the end of a hard race. You have to expect that many of the older subjects probably didn't push themselves to their real max. Plus, note that on that graph at least, they don't actually have that many old and young subjects - with more subjects in those age groups, the spread in those age groups would go up considerably.
the real it is, what it is since someone registered the name wrote:
have a heart wrote:
So, I'm 57 and my max heart rate should be 163 according to the 220-age formula
However my heat rate can get to 190 after a hard run.
The Tanaka formula (208 - 0.7 x age) is a closer approximation for me.
That formula is totally worthless too. It just happened to come closer for you. All max heart rate formulas based on age are useless because of of the spread of MHRs for each age. That's what that scatterplot shows.
have a heart wrote:
So, I'm 57 and my max heart rate should be 163 according to the 220-age formula
However my heat rate can get to 190 after a hard run.
You are pegging 190 with an optical measurement, or a strap? FYI, I have even seen my strap peg a weird anomalous reading sometimes in the pool.
It is totally worthless wrote:
the real it is, what it is since someone registered the name wrote:
The Tanaka formula (208 - 0.7 x age) is a closer approximation for me.
That formula is totally worthless too. It just happened to come closer for you. All max heart rate formulas based on age are useless because of of the spread of MHRs for each age. That's what that scatterplot shows.
But I surmise a plot of the Tanaka formula line would split that scatter plot better than the 220-age line does.
the real it is, what it is since someone registered the name wrote:
It is totally worthless wrote:
That formula is totally worthless too. It just happened to come closer for you. All max heart rate formulas based on age are useless because of of the spread of MHRs for each age. That's what that scatterplot shows.
But I surmise a plot of the Tanaka formula line would split that scatter plot better than the 220-age line does.
That still makes it useless. Lets assume a formula line splits the scatter plot as evenly as possible. Count the number of dots near that line and count the number of dots away from that line. The number of dots away from the line far outnumbers the dots on/near the line by a ton. For example, as an exercise, eyeball the dots from the 50 to 60 age group and draw a best fit line through the densest set of dots. Count the number of dots within, say, 3 beats of that line vs. the number of dots further than that.
I'm 40, estimate my max at 206 and just averaged 184 for a Marathon wearing a chest strap.
Wyco Loco wrote:
I'm 40, estimate my max at 206 and just averaged 184 for a Marathon wearing a chest strap.
Your average over the marathon distance should not be your max.
Also, your statement "I'm 40, estimate my max at 206..." is confusing because of the bad grammar. What estimated your max?
the real it is, what it is since someone registered the name wrote:
have a heart wrote:
So, I'm 57 and my max heart rate should be 163 according to the 220-age formula
However my heat rate can get to 190 after a hard run.
The Tanaka formula (208 - 0.7 x age) is a closer approximation for me.
I at one time had access to a data set with a couple of thousand VO2max tests on high level athletes. I ran the data through every formula I could find. The standard deviation was between 8 and 12 beats per minute. So roughly 2/3 would fall with the prediction for each formula.
A field test like the one described above is a good way to determine your HRmax. Even if it is a couple of beats off, you do not need that degree of expertise since you are not going to be able to dial in a run that closely (give yourself a range). Also be aware of the limitations in using HR as a metric for determining intensity. HR is a dependent variable.
Also, for that field test check with your doc first to make sure you are ok to do it. (Standard liability from me).
the real it is, what it is since someone registered the name wrote:
Wyco Loco wrote:
I'm 40, estimate my max at 206 and just averaged 184 for a Marathon wearing a chest strap.
Your average over the marathon distance should not be your max.
Also, your statement "I'm 40, estimate my max at 206..." is confusing because of the bad grammar. What estimated your max?
Learn how to read. His wording is perfectly clear: It’s a compound predicate, meaning “I” is the singular subject of the sentence. So he is the one who estimates his max at 206.
And he also said he averaged 184 over the marathon, which is not his estimated max heart rate. I don’t know where you got the first part of your comment from.
learn2read wrote:
the real it is, what it is since someone registered the name wrote:
Your average over the marathon distance should not be your max.
Also, your statement "I'm 40, estimate my max at 206..." is confusing because of the bad grammar. What estimated your max?
Learn how to read. His wording is perfectly clear: It’s a compound predicate, meaning “I” is the singular subject of the sentence. So he is the one who estimates his max at 206.
And he also said he averaged 184 over the marathon, which is not his estimated max heart rate. I don’t know where you got the first part of your comment from.
If he is saying he estimated his max at 206 (how did he estimate it), what is the point (i.e., relevance) of his latter comment about the marathon heart rate?
Dude, the real formula is: ([your age] - 7) / 2
Bio Dome wrote:
Dude, the real formula is: ([your age] - 7) / 2
I may have butchered that one, but you know what I mean (and that formula sometimes fails too!)
I'm just helping show evidence how these formulas are messed up and everyone is different.
I've estimated my max HR from looking at a lot of my own data using a chest strap in hard workouts and races.
What percentage of max HR should we be able to maintain over a marathon?
I just averaged 184. So if 206 is my max HR, that was 89.3% of my max. I've previously averaged 186 for a half marathon, and 181 for another marathon 16 months ago. So maybe my max is slightly higher or I should be able to average more like 188 for the half?