No.
Has me 20 beats out.
The ONLY way to get max is self test.
In a word, no.
No formula is anywhere close to accurate. Formulas are intended to keep middle aged men who haven't exercised in years from having heart attacks the first time they step on a treadmill at the gym.
The only way to know your MaxHR is to measure it with a chest strap monitor. Don't rely on wrist optical sensors. They are crap and a gimmick to sell new watches.
It has me 25 beats out. I'm 60. My max HR is 189. It has me at 165. I wear a HR monitor (Garmin 235) every day. 165 is sub-threshold for me. It's a shade faster than marathon pace. Once warmed up, I can hold 165 for quite a while. I average 168-170 in my 3-mile tempos.
So: no. The formulas are useless. For any given runner, they're not even good as a rough guide.
According to this formula I'm 18 years young! I didn't know it was so easy to shave 15 years off of my age.
KudzuRunner wrote:
It has me 25 beats out. I'm 60. My max HR is 189. It has me at 165. I wear a HR monitor (Garmin 235) every day. 165 is sub-threshold for me. It's a shade faster than marathon pace. Once warmed up, I can hold 165 for quite a while. I average 168-170 in my 3-mile tempos.
So: no. The formulas are useless. For any given runner, they're not even good as a rough guide.
Damn, old man. That's impressive. I'm 56 and my HRmax is 170. The formula is almost dead on for me. As always, I am at the middle of the bell curve. LOL.
(Disclaimer: I didn't RTFA.) As with any formula created by fitting a line through a set of points, it has its limits. But you can expect that a majority of people will fall within one standard deviation of that line. Close enough for starters.
Damn, old man ... wrote:
The formula is almost dead on for me.
same here, much better than "220 - age"
Street creds first: 42 years of recorded road running (88,910 miles and counting). Hit 3/4 of a Century (75) in a couple months. Current MAX HR 180. Back when Polar hit the streets with their HR strap my max was a 207 Running/188 biking. This stayed pretty consistent into my early 50’s. It has decreased slowly to my current 180. My resting HR has always been in the low to high 50’s- even with consistent 40- 50 mile weeks over the 4 decades of running.
Have had several max HR supervised tests. Been consistent with mt HR strap readings- usually at the end of 5K/10K races. Cardiologists have told me I have a Kawasaki heart. Others have a diesel hart- slow pump, low resting HR.
In my PR days in my early 40’s I would average 193 or so when my Max was 207. Now I average 168 with my Max 180.
MAX HR has more to do with genetics than how fast you can run. The old formula may work for about 1/3 of the population. I continue to be fascinated with so many runners who seem to be clueless about their MAX HR.
Oh, old PR’s: 17:46/5K 36:38 10K. Thanks for letting me share.
For a bell curve, yes.
For any particular individual, it isn't reliable.
One 5K Olympic champion had a max HR of 148 at age 30
One Olympian (10K runner) had HR max at age 24 of 178 and the same guy at age 49 was 176
Some over-70 yr olds have been over 200
Back in the dark ages (1997) I had access to a pretty large database (n=~650 I think) of athlete's VO2max test data that had maximal heart rates. The max HR was defined in this lab as the highest one minute average HR.
I decided to run the actual data I had against all the HRmax predictions equations I could find at the time. I think there were 5. The standard deviation was anywhere from 8 to 12 bpm. The standard error of measurement was right around that as well.
I also found the story behind 220-age (a doc basically look at some data he had and came up with it on a flight to give a talk at a conference).
So, I would say that the potential to be off by a good bit makes it a poor tool to use.
For most of us, it is not that hard to determine your actual max HR. If you race, take the highest HR you see (throw out a very obvious outlier although that happens infrequently from what I can tell). You can run a very hard effort where you give your all. Now, if you are not a healthy person and have a heart condition, etc. then check with your doc. Or if you fear going that hard.
Lastly, I think HR should not be a primary measure of intensity. Simply too many things can affect it. Big fan of RPE.
LetsEatDoughnutsInstead wrote:
According to this formula I'm 18 years young! I didn't know it was so easy to shave 15 years off of my age.
Too bad...you cannot drink legally.
Amazing bullcrap. Science, it's not just for deniers anymore.
You can only get close with physical tests of the individual. Everyone is unique. Average is not useful datum for an athlete.
Damn, old man ... wrote:
KudzuRunner wrote:
It has me 25 beats out. I'm 60. My max HR is 189. It has me at 165. I wear a HR monitor (Garmin 235) every day. 165 is sub-threshold for me. It's a shade faster than marathon pace. Once warmed up, I can hold 165 for quite a while. I average 168-170 in my 3-mile tempos.
So: no. The formulas are useless. For any given runner, they're not even good as a rough guide.
Damn, old man. That's impressive. I'm 56 and my HRmax is 170. The formula is almost dead on for me. As always, I am at the middle of the bell curve. LOL.
(Disclaimer: I didn't RTFA.) As with any formula created by fitting a line through a set of points, it has its limits. But you can expect that a majority of people will fall within one standard deviation of that line. Close enough for starters.
I'm 56 and it gives me a max of ~167......the max I've hit in the last year was 171, so close, but not spot-on.
Hog wrote:
One 5K Olympic champion had a max HR of 148 at age 30
One Olympian (10K runner) had HR max at age 24 of 178 and the same guy at age 49 was 176
Some over-70 yr olds have been over 200
Who were the Olympians, and how about a link to the over 70 year olds?
I've seen a HR reading of 211 (so if the formula is correct I haven't been born yet).
Is there a commonly used field test to find MaxHR that is viewed as a standard?
I've seen a number of methods posted online that are vastly different. Some tell you to add 5 beats to the highest number at the end of the test and some don't. I'm not convinced I'm using the correct number and I would guess many others have it wrong as well.
Any graded exercise test (often a VO2 max test) will be sufficient to get a good HR max value. During VO2 max test, 8-12 minute long test is a good range to shoot for, as too short of a time fram, you hit fatigue due to anaerobic means, and may not quite reach VO2 max (and similarly, may not reach true max HR). Too long and you may see fatigue due to peripheral fatigue (leg fatigue), overheating, or metabolic fatigue, but that's usually not an issue for fit runners.
Precisely, it's good for the bell shaped curve of the population. it's just an estimate for people who don't know their true max. In my classes, i've seen wild variability in young fit people... I've seen two 23 year olds, one with a max HR of 222 or so, and another with a max HR of 179 (he was a collegiate runner, too)
Ex phys wrote:
Any graded exercise test (often a VO2 max test) will be sufficient to get a good HR max value. During VO2 max test, 8-12 minute long test is a good range to shoot for, as too short of a time fram, you hit fatigue due to anaerobic means, and may not quite reach VO2 max (and similarly, may not reach true max HR). Too long and you may see fatigue due to peripheral fatigue (leg fatigue), overheating, or metabolic fatigue, but that's usually not an issue for fit runners.
If you do regular hill reps you'll know the figure already ;-)