I am 74 and my HR is supposed to be 146. However, my average during a 5 k race is 163-166 and the maximum that I have seen in training is 178. I have been running and cycling my whole life.
I'm going to be 50 and I work out (cycling mostly) regularly and I have a hard time staying under 180...now I feel a little better after your comment...thanks
Me too I'm 73 and ran all my life And Ran for decades with no watch or chest strap There weren't invented yet Think all the Teck and advice Just takes all the Enjoyment Out of Running Just put your trainers On set yourself a pace and Go
Spot on! I’m 64, my max Hr using the formula would be 156. That just happens to be my Threshold run HR. The max HR I’ve seen this year running was 171 at the end of a Sprint Triathlon.
At 62 years old, I can still reach 192 bpm on pretty much every Mountain Bike training ride I do, and my ride average is in the 155-165 bpm range, this is over anywhere from 20 - 50 mile rides. My resting average is around 48-49 bpm, so the 220 - your age is just so far away from reality, it's basically useless.
I suspected the formula doesn't apply to everybody. I'm 41 and I get easy runs to average 160-170. Now, during sprinting or interval training I easily get to 200-205. Someone told me that was way to high, but it doesn't feel that bad.
At 70 years old, my maximum heart rate should be 150bpm. In fact, however, I'm still breathing through my nose at 150bpm. My maximum is actually about 180bpm. My resting heartrate (upon waking in the morning before rising) is in the 40s. I did spend a number of years up into my 50s as a avid road cyclist, and I do a lot of elliptical work these days.
Similar thing here. Although my mor is 20 years younger than I am, by the 220- method, I don’t push it like the old days. I occasionally venture higher without problems.
I am 72 and my Max is 164. My true resting heart rate in the morning is 30. Just hanging out it's 42. I have had these values for 40 years, maybe longer.
As a swimmer all my life, Div-I collegiate and Masters, my routine exercise HR on exercise Bikes is between 160-170 sustained while barely breathing hard. Sprinting in the pool and running up hills in sprints (definitely breathing hard) my Garmin HR hits 190-195 fairly often. I am 66. My friend, who is a Cardiologist, told me long ago that the 220-age is just another loose guideline that someone made up long ago.
When I was 10-12 years old, could swim in a 50 M pool the entire distance without coming up for air. Might explain my heart getting stronger as I got older.
A little historical context here. Many years ago while using a Polar heart rate monitor, I wondered if there was some standard for heart rates at various exertion levels. During my research, I found a story written by a cardiologist. He said that during a flight to a conference in the mid 60's, he was studying his records on 48 of his male patients. He had tested, among other things, their max heart rates. He noticed an interesting feature. If he subtracted their age from 220 the number came very close to their max numbers. He casually mentioned this during his presentation at the conference. To his surprise a few months later he saw this relationship mentioned in a medical paper. He said that he would see this pop up periodically over the next few years. Eventually it became an axiom in the medical community. This doesn't actually surprise me.
I'm 51. My max heart rate on TMT is 191. Thats when they stopped test. I can run in conversational pace at 165 heart rate. 220 minus age is nonsense for me.
I am 71 and routinely run at 165 for long periods and have been well above 175 before as well. I have always been in shape throughout my life so I agree that 220 is bunk.
I know the formula definitely isn’t accurate for most cases, but I’m 22, had a VO2max test recently, and coincidentally maxed out at exactly 198bpm! I’m just assuming it works better at younger ages
I think that it "works better " at younger ages simply because there is less potential error at young ages since a swing of more BPM when you are in the 200s already is pushing extremes of human capacity .
HR is such a variable data point, in my view it's much better to use a power meter, it's an absolute number with an immediate reading (HR is always lagging, specifically in shorter intervals) and although power as such doesn't mean much and might differ person to person - your power is yours and you can easily see trends and use the zones is a way that isn't impacted by time of the day, endocrine balance, temperature etc etc.
Yes. I am 58 and my max in the 190s. This is anecdotal but I have found "pure" distance runners tend to have lowish maxes, I am more middle distance. Funny how ACSM still quotes 220 - age formula!
I believe the formula works for 80+ % of population, which is statistically significant, also 190 bpm with people of your age would be killer not only because of high HR but because of the blood pressure that comes with it unless you are well conditioned for decades and have no medical issues
I have been a cycling time triallist for nearly 40 years, regularly maintaining my threshold and above for an hour at a time on zwift and on my bike. My maximum and threshold heartbeats have hardly changed over the last 30 years. Currently my aerobic threshold heart rate is 170 bpm and and my maximum heart rate 187. On tempus fugit on zwift I maintain 25 mph and am only overtaken by at most 10 people of all ages over an hour on average and them staying in front of me. I am now 65. I should be only able to max out at 155 according to the formula, 32 beats below what I actually max out at in reality. The old saying, use it, or lose it comes to mind and I haven't.
Heart rate is completely individualistic. I'm around 5'10" 185lbs and 49yrs. 170 BPS is my mid-tempo. Recovering from injury and trying to get back into shape, I'm still routinely hitting 200BPS via chest strap by the end of a 5km. If you want to figure out your max heart rate, get a chest strap and put in the work.
74 here, 3 years ago my max hr was regularly going over 210-the max I ever saw was 239……. My gp referred me to Papworth Heart Hospital as he thought I had SVTC-turns out he was right and I have had 2 cardiac ablations to correct it. Max heart rate now seems to be about 170. My chosen exercise is cycling, I ride about 110/140 miles a week, 5ft 9in and 156lb, resting hr is 145.
I stopped using this formula a long time ago after trying to do some low HR training in early marathon training because I felt I was leaving myself too hard and not and to compete workouts needed for a plan, and believing that I was pushing myself too hard on my easy runs. On nearly all my runs, above walking pace I was in zone 4 nearly all the time. From this, and possibly from your earliest video, I'll have to rewatch that, I used a formula based on my resting heartrate and threshold heartrate to calculate my zones and they now look a lot better. I'm quite sporty and have been doing many sports throughout my life since I was a kid, though I've only really been running the past 10-15 years and haven't been doing any analysis of my heartrate or any other data. I think companies like Garmin need to work better at calculating the zones for you and not how they did when I first bought a GPS watch, maybe it has changed now, not, but having to go in and change the zones manually isn't very intuitive to do!!!
220 - age, is meant regarding an untrained normal person, when you are training regularly then your Max heart rate will most often go up, as the heart get stronger and the blood flow better.
It’s absolutely crucially important for runners to understand the new science of maximum exercise intensity for people over 65. It’s very very healthy if you run at 20% intense exercise and 80% average intensity too much intensity for an older runner actually can lead to heart problems there’s new research on this which is very very methodologically accurateand valid please post is very crucial for all of us runners who are older knowing how much to exercise very intensely and how much exercise moderately I’m 74. My heart rate is 186 but I only do this kind of very intense exercise 20% of the time.
I have been a lifelong hard trainer. Hill running, triathlon, cycling and weights. I`m a small bloke, 64 years old. The highest rate I ever measured was when doing repeated sprints up a big hill, I reahed 203 bpm. My resting pulse has always been around 56-58 bpm. I never measure when I`m cycling fast uphill these days, it seems pointless, just cycle as fast as you can for as long as you can.
I am in my early 70s and I have always run. MY resting heart rate is in the mid 40s. I get to over 150s routinely on my runs, if I am racing, I can hold a heart rate into 160s for miles. If I spring I get to the high 170s. But as soon as I stop my heart rate goes down quickly. I would have to slow down to stay below 150s and maintain what is supposed to be my max HR...
My approximate max heart rate has not seem to have declined in 20 years. I still max out very near to 180 although I do not push past 170 to 172 and only for short times.
I beat myself up over that calculation for almost 8 months before finding out that not only is it a very rough estimate, but the studies were based on men, and women have a naturally higher HR. I'd nearly lost my love of running because of the frustration!
That's been me for the past year or so, wondering what was wrong with me! This is even after a heart stress test previously showed that I was above average heart fitness for my age.
Coincidentally, my max HR while cycling is exactly 220 - age. At 73, I ride 3-5,000 miles/year with a fair amount of elevation gain. My max HR during 40+ years of running had been in 160s to 180, but after a knee injury, aging, and changing to cycling as my primary activity, it's dropped to 147. Wearing a chest strap paired with a Garmin Edge, I can ride any distance in Z-2, then climb crazy steep hills at full power, and my HR never exceeds 147. Two years ago, it was 150. I’ve had a cardiac workup and am in great shape -- resting HR is 48-52, depending on my stress level.
Very interesting video! Thanks for breaking it down for us. I'm 55 so my max should be 165 using the formula. Garmin auto-calculates my max HR at 170. I've only ever seen it go over 170 on a couple of occasions, both very hard races so I think 170 is about right. Using your threshold formula, my zone 2 HR is 122-130bpm, which is pretty much exactly where I aim to be doing that type of training. Nice to see it all come together!
I'm 40 so my max should be 180. I have not even done a test, but the highest HR I have seen during workout (strap measured) was 208, so yes, the formula is crap ^^
What baffled me is that my Garmin Fenix 6 regularly measures HRs way over what that formula predicts, yet it still uses that formula as a standard to calculate HR Zones. Having manually corrected, it now works better for exercising at the right level. But I assumed that it would take actual readings, rather than an arbitrary formula.
I'm 63 and managed to peak at 184 bpm cycling up a long hill the other day (previous max was 179, and 220 - age comes out at 157). The average I maintained for 27 minutes was 154 bpm. I think my resting heart rate is around 55.
Nice one!! When I do Electro Muscular Stimulation training my heart goes to 200 all the time, and I am 61. In my HIIT sessions it also goes quite high. Over time I have noticed that for a given pace my heart doesn’t go as high. On the flip side, if I my heart goes high, it is because I’m going faster!!! I find heart rate more useful when I am keeping an eye on aerobic/anaerobic vs Zone 2 vs calories burnt. For me it is only an aspect to keep an eye on, like nutrition and rest, nothing else. That b*%&*rd clock is where my focus is!! 🤣😂😅
I think some people just have "Ferrari" hearts that tend to rev high. My resting heart rate doesn't get below 60 unless I'm meditating or sleeping; it's usually in the 65-75 range. At 15 I did a heart rate recovery test in high school biology class, and after the stair running I counted 45 beats in ten seconds using the index finger on wrist technique - 270 bpm. And the rate was noticeably decreasing over those ten seconds, might have been close to 300 bpm when I stopped moving. My teacher assumed I'd miscounted so he insisted I redo it after a rest and let _him_ take my pulse - I didn't push as hard (since the first time scared me), but he still got 240 bpm with a six-second count. I haven't been in good enough shape to safely put in near-max effort for probably 20-25 years, but I can still exceed the formula-calculated max rate. Hit 178 doing kettlebell swings at 58 years old, and while I was working hard I definitely wasn't close to max effort.
many people chase performance, not longevity, I think it is not very wise to come close to maximum HR if you are not going to be on the podium... I am also wondering why no one cares about blood pressure during exercise, with these 180+ bpm HR your systolic BP is dancing with the devil unless you are in perfect condition and well trained for many years
At over 50 my HR when exercising is often 180-210 (the watch seems to be limited to 210). 220-age wasn’t even close for me. I’ve worn a watch on each wrist to check accuracy as well as doing bike sessions with my biokinetist and went over 220 with the chest strap and measured by my biokinetist.
LOL at all of us who have been running since long before hr monitors and gps (and Strava etc). How did I ever go for a run in the 1970s and 80s without those? 😂😂😂
I routinely hit heart rates of 220 during peak intervals (going up stairs in my building- better than any machine as I learned when Covid shut down my gym!)- so obvi 220 minus age can't be correct...I am no neonate!
It certainly isn't right for me at 58. I am a trail runner and my max rate should be 58 - 220 = 162. But I've had it up at 195 a couple of times, and routinely run at 175 on normal runs when I push it a little. During races 186, I've seen several times. All the very high rates, didn't damage me, or make me excessively fatigued afterwards.
The equation "HRmax = 220 - age" is known as the Haskell & Fox formula. It works fairly well for young subjects, but beyond age 30 it loses accuracy quickly. There is an assortment of other formulas that work better for older subjects. In order of highest to lowest HR at age 70, here are a few: Nes: 211 - 0.64*age No name: 209 - 0.62*age No name: 207 - 0.67*age Oakland nonlinear: 192 - 0.007*age^2 Tanaka, Monihan & Seals: 208 - 0.7*age Inbar: 206 - 0.685*age But still, none of them give a max HR figure as high as my actual max at age 69.
Totally Flawed , I use a polar OH 1 strap . I’m 44 and my max is 199 bpm . It’s a very individual thing . Had a blood lactate threshold test done on site where I run and the results are consistent with my HR data
All these senior citizens bragging about how amazingly high their hearts can beat is so tedious. Oh, fwiw, I’m in my 60’s. No worries, I’m not going to gush over my amazingly high heart rate. Yawn! That said, I totally agree with the idea of using threshold HR. I’ve been using that number in place of ‘max hr’ for years to evaluate my (sadly) declining fitness.
My max HR has been within 3-5BPM with the 220-age method. I never used it, but completed several VO2 max/metabolic testing and would check against the other method. My VO2 range - high 50’s. I just watched some sport scientist compare VO2 max tests to smart watches calculations - was within 3% accuracy. One other thing - not everyone can afford metabolic testing
There’s a large gap in my numbers. I’m 48yrs old, been running for years without much knowledge - recently used the Garmin LT test and got 185 MHR- so now my Zone 2 using MHR at 60-70% is 110-129, for HRR at 60-70% is 127-141, LT at 80-89% is 133-148. Why is LT at 80-89%?? And what should I use??? I’ve been running for years but just ran my first marathon at 4:05 in Knoxville. Should I run the lowest and increa There’s a large gap in my numbers. I’m 48yrs old, been running for years without much knowledge - recently used the Garmin LT test and got 185 MHR- so now my Zone 2 using MHR at 60-70% is 110-129, for HRR at 60-70% is 127-141, LT at 80-89% is 133-148. Why is LT at 80-89%?? And what should I use??? I’ve been running for years but just ran my first marathon at 4:05 in Knoxville. Should I run the lowest and increase weekly volume or will I be running too slow for my fitness level?
when I was 24 years old (around 2012) I just started working out and I used a heart rate monitor (with a chest strap), it showed me almost 200bpm. After a couple of years of HIIT exercises, I can barely get it over 165bpm, which it is that today at 35 years old too. I _feel fitter_ but I always worry why my heart rate is so low now.
I slow down if I hit 170 just because I am afraid of the heart rate formula. I push myself but if I feel my pulse jumps into my throat, I know I need to slow down. I find that my pulse is a lot higher when I eat junk food as bad sugars deplete you from essential electrolytes as your body will use your potassium to store high sugar into fats and it will dump magnesium through your kidneys if your insulin levels are high.
I’ve heard you mention before that the benefits of the bottom end of zone 2 is the same as the upper end. I can calculate my upper end Z2, but what percentage of LTH would be the bottom end of Z2? I’m trying to understand how low is actually too low. Thanks!
It would be very useful to compare the resting heart rate of the test subjects. Also, testing outside your activity will not allow you to hit max, being a specificty ( neuro muscular ) situation.
Very interesting, now I recently ran a 10k and my garmin whatch gave a HR threshold of 161 and TrainingPeaks set it at 167 with the same data :( who to believe
If you want to find your maximal pulse: 1. Run moderately for 15 minutes 2. Run as fast as you can up a steep slope for 1 minute, if you can, or less if you can not, but at least 30 seconds. 3. Now measure your pulse My max pulse, when 50, was 211! Sorry to say: this voideo is bad. It does not come to the point.
What happens if i spent 30 minutes in zone 3(5) with bpm above 170 up to 190.. at 37 years old... 5k running. 40 minutes total time. Im a beginner and i felt a pression hurt in the chest that night. 2 days later, i still feel it. Especially when i laugh or exhale all air. Any ideas?
I'm 54, so 220 - age for me is 166. I only run on a treadmill for about 20 minutes at a time, but I'm still pretty comfortable at 170. And toward the end of the 20 minutes, I reach the low 180s every time.
When I was in my 40's I was getting maximum heart rates in the 215-220 BPM range while climbing hills on my bicycle. Now that I'm in my mid 50's my heart rate maximum is around 200 BPM. That "220-age" formula obviously has never worked for me.
Question. How to know the threshold heart rate for 10k run for example? my max effort could be a constant 5min/km pace, but my heart rate could start at 120 then climb to 200 at the end of the run despite the constant speed.
You Tube is full of 'qualified' people telling me how all the other 'qualified' people are wrong and that we need to throw them all in the bin. Logically, therefore, they're all wrong, or wrong to the point that most of us can't actually follow their advice. It's all a little bit pointless.
This video is stupid! The formulare was never meant to say, that this is the absolute maximum for every person, trained or untrained, overweight or normal, etc. or that above this rate you will die. It is an easy rule of thumb (and not more), that will give you an impression near or above which heartbeat rate it might get dangerous for you, because you heart could be overstressed. So above this rate you have to figure out why it is so high, is it acceptable because of the reason, and are you trained enough so that your heart can stand it?
My polar vantage should read my heartrate on my wrist, I do not even watch the heart rate anymore, it says for example 178 while I am still breathing six steps in six steps out while running, or it says 98 while going out of breath climbing on my bike.
They don't take the resting heart rate into the formula. As an endurance runner, our RHR is not 60-70 beats per minute. Mine is around 41 and that is normal for a long distance runner. So, what I did was take 60- RHR ( mine 41) = Physical Heart Rate Adjustment or mine is 19. So my formula is 220- age (60) + PHRA ( mine is 19). So for me as a 60 year old , I notice 179 is pretty close to my zone 5 Max heart rate. 220-60+19 = 179.
At 70-years my maximum heart rate is 185, what ever I do, I cannot get it above that. So yes maximin pulse drops with age, biological age not chronological age.
You are right about the best way to measure the max HR but for sports scientists you guys sure don't do your research. It's not "No one knows". Following is the reference for the 200 - age relationship. Fox SM, Naughton JP, Haskell WL. Physical activity and the prevention of coronary heart disease. Ann Clin Res. (1971) 3:404-32.
Wrist heart rate monitors are fine for average people. They are only 1% out for running and cycling. Accuracy when arms move vigorously like rowing can be worse. At 71 my max is 170 measured while spinning. 220- age ok when you are under 40. A better formula when you are older is 208 - 0.7 x age. Still not accurate. Warm up for 15 minutes the go flat out say 400 m run or 1 minute 30 seconds flat out cycle and see what it gets to.
The worst part of this is having to argue with the folks administering a VO2 max test about your actual max HR. I had to bring in work out HR logs to convince them to give me a proper VO2 max test - when they cut you off at like 70% and do the math like it’s 90%… you get numbers like a dead person. At least they were so far off that it was obvious.
Was abit disappointed that there is no suggested alternative better rule-of-thumb. Most people use 220-age exactly because they lack a chest strap, a good running watch or simply dont want to go through the more clinical or somewhat hard workout to find out max heart rate. With a chest strap, there are many proven methods of determining max heart rate, but all requires some extent of maximum effort... So i guess 220-age is still 'the' standard for the masses.
What if we are a beginner are can't run that fast for that long? How do we find the right heart rate to train in to build the aerobic base we would need to do this in the first place?
This is a true, but 220 - age is an obsolete formula anyway. 211 - (0.64 x Age) is the latest that I’m aware of and is supposed to be updated for active adults. 🤷♀️
At 50 years old my marathon pace is 3:20 with a sustained average HR of 165 lol. That age formula is hot garbage. But anyone who has coached runners long enough knows that.
Just watched this a year after it was uploaded! My question is this; what’s the best formula to use if you have a client that isn’t going to be doing a threshold run, or is incapable of doing such a run?
at 30 my top rate was 200... at 45 it was 180. At 59 I saw 179 in a group ride. I train at zone 2 avg 130 rpm... occasional 150s low 160s. one day per week I get into the 170s. The question is... can we reverse the loss of top end HR?
3:41 How can you use the two words "Absolute" and "Relative" next to each other in the sentence and continue to talk confidently as if nothing has happened?
At 31 I did a max VO2 test and hit 213. I’m now 65 and I routinely get to low 180s mountain biking up our steep hills. So many people think max is a pulse you shouldn’t go over instead of reality of it being the max pulse you are able to hit.
Came to this video because i got worried as hell, today training bicycle i reached 202 (Im 34 years old) but i was still feeling good, i only sprinted for 30 seconds and got to that number. How can it be that i got that high by doing a not so high effort? I really got afraid today
I’m 70 -have run all my life and in my 30s could strap read 230 beats . Now do 12 floors x10 = 120 floors . By end my HR can be 180- 200 beats ! Comes down in 2min to 115 . Exhausted but no discomfort.
You don't have to use a wrist unit because you can use your thumb and measure the pulse with a timer on your watch or phone!!! That is way more accurate than any chest strap you use!!!
A good heart rate monitor, though, can monitor heart rate continuously while at various intensities of training. It's pretty nearly impossible to measure maximum heart rate by stopping and taking one's pulse.
I don't know if this was a choir meeting or not? It seems like every commenter has turbo heart rates and testimonials to dis the 220 - age canard. I don't like to throw shade, but I'll take the old formula over whatever THIS (as emphasized in the title) is. Because the video spent 90 % of the time bashing the old formula, and a couple of sentences inferring something about "threshold" rate without saying what it is, or for that matter, what "maximum" heart rate even is. It's not supposed to mean you drop dead at MHR +1, it just means the number that is unsustainable for your system. There are other formulas, some which use your resting heart rate, and some which use a 215 base. As empty as that last sentence was, it still was more informative than the discussion on THIS. The old formula helped me know if I'd maxed out my weight/reps in lifts like squats or deadlifts. In my 40's, I had to grab my pulse and count if I could find a wall clock. These two lifts actually peak in HR after your last one, and it is very easy to almost black out, and is certainly uncomfortable. When I was 40, a 190 rate was very painful. In my mid 50's, I took up some road racing and I could hold 160 for an hour, but any trips to the 170's had to end shortly. We had polar chest straps then, and I found it helpful to look down when I was feeling bad, and to know there was a reason why if I was going too hard for te distance.
i'm 66 , and i dont know my max hr. i wish i knew. i dont really feel like running 'as fast as i can' for half hour. -i dont think i can do that. so 220 - 66= 154. TRUST ME, since i got my polar h10 chest strap (month ago), which seems very accurate....i've never seen it go 140 or past. not even in 100m, 200m, 400m, 800m, 1k sprints. nor 10 mile runs hills included.
If you're over 50 then grab your spot in our free upcoming workshop for runners: coachparry.com/y5eh-Faster-Beyond-50-Masterclass
I am 74 and my HR is supposed to be 146. However, my average during a 5 k race is 163-166 and the maximum that I have seen in training is 178. I have been running and cycling my whole life.
If u don't have cardiac problems. Its normal
I'm going to be 50 and I work out (cycling mostly) regularly and I have a hard time staying under 180...now I feel a little better after your comment...thanks
Seems like training is helping you getting a strong heart which is normal.
@@dr.mohamedaitnouh4501 but doesn’t lower heart rate mean mor efficient?
Me too I'm 73 and ran all my life And Ran for decades with no watch or chest strap There weren't invented yet Think all the Teck and advice
Just takes all the Enjoyment Out of Running
Just put your trainers On set yourself a pace and Go
still haven't explain what is the actual heart rate format we should use instead. So much jargon and learned nothing....
He explained: run at time trial pace fir 30 to 40 minutes and find your average HR to establish your threshold HR
@jeffcramer6722 they need to explain that more, because this wouldn't be correct either
Spot on! I’m 64, my max Hr using the formula would be 156. That just happens to be my Threshold run HR. The max HR I’ve seen this year running was 171 at the end of a Sprint Triathlon.
Simular here. I am 55 yet manage 15 threshold pace runs at average close to 170.
At 62 years old, I can still reach 192 bpm on pretty much every Mountain Bike training ride I do, and my ride average is in the 155-165 bpm range, this is over anywhere from 20 - 50 mile rides. My resting average is around 48-49 bpm, so the 220 - your age is just so far away from reality, it's basically useless.
For how long do u sustain ur max heart rate?
@@fhash1767 Not very long. It's usually a few seconds as I'm finishing a really steep climb, and trying to sprint the last few yards to the top and.
I suspected the formula doesn't apply to everybody. I'm 41 and I get easy runs to average 160-170. Now, during sprinting or interval training I easily get to 200-205. Someone told me that was way to high, but it doesn't feel that bad.
At 70 years old, my maximum heart rate should be 150bpm. In fact, however, I'm still breathing through my nose at 150bpm. My maximum is actually about 180bpm. My resting heartrate (upon waking in the morning before rising) is in the 40s. I did spend a number of years up into my 50s as a avid road cyclist, and I do a lot of elliptical work these days.
Similar thing here. Although my mor is 20 years younger than I am, by the 220- method, I don’t push it like the old days. I occasionally venture higher without problems.
I am 72 and my Max is 164. My true resting heart rate in the morning is 30. Just hanging out it's 42. I have had these values for 40 years, maybe longer.
As a swimmer all my life, Div-I collegiate and Masters, my routine exercise HR on exercise Bikes is between 160-170 sustained while barely breathing hard. Sprinting in the pool and running up hills in sprints (definitely breathing hard) my Garmin HR hits 190-195 fairly often. I am 66. My friend, who is a Cardiologist, told me long ago that the 220-age is just another loose guideline that someone made up long ago.
When I was 10-12 years old, could swim in a 50 M pool the entire distance without coming up for air. Might explain my heart getting stronger as I got older.
A little historical context here. Many years ago while using a Polar heart rate monitor, I wondered if there was some standard for heart rates at various exertion levels. During my research, I found a story written by a cardiologist. He said that during a flight to a conference in the mid 60's, he was studying his records on 48 of his male patients. He had tested, among other things, their max heart rates. He noticed an interesting feature. If he subtracted their age from 220 the number came very close to their max numbers. He casually mentioned this during his presentation at the conference. To his surprise a few months later he saw this relationship mentioned in a medical paper. He said that he would see this pop up periodically over the next few years. Eventually it became an axiom in the medical community.
This doesn't actually surprise me.
I'm 51. My max heart rate on TMT is 191. Thats when they stopped test.
I can run in conversational pace at 165 heart rate. 220 minus age is nonsense for me.
I am 71 and routinely run at 165 for long periods and have been well above 175 before as well. I have always been in shape throughout my life so I agree that 220 is bunk.
If I used the age calculation, I should of passed out during all my runs 🤣🤣🤣
me too lol
@@adeleread5498 lol
Lol..
I tell people that using that formula, I'd be dead of a heart attack during most of my races and hard workouts.
@@colinbrander3402 true
I know the formula definitely isn’t accurate for most cases, but I’m 22, had a VO2max test recently, and coincidentally maxed out at exactly 198bpm! I’m just assuming it works better at younger ages
I think that it "works better " at younger ages simply because there is less potential error at young ages since a swing of more BPM when you are in the 200s already is pushing extremes of human capacity .
HR is such a variable data point, in my view it's much better to use a power meter, it's an absolute number with an immediate reading (HR is always lagging, specifically in shorter intervals) and although power as such doesn't mean much and might differ person to person - your power is yours and you can easily see trends and use the zones is a way that isn't impacted by time of the day, endocrine balance, temperature etc etc.
All I reference during my bike rides is power; got rid of looking at the HR a long time ago. Power is the way to go!
Yes. I am 58 and my max in the 190s. This is anecdotal but I have found "pure" distance runners tend to have lowish maxes, I am more middle distance. Funny how ACSM still quotes 220 - age formula!
I believe the formula works for 80+ % of population, which is statistically significant, also 190 bpm with people of your age would be killer not only because of high HR but because of the blood pressure that comes with it unless you are well conditioned for decades and have no medical issues
I have been a cycling time triallist for nearly 40 years, regularly maintaining my threshold and above for an hour at a time on zwift and on my bike. My maximum and threshold heartbeats have hardly changed over the last 30 years. Currently my aerobic threshold heart rate is 170 bpm and and my maximum heart rate 187. On tempus fugit on zwift I maintain 25 mph and am only overtaken by at most 10 people of all ages over an hour on average and them staying in front of me. I am now 65. I should be only able to max out at 155 according to the formula, 32 beats below what I actually max out at in reality. The old saying, use it, or lose it comes to mind and I haven't.
Heart rate is completely individualistic. I'm around 5'10" 185lbs and 49yrs. 170 BPS is my mid-tempo. Recovering from injury and trying to get back into shape, I'm still routinely hitting 200BPS via chest strap by the end of a 5km. If you want to figure out your max heart rate, get a chest strap and put in the work.
Me too! 49. 5'5....when I work out...I hit in the 190's
57 still going over +210 on Polar chest strap
74 here, 3 years ago my max hr was regularly going over 210-the max I ever saw was 239…….
My gp referred me to Papworth Heart Hospital as he thought I had SVTC-turns out he was right and I have had 2 cardiac ablations to correct it. Max heart rate now seems to be about 170. My chosen exercise is cycling, I ride about 110/140 miles a week, 5ft 9in and 156lb, resting hr is 145.
200 beats per second (bps) is pretty high though.
I stopped using this formula a long time ago after trying to do some low HR training in early marathon training because I felt I was leaving myself too hard and not and to compete workouts needed for a plan, and believing that I was pushing myself too hard on my easy runs. On nearly all my runs, above walking pace I was in zone 4 nearly all the time. From this, and possibly from your earliest video, I'll have to rewatch that, I used a formula based on my resting heartrate and threshold heartrate to calculate my zones and they now look a lot better. I'm quite sporty and have been doing many sports throughout my life since I was a kid, though I've only really been running the past 10-15 years and haven't been doing any analysis of my heartrate or any other data. I think companies like Garmin need to work better at calculating the zones for you and not how they did when I first bought a GPS watch, maybe it has changed now, not, but having to go in and change the zones manually isn't very intuitive to do!!!
220 - age, is meant regarding an untrained normal person, when you are training regularly then your Max heart rate will most often go up, as the heart get stronger and the blood flow better.
It’s absolutely crucially important for runners to understand the new science of maximum exercise intensity for people over 65. It’s very very healthy if you run at 20% intense exercise and 80% average intensity too much intensity for an older runner actually can lead to heart problems there’s new research on this which is very very methodologically accurateand valid please post is very crucial for all of us runners who are older knowing how much to exercise very intensely and how much exercise moderately I’m 74. My heart rate is 186 but I only do this kind of very intense exercise 20% of the time.
I have been a lifelong hard trainer. Hill running, triathlon, cycling and weights. I`m a small bloke, 64 years old. The highest rate I ever measured was when doing repeated sprints up a big hill, I reahed 203 bpm. My resting pulse has always been around 56-58 bpm. I never measure when I`m cycling fast uphill these days, it seems pointless, just cycle as fast as you can for as long as you can.
Cycle as long as you can for as hard as you can? That is some low IQ advice there.
I am in my early 70s and I have always run. MY resting heart rate is in the mid 40s. I get to over 150s routinely on my runs, if I am racing, I can hold a heart rate into 160s for miles. If I spring I get to the high 170s. But as soon as I stop my heart rate goes down quickly. I would have to slow down to stay below 150s and maintain what is supposed to be my max HR...
Excellent videos guys!! Love watching 🔥
My approximate max heart rate has not seem to have declined in 20 years. I still max out very near to 180 although I do not push past 170 to 172 and only for short times.
I beat myself up over that calculation for almost 8 months before finding out that not only is it a very rough estimate, but the studies were based on men, and women have a naturally higher HR. I'd nearly lost my love of running because of the frustration!
That's been me for the past year or so, wondering what was wrong with me! This is even after a heart stress test previously showed that I was above average heart fitness for my age.
Coincidentally, my max HR while cycling is exactly 220 - age. At 73, I ride 3-5,000 miles/year with a fair amount of elevation gain. My max HR during 40+ years of running had been in 160s to 180, but after a knee injury, aging, and changing to cycling as my primary activity, it's dropped to 147. Wearing a chest strap paired with a Garmin Edge, I can ride any distance in Z-2, then climb crazy steep hills at full power, and my HR never exceeds 147. Two years ago, it was 150. I’ve had a cardiac workup and am in great shape -- resting HR is 48-52, depending on my stress level.
Very interesting video! Thanks for breaking it down for us.
I'm 55 so my max should be 165 using the formula. Garmin auto-calculates my max HR at 170. I've only ever seen it go over 170 on a couple of occasions, both very hard races so I think 170 is about right.
Using your threshold formula, my zone 2 HR is 122-130bpm, which is pretty much exactly where I aim to be doing that type of training.
Nice to see it all come together!
I'm 40 so my max should be 180. I have not even done a test, but the highest HR I have seen during workout (strap measured) was 208, so yes, the formula is crap ^^
What baffled me is that my Garmin Fenix 6 regularly measures HRs way over what that formula predicts, yet it still uses that formula as a standard to calculate HR Zones. Having manually corrected, it now works better for exercising at the right level. But I assumed that it would take actual readings, rather than an arbitrary formula.
I'm 63 and managed to peak at 184 bpm cycling up a long hill the other day (previous max was 179, and 220 - age comes out at 157). The average I maintained for 27 minutes was 154 bpm. I think my resting heart rate is around 55.
Nice one!! When I do Electro Muscular Stimulation training my heart goes to 200 all the time, and I am 61. In my HIIT sessions it also goes quite high. Over time I have noticed that for a given pace my heart doesn’t go as high. On the flip side, if I my heart goes high, it is because I’m going faster!!! I find heart rate more useful when I am keeping an eye on aerobic/anaerobic vs Zone 2 vs calories burnt. For me it is only an aspect to keep an eye on, like nutrition and rest, nothing else. That b*%&*rd clock is where my focus is!! 🤣😂😅
I think some people just have "Ferrari" hearts that tend to rev high. My resting heart rate doesn't get below 60 unless I'm meditating or sleeping; it's usually in the 65-75 range. At 15 I did a heart rate recovery test in high school biology class, and after the stair running I counted 45 beats in ten seconds using the index finger on wrist technique - 270 bpm. And the rate was noticeably decreasing over those ten seconds, might have been close to 300 bpm when I stopped moving. My teacher assumed I'd miscounted so he insisted I redo it after a rest and let _him_ take my pulse - I didn't push as hard (since the first time scared me), but he still got 240 bpm with a six-second count.
I haven't been in good enough shape to safely put in near-max effort for probably 20-25 years, but I can still exceed the formula-calculated max rate. Hit 178 doing kettlebell swings at 58 years old, and while I was working hard I definitely wasn't close to max effort.
many people chase performance, not longevity, I think it is not very wise to come close to maximum HR if you are not going to be on the podium... I am also wondering why no one cares about blood pressure during exercise, with these 180+ bpm HR your systolic BP is dancing with the devil unless you are in perfect condition and well trained for many years
At over 50 my HR when exercising is often 180-210 (the watch seems to be limited to 210). 220-age wasn’t even close for me.
I’ve worn a watch on each wrist to check accuracy as well as doing bike sessions with my biokinetist and went over 220 with the chest strap and measured by my biokinetist.
LOL at all of us who have been running since long before hr monitors and gps (and Strava etc). How did I ever go for a run in the 1970s and 80s without those? 😂😂😂
For sure🙂...
You could have started the video at 3:38. The preamble is unnecessary and boring.
Correct… “220-Age” isn’t remotely reliable.
I routinely hit heart rates of 220 during peak intervals (going up stairs in my building- better than any machine as I learned when Covid shut down my gym!)- so obvi 220 minus age can't be correct...I am no neonate!
It certainly isn't right for me at 58. I am a trail runner and my max rate should be 58 - 220 = 162. But I've had it up at 195 a couple of times, and routinely run at 175 on normal runs when I push it a little. During races 186, I've seen several times. All the very high rates, didn't damage me, or make me excessively fatigued afterwards.
The equation "HRmax = 220 - age" is known as the Haskell & Fox formula. It works fairly well for young subjects, but beyond age 30 it loses accuracy quickly.
There is an assortment of other formulas that work better for older subjects. In order of highest to lowest HR at age 70, here are a few:
Nes: 211 - 0.64*age
No name: 209 - 0.62*age
No name: 207 - 0.67*age
Oakland nonlinear: 192 - 0.007*age^2
Tanaka, Monihan & Seals: 208 - 0.7*age
Inbar: 206 - 0.685*age
But still, none of them give a max HR figure as high as my actual max at age 69.
Totally Flawed , I use a polar OH 1 strap . I’m 44 and my max is 199 bpm . It’s a very individual thing . Had a blood lactate threshold test done on site where I run and the results are consistent with my HR data
The polar OH 1has been tested as being very accurate when compared to a chest strap.
All these senior citizens bragging about how amazingly high their hearts can beat is so tedious. Oh, fwiw, I’m in my 60’s. No worries, I’m not going to gush over my amazingly high heart rate. Yawn! That said, I totally agree with the idea of using threshold HR. I’ve been using that number in place of ‘max hr’ for years to evaluate my (sadly) declining fitness.
My max HR has been within 3-5BPM with the 220-age method. I never used it, but completed several VO2 max/metabolic testing and would check against the other method. My VO2 range - high 50’s.
I just watched some sport scientist compare VO2 max tests to smart watches calculations - was within 3% accuracy.
One other thing - not everyone can afford metabolic testing
There’s a large gap in my numbers. I’m 48yrs old, been running for years without much knowledge - recently used the Garmin LT test and got 185 MHR- so now my Zone 2 using MHR at 60-70% is 110-129, for HRR at 60-70% is 127-141, LT at 80-89% is 133-148. Why is LT at 80-89%?? And what should I use??? I’ve been running for years but just ran my first marathon at 4:05 in Knoxville. Should I run the lowest and increa There’s a large gap in my numbers. I’m 48yrs old, been running for years without much knowledge - recently used the Garmin LT test and got 185 MHR- so now my Zone 2 using MHR at 60-70% is 110-129, for HRR at 60-70% is 127-141, LT at 80-89% is 133-148. Why is LT at 80-89%?? And what should I use??? I’ve been running for years but just ran my first marathon at 4:05 in Knoxville. Should I run the lowest and increase weekly volume or will I be running too slow for my fitness level?
I'm 50, and I just hit 222 on a max heart rate test.
when I was 24 years old (around 2012) I just started working out and I used a heart rate monitor (with a chest strap), it showed me almost 200bpm. After a couple of years of HIIT exercises, I can barely get it over 165bpm, which it is that today at 35 years old too. I _feel fitter_ but I always worry why my heart rate is so low now.
I slow down if I hit 170 just because I am afraid of the heart rate formula. I push myself but if I feel my pulse jumps into my throat, I know I need to slow down. I find that my pulse is a lot higher when I eat junk food as bad sugars deplete you from essential electrolytes as your body will use your potassium to store high sugar into fats and it will dump magnesium through your kidneys if your insulin levels are high.
I’ve heard you mention before that the benefits of the bottom end of zone 2 is the same as the upper end. I can calculate my upper end Z2, but what percentage of LTH would be the bottom end of Z2? I’m trying to understand how low is actually too low. Thanks!
Me too.
For me, the Maffetone number works really well.
The 220 rule would put my max HR to 163 which is lower than what my Garmin Epix 2 with a HRM-PRO put out on a Lactic Threshold Test run which is 167.
Just use measured max heart rate. My is 193 at 52 years. And it hardly went down in over 20 years
I'm 61. Heart rate hit 189 at end of a long hard run, but certainly not hitting max. Not sure what the actual max is.
It would be very useful to compare the resting heart rate of the test subjects.
Also, testing outside your activity will not allow you to hit max, being a specificty ( neuro muscular ) situation.
Very interesting, now I recently ran a 10k and my garmin whatch gave a HR threshold of 161 and TrainingPeaks set it at 167 with the same data :( who to believe
If you want to find your maximal pulse:
1. Run moderately for 15 minutes
2. Run as fast as you can up a steep slope for 1 minute, if you can, or less if you can not, but at least 30 seconds.
3. Now measure your pulse
My max pulse, when 50, was 211!
Sorry to say: this voideo is bad. It does not come to the point.
What happens if i spent 30 minutes in zone 3(5) with bpm above 170 up to 190.. at 37 years old... 5k running. 40 minutes total time.
Im a beginner and i felt a pression hurt in the chest that night. 2 days later, i still feel it.
Especially when i laugh or exhale all air.
Any ideas?
I’m 65 and was way out of shape may whole life 220-65=155 your telling me I have to run 5k flat out how is this possible for the average person
I'm 54, so 220 - age for me is 166. I only run on a treadmill for about 20 minutes at a time, but I'm still pretty comfortable at 170. And toward the end of the 20 minutes, I reach the low 180s every time.
When I was in my 40's I was getting maximum heart rates in the 215-220 BPM range while climbing hills on my bicycle. Now that I'm in my mid 50's my heart rate maximum is around 200 BPM. That "220-age" formula obviously has never worked for me.
I had 220 this morning and thought I was going to drop dead immediately when googling if 220 is safe im (35). Glad it's not unheard off thanks
Question. How to know the threshold heart rate for 10k run for example? my max effort could be a constant 5min/km pace, but my heart rate could start at 120 then climb to 200 at the end of the run despite the constant speed.
You Tube is full of 'qualified' people telling me how all the other 'qualified' people are wrong and that we need to throw them all in the bin. Logically, therefore, they're all wrong, or wrong to the point that most of us can't actually follow their advice. It's all a little bit pointless.
This video is stupid!
The formulare was never meant to say, that this is the absolute maximum for every person, trained or untrained, overweight or normal, etc. or that above this rate you will die.
It is an easy rule of thumb (and not more), that will give you an impression near or above which heartbeat rate it might get dangerous for you, because you heart could be overstressed.
So above this rate you have to figure out why it is so high, is it acceptable because of the reason, and are you trained enough so that your heart can stand it?
My polar vantage should read my heartrate on my wrist, I do not even watch the heart rate anymore, it says for example 178 while I am still breathing six steps in six steps out while running, or it says 98 while going out of breath climbing on my bike.
They don't take the resting heart rate into the formula. As an endurance runner, our RHR is not 60-70 beats per minute. Mine is around 41 and that is normal for a long distance runner. So, what I did was take 60- RHR ( mine 41) = Physical Heart Rate Adjustment or mine is 19. So my formula is
220- age (60) + PHRA ( mine is 19). So for me as a 60 year old , I notice 179 is pretty close to my zone 5 Max heart rate.
220-60+19 = 179.
I'm 50yrs old, and I max out at 195bpm when I'm out cycling with chest strap monitor.
I am 55 and my max is 183. Chest strap measured running uphill on the last kilometer on a 5 x 3km intervall run.
I'm 64 and my max should be 156 but I can go a little bit higher around 165, if I run 10K
At 70-years my maximum heart rate is 185, what ever I do, I cannot get it above that. So yes maximin pulse drops with age, biological age not chronological age.
This only helps those that can run for 14 minutes.
Can you find your max heart rate by cycling instead of running? If so, what's the formula, please?
You are right about the best way to measure the max HR but for sports scientists you guys sure don't do your research. It's not "No one knows". Following is the reference for the 200 - age relationship.
Fox SM, Naughton JP, Haskell WL. Physical activity and the prevention of coronary heart disease. Ann Clin Res. (1971) 3:404-32.
Wrist heart rate monitors are fine for average people. They are only 1% out for running and cycling. Accuracy when arms move vigorously like rowing can be worse. At 71 my max is 170 measured while spinning. 220- age ok when you are under 40. A better formula when you are older is 208 - 0.7 x age. Still not accurate. Warm up for 15 minutes the go flat out say 400 m run or 1 minute 30 seconds flat out cycle and see what it gets to.
The worst part of this is having to argue with the folks administering a VO2 max test about your actual max HR. I had to bring in work out HR logs to convince them to give me a proper VO2 max test - when they cut you off at like 70% and do the math like it’s 90%… you get numbers like a dead person. At least they were so far off that it was obvious.
At 40, I am able to touch 200 at times when sprinting! Go figure! Am 20 year old then by that standard!
Was abit disappointed that there is no suggested alternative better rule-of-thumb. Most people use 220-age exactly because they lack a chest strap, a good running watch or simply dont want to go through the more clinical or somewhat hard workout to find out max heart rate. With a chest strap, there are many proven methods of determining max heart rate, but all requires some extent of maximum effort... So i guess 220-age is still 'the' standard for the masses.
So your THR would be much lower than your max, so wouldn't your zones all be lower?
What if we are a beginner are can't run that fast for that long? How do we find the right heart rate to train in to build the aerobic base we would need to do this in the first place?
58 and often see HR running in low 180’s during max effort workouts.
This is a true, but 220 - age is an obsolete formula anyway. 211 - (0.64 x Age) is the latest that I’m aware of and is supposed to be updated for active adults. 🤷♀️
That formula is not really substantially better. There is still a huge variation around the line represented by these formulas.
At 50 years old my marathon pace is 3:20 with a sustained average HR of 165 lol. That age formula is hot garbage. But anyone who has coached runners long enough knows that.
Did you say 30-40 or 13-14? Played it a few times, can't tell.
Just watched this a year after it was uploaded! My question is this; what’s the best formula to use if you have a client that isn’t going to be doing a threshold run, or is incapable of doing such a run?
If the 220-age method is inaccurate, yours is subjective. The variables are so many in a individual from a day, a week, a semester to another...!
When I was 20 I could get my heart rate over 220 and I could stay at just about 200 for 2 hours.
at 30 my top rate was 200... at 45 it was 180. At 59 I saw 179 in a group ride. I train at zone 2 avg 130 rpm... occasional 150s low 160s. one day per week I get into the 170s. The question is... can we reverse the loss of top end HR?
3:41 How can you use the two words "Absolute" and "Relative" next to each other in the sentence and continue to talk confidently as if nothing has happened?
Apparently my heart can handle 201 BPM. I'm 66yo. Yes I do have an intermittent medical issue called AVNRT, but that is more annoying than dangerous.
At 31 I did a max VO2 test and hit 213. I’m now 65 and I routinely get to low 180s mountain biking up our steep hills. So many people think max is a pulse you shouldn’t go over instead of reality of it being the max pulse you are able to hit.
Came to this video because i got worried as hell, today training bicycle i reached 202 (Im 34 years old) but i was still feeling good, i only sprinted for 30 seconds and got to that number.
How can it be that i got that high by doing a not so high effort? I really got afraid today
What? This was a pointless video with no information
I’m 63 and recently measured 206 as my max, so even your estimate of the error is off
I’m 70 -have run all my life and in my 30s could strap read 230 beats . Now do 12 floors x10 = 120 floors . By end my HR can be 180- 200 beats ! Comes down in 2min to 115 . Exhausted but no discomfort.
Is the second guy wearing a bra or was it a cold day?
I had afib a few years ago, hr was over 200, Dr was impressed. Is that my max hr?
Thank you for breaking everything down as well as you do. I've learned quite a bit from watching your videos!
You don't have to use a wrist unit because you can use your thumb and measure the pulse with a timer on your watch or phone!!! That is way more accurate than any chest strap you use!!!
A good heart rate monitor, though, can monitor heart rate continuously while at various intensities of training. It's pretty nearly impossible to measure maximum heart rate by stopping and taking one's pulse.
I don't know if this was a choir meeting or not? It seems like every commenter has turbo heart rates and testimonials to dis the 220 - age canard.
I don't like to throw shade, but I'll take the old formula over whatever THIS (as emphasized in the title) is. Because the video spent 90 % of the time bashing the old formula, and a couple of sentences inferring something about "threshold" rate without saying what it is, or for that matter, what "maximum" heart rate even is. It's not supposed to mean you drop dead at MHR +1, it just means the number that is unsustainable for your system. There are other formulas, some which use your resting heart rate, and some which use a 215 base. As empty as that last sentence was, it still was more informative than the discussion on THIS.
The old formula helped me know if I'd maxed out my weight/reps in lifts like squats or deadlifts. In my 40's, I had to grab my pulse and count if I could find a wall clock. These two lifts actually peak in HR after your last one, and it is very easy to almost black out, and is certainly uncomfortable. When I was 40, a 190 rate was very painful.
In my mid 50's, I took up some road racing and I could hold 160 for an hour, but any trips to the 170's had to end shortly. We had polar chest straps then, and I found it helpful to look down when I was feeling bad, and to know there was a reason why if I was going too hard for te distance.
im 33 now, my max hr is 213 now
Hi thanks for your video it's simply wow to know about the fact on HR
My resting heart rate is 50bpm. I’ve never managed to raise my pulse higher than 120bpm.
i'm 66 , and i dont know my max hr. i wish i knew. i dont really feel like running 'as fast as i can' for half hour. -i dont think i can do that. so 220 - 66= 154. TRUST ME, since i got my polar h10 chest strap (month ago), which seems very accurate....i've never seen it go 140 or past. not even in 100m, 200m, 400m, 800m, 1k sprints. nor 10 mile runs hills included.