Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Fifty Plus (50+)
Reload this Page >

Why I don't use 220-age for HRmax

Notices
Fifty Plus (50+) Share the victories, challenges, successes and special concerns of bicyclists 50 and older. Especially useful for those entering or reentering bicycling.

Why I don't use 220-age for HRmax

Old 03-16-21, 01:12 PM
  #1  
caloso
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
caloso's Avatar
 
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.

Last edited by caloso; 03-16-21 at 04:27 PM.
caloso is offline  
Likes For caloso:
Old 03-16-21, 01:29 PM
  #2  
Eric F 
Habitual User
 
Eric F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Altadena, CA
Posts: 7,794

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: 4833 Post(s)
Liked 7,825 Times in 3,706 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
Eric F is online now  
Likes For Eric F:
Old 03-16-21, 01:49 PM
  #3  
Cyclist0108
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.
Cyclist0108 is offline  
Likes For Cyclist0108:
Old 03-16-21, 03:59 PM
  #4  
Road Fan
Senior Member
 
Road Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 16,853

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: 1851 Post(s)
Liked 654 Times in 498 Posts
Originally Posted by wgscott
I'm 220 years old, and that crazy formula would predict that I am no longer alive.
And yet, strangely you are!!!!
Road Fan is offline  
Likes For Road Fan:
Old 03-16-21, 04:23 PM
  #5  
pdlamb
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: northern Deep South
Posts: 8,844

Bikes: Fuji Touring, Novara Randonee

Mentioned: 36 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2575 Post(s)
Liked 1,900 Times in 1,192 Posts
Originally Posted by wgscott
I'm 220 years old, and that crazy formula would predict that I am no longer alive.
Your birth certificate was forged.
pdlamb is offline  
Likes For pdlamb:
Old 03-16-21, 05:03 PM
  #6  
OldTryGuy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: SW Fl.
Posts: 5,604

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: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1063 Post(s)
Liked 771 Times in 499 Posts
220 - age = HOGWASH
OldTryGuy is offline  
Likes For OldTryGuy:
Old 03-16-21, 05:19 PM
  #7  
Brett A
Word.
 
Brett A's Avatar
 
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.
Brett A is offline  
Old 03-16-21, 05:32 PM
  #8  
spelger
Senior Member
 
spelger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: reno, nv
Posts: 2,275

Bikes: yes, i have one

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1124 Post(s)
Liked 1,170 Times in 682 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.
spelger is offline  
Likes For spelger:
Old 03-16-21, 05:40 PM
  #9  
caloso
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
caloso's Avatar
 
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
Originally Posted by Brett A
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.
I don't think there's any intentionality involved. My understanding is that some researcher took a bunch of untrained individuals and plotted their max HRs and noticed a gross correlation between their age and HR. Then tried to fit a line to the correlation that worked out to 220-age. That's it. It's just a correlation across a population that has no predictive value for any one individual. It's just baffling to me how this has come to be accepted as even a rule of thumb. I mean you see it printed on gym equipment. I don't get it.

It makes as much sense as the "8 glasses of water everyday" nonsense.
caloso is offline  
Old 03-16-21, 05:42 PM
  #10  
caloso
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
caloso's Avatar
 
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
Originally Posted by spelger
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'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.
caloso is offline  
Old 03-16-21, 05:54 PM
  #11  
scottfsmith
I like bike
 
scottfsmith's Avatar
 
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.
scottfsmith is offline  
Old 03-16-21, 07:01 PM
  #12  
steveperseveres
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
steveperseveres is offline  
Likes For steveperseveres:
Old 03-16-21, 07:13 PM
  #13  
Hondo Gravel
Life Feeds On Life
 
Hondo Gravel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Hondo,Texas
Posts: 2,143

Bikes: Too many Motobecanes

Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4387 Post(s)
Liked 4,498 Times in 3,010 Posts
I saw 220 and that is was about amps
Hondo Gravel is online now  
Likes For Hondo Gravel:
Old 03-16-21, 07:35 PM
  #14  
caloso
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
caloso's Avatar
 
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
Originally Posted by Hondo Gravel
I saw 220 and that is was about amps
220, 221, whatever it takes.
caloso is offline  
Old 03-16-21, 08:34 PM
  #15  
spelger
Senior Member
 
spelger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: reno, nv
Posts: 2,275

Bikes: yes, i have one

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1124 Post(s)
Liked 1,170 Times in 682 Posts
Originally Posted by caloso
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.
of course not, and if my dr suggested an estimate it would be my last visit.
spelger is offline  
Likes For spelger:
Old 03-16-21, 09:19 PM
  #16  
davester
Senior Member
 
davester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Berkeley CA
Posts: 2,531

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: 926 Post(s)
Liked 1,281 Times in 482 Posts
Originally Posted by spelger
Everyone seems to bash this formula and I don't really know why.
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.
davester is offline  
Likes For davester:
Old 03-17-21, 06:36 AM
  #17  
Artmo 
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: SW Florida
Posts: 1,668

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: 146 Post(s)
Liked 92 Times in 60 Posts
Originally Posted by Hondo Gravel
I saw 220 and that is was about amps
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.

Last edited by Artmo; 03-17-21 at 07:00 AM. Reason: Afterthought
Artmo is offline  
Old 03-17-21, 06:48 AM
  #18  
Hondo Gravel
Life Feeds On Life
 
Hondo Gravel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Hondo,Texas
Posts: 2,143

Bikes: Too many Motobecanes

Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4387 Post(s)
Liked 4,498 Times in 3,010 Posts
Yeah volts .. 220 with a 50 amp breaker.
Hondo Gravel is online now  
Old 03-17-21, 07:14 AM
  #19  
steveperseveres
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
Originally Posted by Artmo
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.
This seems closer to my situation than most. At 72 and 166 lbs., my MHR is around 180 at full tilt and I seem to stabilize around 155 on a long threshold ride.
steveperseveres is offline  
Old 03-17-21, 07:41 AM
  #20  
OldsCOOL
Senior Member
 
OldsCOOL's Avatar
 
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”.
OldsCOOL is offline  
Likes For OldsCOOL:
Old 03-17-21, 07:50 AM
  #21  
AlmostTrick
Tortoise Wins by a Hare!
 
AlmostTrick's Avatar
 
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.
AlmostTrick is offline  
Old 03-17-21, 08:33 AM
  #22  
work4bike
Senior Member
 
work4bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Atlantic Beach Florida
Posts: 1,924
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3742 Post(s)
Liked 1,015 Times in 765 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


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.
work4bike is offline  
Likes For work4bike:
Old 03-17-21, 09:10 AM
  #23  
caloso
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
caloso's Avatar
 
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.
caloso is offline  
Old 03-17-21, 10:14 AM
  #24  
spelger
Senior Member
 
spelger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: reno, nv
Posts: 2,275

Bikes: yes, i have one

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1124 Post(s)
Liked 1,170 Times in 682 Posts
Originally Posted by davester
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.
is it right to bash the formula or to bash those using it without regard to the typical word "estimate" attached to such formula?

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.
spelger is offline  
Old 03-17-21, 10:30 AM
  #25  
caloso
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
caloso's Avatar
 
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.
caloso is offline  
Likes For caloso:

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.