true. but it gives you a better idea than 220-age which is horribly inaccurate (about 50%)
Absolutely - Iām not even considering that.
1 Like
In the context of the general population here, the odd pro not included, all of this is pretty negligible 
Seriously, you rely on your own experience and if you have doubts, itās good to check with your peers. But if you even suspect something might be āoffā, go see a doctor, especially if it concerns your hearth.
1 Like
Agreed, just sayinā that you donāt need a full-on lab test to get a very good idea of what your max HR is. Itās one of the easiest things to measure yourself with reasonable accuracy.
I think that was my point 
@Cyclopaat - sorry my comment was aimed at the suggestion @IsiSchneider_KoS made that you need a lab test to have anything other than a vague idea of your HR max, which I think we agree is not necessary. Obviously a lab test gives you a whole lot more info on your heart condition and fitness, but thatās another story. The OP says he has been checked out medically and good to go.
1 Like
Heart rate debates are always fascinating. The 220-age is a load of baloney (in the extreme). AT age 52 my max heart rate is around 196. Maybe that means I am really 24 (yippee!)?
What is fascinating is that as I have gotten fitter (and 6 months of Suf plans has me fitter than ever before) I struggle to elevate my heart rate and long, hard rides are resulting in way lower heart rates than years gone by but speed has gone way up.
Likewise resting heart rate is now around 50 (typically it has been around 70).
Sports science is one of the most interesting subjects out there - and the coach articles here are really fascinating and helpful.
Itās amazing, even at this advanced age, what impact diet, weight and hydration has on performance.
1 Like
Totally agree - I am also 52 and have maxed in the mid-180s several times. It is odd that this 220 minus age number keeps getting repeated even by major health institutions.
1 Like
Itās like BMI and equally useless.
1 Like
Maybe the formula is better then nothing for non exercising people. I read somewhere it predicts max HR correct for about 1/3 of people. But it depends how you define ācorrectā in this case.
But itās strange when people who should know better still insists the max HR can be calculated.
Some years ago I went to a spinning class where the instructor asked what my HR was during the session. Because my max HR is much below the calculated value, my exercise HR is also low. Because it was so low, the instructor thought I was lazy! He didnāt say this, but saw what he thought.
1 Like
A quick Google of the origin of the infamous 220-age formula suggests it was not even based on any original scientific research and was merely an observation based on around a dozen references, which typically had large prediction errors themselves. Even most people on this small thread, including myself, are a very poor fit for that formula.
There basically is no fit-all simplistic formula for predicting HR max and it would be a disaster to apply the 220-age formula to calculate HR zones for a large majority of people. Fortunately itās pretty easy to measure your own personal HR max with reasonable accuracy.
3 Likes
Wow! sounds like you have really improved your stroke and volume output. That is currently what I am working on. My HR will regularly drop below 60 bpm and Iām hoping to reach that 50 marker.
I disagree with this because BMI is based on how much of you there really is and I find that lot of people forget this simple fact. Also BMI has come out and specifically stated what kinds of outliers actually exist regularly where as the heart rate scale has not and does not account for outliers.
You may disagree, no problem. Itās for sure a thing you can / could use as an indication. But I do not find it particularly useful for active people (such as dwelling around here).
Most people with, for instance, more muscle than the average person, will find that they can have a fat percentage below 10, but a BMI at the high end of the āhealthyā spectrum, i.e. around 23 or soā¦
2 Likes
Thank you for your link, Matt. Iām hugely new to SufferFest, as in one week or so, and still learning my Kickr bike and the app. I also ignore the 220-age. The formula provided in the link you cited reads me out at 160bpm. Thought Iād fall out of my chair: 160 bpm is precisely what Iāve observed while doing HIST. So the utility of that formula is for me validated by my observed value. And Iām 82.5 years and climbing. 
anthony
2 Likes