THE SURPRISING HISTORY OF THE “HRmax=220-age” EQUATION. Robert A. Robergs, Roberto Landwehr. JEPonline. 2002;5(2):1-10. The estimation of maximal heart rate (HRmax) has been a feature of exercise physiology and related applied sciences since the late 1930’s. The estimation of HRmax has been largely based on the formula; HRmax=220-age. This equation is often presented in textbooks without explanation or citation to original research. In addition, the formula and related concepts are included in most certification exams within sports medicine, exercise physiology, and fitness. Despite the acceptance of this formula, research spanning more than two decades reveals the large error inherent in the estimation of HRmax (Sxy=7-11 b/min).
Ironically, inquiry into the history of this formula reveals that it was not developed from original research, but resulted from observation based on data from approximately 11 references consisting of published research or unpublished scientific compilations. Consequently, the formula HRmax=220-age has no scientific merit for use in exercise physiology and related fields. A brief review of alternate HRmax prediction formula reveals that the majority of age-based univariate prediction equations also have large prediction errors (>10 b/min). Clearly, more research of HRmax needs to be done using a multivariate model, and equations may need to be developed that are population (fitness, health status, age, exercise mode) specific.
I totally get it. All of my clients wear heart rate monitors. In nearly 5 years and 500 clients I have not seen even one that hit the numbers suggested by the formula. I personally have a max heart rate of 209 and I am 35 years old. Go figure. I talk to my clients about heart rate zones if they ask, but I tell them they are mostly going to be in the “busting your ass” zone! DK
“The harder you breathe the more energy you expend; the more you sweat the more fat-calories you burn because you’re doing more work.” That said, I agree with David. The fact is, the formula was devised upon how much the heart decreases with age, without taking into account individuals; therefore, the formula is based on averages. In fact, 40% (or more) of us do not even fit the formula because our hearts either go faster or slower than the age-predicted formula. My feeling has always been that, if you are a beginner with no supervision, have certain medical conditions, or special circumstances, then I would suggest you use the formula. However, in all other cases, I believe common sense may be your best monitor. I have always encouraged people to use the personal “talk test ” (which of course I explain to them how that works) instead of relying on the heart charts on the wall that may indeed be someone else’s numbers.
I agree with Terry, the formula is basically an average or starting point for beginners. Once you have somewhat of a fitness level established it would be best to do a max heart rate test (several options available) to establish an individuals true max heart rate.
This is really interesting. Does anyone know who actually came up with the % zones? Using lactate data I have found the % zones to be useless in trained athletes, so I am keen to find out who came up with … zone 1 for aerobic base etc. And what is based on sound research.
It is useless. My point in posting this is that it is also missing the larger point that the cardiorespiratory systems are the secondary systems. They are only acting in response and support of what the musculature is doing. The muscular system is the primary system. It is the window into the other systems. Look at this quote by Dr. Richard Lieber author of Skeletal Muscle Structure and Function “Since muscle represents about three-fourths of the body mass, a healthy muscular system is usually associated with healthy cardiovascular, pulmonary, and endocrine systems” The cardiovascular is the more diseased system, but still a secondary system when it comes to movement and certainly trainability. That’s why cardio activities are usually performed with the largest muscle groups. What’s wrong with doing circuit weight training to maximally stimulate the muscular system as well as maximally stimulate the cardiorespiratory systems as a result in a lower force and more orthopedically sound way?