Max Heart Rate Calculator

Where each equation comes from

220 − age is usually attributed to Fox and colleagues (1971). Robergs and Landwehr traced it to observations from about 11 earlier data sets rather than an original regression study, and concluded that it has no scientific merit for precise use in exercise physiology.

Tanaka, Monahan and Seals pooled 351 studies covering 18,712 adults and derived 208 − 0.7 × age, then confirmed almost the same line (209 − 0.7 × age) in 514 laboratory-tested adults; men and women did not differ. Gulati and colleagues found mean peak heart rate of 206 − 0.88 × age in 5,437 asymptomatic women. Nes and colleagues measured 3,320 healthy adults in the Norwegian HUNT study and reported 211 − 0.64 × age.

Worked example at age 40

Fox gives 220 − 40 = 180 bpm. Tanaka gives 208 − 0.7 × 40 = 180 bpm. Gulati gives 206 − 0.88 × 40 = 170.8, shown as 171 bpm. Nes gives 211 − 0.64 × 40 = 185.4, shown as 185 bpm. The equations alone span 171–185 bpm.

The bigger uncertainty is individual. Nes reported a standard error of estimate of 10.8 beats/min, and Robergs and Landwehr summarised 7–11 beats/min for age equations, so a 40-year-old whose average estimate is 180 bpm could plausibly have a true maximum from about 169 to 191 bpm, and some people fall further out.

Measure instead of predicting

The highest heart rate recorded with a reliable chest strap during a hard race finish or an all-out uphill effort after a thorough warm-up is usually a better zone anchor than any age equation. Beta-blockers and some other medications lower maximum heart rate, and wrist sensors can lag or spike.

• Use one value consistently when you set zones and compare training.
• Expect running and cycling maximums to differ for the same person.
• Seek clinical guidance before maximal efforts if you have symptoms or a heart condition.