The Myth Of "Maximum Heart Rate = 220-Age"

By Richard King

You've probably heard of the formula "220-your age" for estimating maximum heart
rate. Unfortunately, this formula is not very useful because it can be easily off by more
than 20 beats on the high or low side. For me at age 54 this formula says my maximum
heart rate should be 166, but I happen to know from more accurate tests that it's at
least 25 beats higher than that.

In books, on exercise machines, and on the walls of gyms, you'll often see charts of
suggested exercise intensity that are based on 220-your age. It's also in calculators all
over the web. I'd hardly break a sweat if I exercised at those levels. But more
importantly, for some people the opposite is true and their maximum heart rate can
be more than 20 beats lower than the formula predicts. If they were to exercise at the
levels from the charts, their intensity could be too high, especially for anyone with a
medical condition.

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?

More recent studies have tried to revisit this concept on a broader sample of the
population. For example, in one study, based on thousands of subjects, male and
female, ranging in age from 18 to 81, the authors came up with a "best fit" equation
of:

Max heart rate = 208 -0.7xAge.

However, if you look at the data this is based on, it looks like a cloud with only a vague
trend towards heart rate decreasing with age; there's a lot of scatter. The new formula
is a little more accurate than the old one, but can still under predict or over predict
max HR by 20 beats or so [Tanaka, 2001].
A recent review of many attempts to come up with a formula to predict max heart rate
concluded that no sufficient accurate formula exists to predict max heart rate from age
alone [Robergs, 2002]. In my opinion none is possible because of the large amount of
scatter in the data. Exercise physiologist Dr. Fritz Hagerman, who has studied world-
class rowers for three decades, has said that the idea of a formula to predict an
individual's maximum heart rate is ludicrous: he has seen Olympic rowers in their 20's
with maximum heart rates of 220, and others on the same team and with the same
ability, with maximum rates of just 160 [Kolata, 2001].

Many books have charts with elaborate training schedules based on various zones of
intensity, all based on maximum heart rate. It all may look very scientific, but it's not
too worthwhile if it's based on an inaccurate number.

Another misconception I've come across is that the problem with the 220-age formula
is fixed by using the "heart rate reserve" or Karvonen formula. In that formula, exercise
intensity as expressed as a percentage of your "reserve capacity" between your resting
heart rate (RHR) and max heart rate (MHR):

Target heart rate = X% of (MHR-RHR) +RHR

Where X% is the desired percentage. This is a useful formula because the intensities
from it are related to a percentage of the heart rate corresponding to your maximal
oxygen update VO2Max, which many exercise physiologists are fond of using. But the
Karvonen formula still needs an accurate estimate of your max heart rate. If you stick
in an inaccurate number based on an age related prediction like 220-age, the result
will still be inaccurate.

Heart rate training can be a useful tool, if based on a good estimate of what's a valid
intensity level for you. Maximum heart rate can be measured accurately in a lab, but
for most of us that's kind of an expensive option. You can estimate other useful
parameters like heart rate at lactate threshold from self-administered tests (see for
example, [Carmichael, 2003]) and this can be used for heart rate based training. But
for those of us that are interested in mostly in fitness, I question the necessity. I'm a
"perceived level of exertion" kind of guy. On easy cardio days my pace is comfortable.
On hard days, it feels hard, and when doing intervals, it's very hard. This leads to good
and steady progress.

References
-Carmichael, Chris, and Jim Rutberg, The Ultimate Ride: Get Fit, Get Fast, and Start
Winning With the World's Top Cycling Coach, Grosset & Dunlap, 2003.
-Kolata, G, "Maximum Heart Rate Theory Is Challenged", The New York Times Health
Page, April 24, 2001.

-Robergs, R, and Landwehr, R, "The Surprising History Of The 'HRmax= 220-age'

Equation', Journal of Exercise Physiology Online, 5(2), 2002.

-Tanaka, H, Monahan, K, Seals, D, "Age-Predicted Maximal Heart Rate Revisited",

Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 37(1), 153, 2001.

I'm Richard King, 54 and a mechanical engineer with a Ph.D. from Stanford. Biking and
fitness are my main hobby, and I am well versed in biomechanics and exercise
physiology through many years of reading and research. My website is
www.bikeandfit.com [http://www.bikeandfit.com]

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Richard_King