Heart Rate Maximum = 220-Age Is Wrong
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 жов 2024
- We take a dive into the research surrounding the 220-age equation. It is 'surpsiring', with flaws and poor science. However, recent research still uses age alone as a single predictor of heart rate maximum, although they are making more population-specific equations, they still have quite large prediction errors.
Thanks to the scientists that spent the enduring hours doing this research.
Video suggestions in the comments will be read!
References:
Robergs, R.A. and Landwehr, R., 2002. The surprising history of the" HRmax= 220-age" equation. Journal of Exercise Physiology Online, 5(2), pp.1-10.
Verschuren, O., Maltais, D.B. and Takken, T.I.M., 2011. The 220‐age equation does not predict maximum heart rate in children and adolescents. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 53(9), pp.861-864.
Shargal, E., Kislev-Cohen, R., Zigel, L., Epstein, S., Pilz-Burstein, R. and Tenenbaum, G., 2015. Age-related maximal heart rate: examination and refinement of prediction equations. J Sports Med Phys Fitness, 55(10), pp.1207-18.
Machado, F.A., Kravchychyn, A.C.P., Peserico, C.S., Silva, D.F.D. and Mezzaroba, P.V., 2018. A new age-based equation for predicting maximum heart rate in endurance-trained runners. Revista Brasileira de Ciências do Esporte, 40(1), pp.100-105.
I'm 62 years old and have a maximum heart rate of 186 bpm. This is tested regularly while trying for PB's when cycling hard up hills climbs. 220-age would estimate my max heart rate to be 158 bpm. Even adding the possible error estimate of 11 bpm would only make my max 169 bpm. Either I'm a freak or any attempt to estimate maximum heart rate based on age is misleading and shouldn't be used.
You are correct, ANY formula trying to predict max heart rate is inaccurate. You can't rely on any existing formulas that exist and even future formulas that will be published in the future. For having done over 25 000 maximal exercise test in my career in individuals from 20 to 85 yrs of age and from different background (athletes, master athletes, sedentary individuals...people with heart & pulmonary disease, diabetes, HTN, obesity....) it just doesn't make sense to try and predict. The only way to know is actually to measure it....
@Philip Hookham I think the 11 points is for 68% of population. So in your age group 68% of people should be in range 158-170. 96% of people are in 136-180. Looks like you are in top 2% of your age group, which is likely possible if you have been training your whole life and also have geneticaly disposition for higher heart rate. Are you shorter then average for example?
Your conclusion that for practical reasons the estimate of hrmax is useless is correct :-)
Yes age is bs im 20 and can get it to 223😄
So according to Formula this wouldnt be possible at all
I'm 60 and hit 194 yesterday doing 4x8 mins.Wont be doing that again in a hurry.
Mine is a lot higher than it should be as well. My max heart rate is 190 bpm, but it should be 175.
Dr Cooper said in his aerobics book that 205-1/2 your age was a better measure for fit people. Endurance athletes generally have a resting HR in the 40s or low 50s. The medical community would diagnose this as bradycardia and they would be wrong.
Yup. This. I'm an endurance runner, 45 years old, resting heart rate around 47. That's normal for me, I don't feel faint or anything. 🤷🏻♀️😅
Subtracting age is just plain b.s.
Just get something that can detect your heart rate and do a max effort exercise. That would be a better way of determining it.
Closer but no cigar, this 56 yo heart ranges from 43 to 183. 😅
If it’s below 60 and normal it’s Sinus Bradycardia, it’s not wrong.
This is still wrong - variability within groups is much higher than variability between them - and max heart rate only slightly correlates with fitness - again not enough to be a useful proxy
the equation and error at 10:00 218-(0.8age) +/- 8bpm seems most accurate to me. I've long suspected 220-age to be a rule of thumb for couch potatoes but not people who run / cycle regularly etc. 36 here and max HR around 194/195bpm. Half marathon 1:39 and 10k 42:20
The Formula 220-Age works good for me. Mine is 142. Riding a bicycle for 75 minutes @ 17.6 Kmh my HRM is 124 bpm maximum and my average is 99.
Finally some facts, the STD deviation is such that you simply can forget a simple formula. I am 56 and my HRmax is 195 (and it was on the high end 30 years ago).
220 - age is a rough approximation and very easy to instantly calculate in your head.
it's definitively not precise, especialy when looking at single measurements going beyond +/-11 of that number.
My max heartrate is 218 and I'm an athlete. Knew the 220-age wasn't a "law".
200 - age has a moderate correlation with actual HRmax. By definition, it is not "wrong". It should not be used rigidly for training, but it's a good starting point for many who haven't or can't do a max HR test.
My max HR is supposed to be 171, I get over that regularly and easily, often over 180 which is hard, but doable and recovery is rapid as far down as 100, slower down to 60 again. My point is, if I train based on this 220- thing I don't think I would get much in the way of results.
I’m 9 years old, and my heart rate was once 227. I was just sitting in bed when my chest started to suck in, I went to my parents and told them what was happening, and next thing you know I’m in the doctors office. Not the hospital.
I think for the data they had, they propose a good approximation. Actually we can test if any intercept is equal to 220, by doing a hypothesis test. Would be a good question for research! ;)
And thinking about what you said on the video, it would be interesting to test a quadratic form for this function too...
Come now, 3:23, an r^2 = 1 in real data: that's a straw man. No one would expect that. Even in most applications in physics, where you can nicely isolate variables, much less so in biology. Of course, there was bound to be an error on that estimate, and it is certainly helpful to have an estimate of the error (11bpm). Even just looking at the data variation at any given age, it would be crazy to try and target training after a calculated maximum heart rate. That's not serious.
Yes but the r he cites was actually 0.42 making the actual R^2 around 0.16 which is very close to zero statistically speaking
Correlation above 0.4 is actually quite strong in biology. Certainly not zero!
This is the first I’ve heard of Max HR being lower for endurance athletes. Seems like HR ceiling is mostly genetically set and, if anything, can be increased closer to genetic potential with exercise. Is there a reference for this observation?
suelen tener frecuencias cardiacas máximas más baja debido a que su corazón se ha adaptado para ser más eficiente en el suministro de oxígeno.
In just a normal fast paced run, i have hit just over 200 bpm, im 21. If i did an all out sprint, i reckon it would be 220+ easily.
I am so disappointed to see that people used only LiNeAr models... Why?! We were already ahead of linear regressions as of the late 20th century. There are so many reasonable explanatory variables that one could harvest and plug into a generalized multivariate mixed model. Age, height, weight, lifestyle, it does not have to be complicated, but MYGOD there must be a better way than 'constant plus some variable'. Damn, do I have to do everything myself?
Do a model you suggest and no one will ever use it. 220-age is perfectly suitable for what is intended to be - a rough and simple guide.
Good stuff. But please get rid of the background music which is just a distraction from the education 😄👍
So, I tried both formulas & got a only a .5 difference. And it appears that the two lines merge at the ages when heart rate is a concern 40+
Cardiac output is calculated as heart rate x stroke volume (of your heart). Intuitively, one would think that as you age, your cardiac output would decrease unless your stroke volume increased. As you get older, your heart is likely to stiffen (diastolic dysfunction), limiting the amount of stroke volume you can have. Does this imply that as you get older, your ability to work (watts) decreases because of this? If it is a maximum, it means you cannot train to improve your heart rate. The presenter also noted that as you train, your maximum heart rate decreases, implying that your stroke volume improves. Other factors must be at work, such as your circulatory system and its ability to clear exercise metabolites (such as lactate) efficiently.
I hadn't heard of this until I saw a chart provided by a walking exercise. I always thought that if you are overweight and unfit your heart rate is higher than if you are a correct weight and fit. Like marathon runners have a heart rate in the 50s and a healthy heart rate is in the low 60s. When I was unfit my heart rate went up into the 140s. I checked after this walking exercise and it's 100 to 110! I was surprised my heart rate was so low as I'm over weight and do little exercise for a year now. So I saw the chart which said the older I am the lower the heart rate should be. I just didn't understand that at all. Ordinarily a younger person would be fitter and leaner, would therefore have to work really hard to achieve the high heart rates. I don't know maybe I have a blood pressure problem.
Age 70, HRmax 187.
With the low cost of HR monitors, to me the prediction of a max is not valuable, but for me the value is the HRzone percentages.
They seem to work for me in relation to my HRmax (not in relation to a fictional HRmax). I do use these zones as a guide for a run's intensity goal. (A guide for a JOG's intensity - I am slow)
3:15 The sport watches use HRmax, this is why they get it so wrong for individuals.
Good presentation. However, for 51% of the population....be aware that the calculation for HR Max for females is different. Don't use any formula based on studies of only males.
Whoa! does that mean then that my HR max should be 162 bpm!? I'm a seventy year old an run fairly regularly intermittently (218) - (0.8x70yrs.) =162 bpm HRmax?! I use a Garmin FR 245m. Software gets updated via Garmin Connect regularly.
these equations are so stupid. the regression of the original data under-estimates my maxHR by almost 20. that's absurd. the 218-.8a formula also under-estimates by 10-13. unless there's some type of research that somehow confirms the applications of these equations (like HR training zones) to be more accurate than HRmax applications, then these equations are basically pointless. the reality is that an accurate equation probably requires information like fitness level, genetics, and cross sectional area. filling in the numbers for an accurate equation is just way too much effort compared to just testing maximum HR. i think the age to HRmax formulas should be discarded entirely, and only used as a backup in extreme cases where maxHR testing isn't possible (like due to a physical disability or injury)
Ok, so if I need an easy to remember rule of thumb for adults "220 - age" works perfectly fine. Got it! Thanks!
I can’t stop listening to the background music.
This is just a guess, but can't I just run as fast as I can for 2-3 minutes, then add 5%? I feel like that would be a lot closer than a generic formula.
I've kept endurance running as a hobby for years and know of these equations, but I've never actually used the formulas in actual training. The best way would be to measure your HR at your PB run less than 10000m.
Nevertheless, it's always fun an interesting to look at statistics on sports!
Good explanation ! Thanks a lot
In treadmill TMT, my max heart rate is 192. I'm 50. 220 minus age is a myth, I think.
What is the exact definition of HRmax, is it the ultimate value that you could reach? Or that you sould not overpass?
The Karvonen method is better. You have to take the resting heart and heartrate max to get all your zones. It takes into account the fitness of the athlete instead of just an arbitrary number.
220 - age is still remarkably accurate and intended to be a crude estimate, and anyone who cares enough can easily use a heart rate monitor and run 10 mins to check their real max heart rate.
Sure, there have to be streamlined explanations for the lay person, anybody who gets seriously into training will have to go further.
Here's my issue with this. If 220-age times 80% was accurate, there's SO many red flags in this. I'll give u a short quick to the point example. a 60 year jogs around in his neigborhood for 30 min at a decent pace. That means that his max heart rate is 160 and 80% of that is 128 bpm. There's NO WAY your heart rate will be at 128 bpm at a jogging pace at 60 years old
on top of that, if you're in good aerobic condition and good health, jogging at 60 years old or older wouldn't cause an issue
Wait, enduranced trained athletes have lower Max HR?
Interesting…
Nice story......but I need that training volume video
What is “Maximum heart rate”?? Is it the max your heart is capable of beating or is it the max you should aim for??
Thank you for the info
in the end ... analyse your own body
Hi! I have a question, is this normal that my heart rate is very low when resting, and when running heartbeat goes up quickly, i have minimum 150 bpm when running slow 6min/km, and it only increases to 160-165 when running at pace @min/km? im 20yo, thanks for advice
It's normal, keep train and everything will be better
Is heart rate max supposedly the max you should not exceed or the max you would likely be able to achieve during max exertion?.
You will die. So have a live...couple of years longer. Don't worry....
My "pulse" hits 250 watching Olivia Rodrigo...
Is the aerobic zone 60 to 70. or 70 to 80 for some reason people say different percentages.
It’s a guide. A rough guide. Have to start somewhere. Any decent coach can provide good input on individualised hr max. Same with training protocols.
What they say: 185
Reality: 204
Thank you for posting this valuable information- confirmation that our max heart rate decreases as we become more physically fit, and on how woefully inadequate the standard 220 - age approach is when estimating our max heart rates. I’m shocked that the 220 - age ‘standard’ is even used at all these days… I wonder how many people are working their hearts at a higher level than they should (in vigorous heart rate zone workouts like I do)? Pretty scary thought.
Thank u alen man im lov ur explin off how my beatheart work thank asam
Does it matter? Heart monitor is for a guide only. If you're 62 and doing very well indeed, although you might be past your prime and may not make the next Olympics Team. Listening to your body and using your experience during exercise, is probably going to be better for you rather than hammering your body trying to achieve a number on a heart rate monitor. You've had your body for 62 years you probably know what it can do. Well keep it going for anther 30 years!!
"...to do so by exercise scientists who are trained in carrying out these tests and are also there to help with any possible *problems* during the test..." POV You or someone you knew shit themselves at the Lab treadmill admit it :)
I'm 44, my max heart rate on my run today was 190. Apparently my max heart rate should be 175. Should I be worried??
no
@@Diablobuster thank the Lord for that!
199/54 y.o. and still alive 😃
@@noname-cw7wn I’m not the only one then!😂
Amazing
And it’s not “wrong “ per se
Totally! I took up athletics and long distance running through my forties. I could never get above 194 HEART BEATS PER MINUTE.! Go figure!!
Very interesting! But "probabally" was rather painful to see. :-)
And "trainin zone" and "conformation bias" and also hearing "that propped up". Sloppy work. Could do with some checking before publishing - because it is an interesting topic.
It makes it even better that the video ends with him making fun of OTHERS' spelling mistakes haha
10:10 you read that equation completely wrong. What was on the screen was 218 - (0.8 x age). What you said: “118 - 1.8 x age”. You talk about scientific accuracy, and you then make an uncorrected mistake like this. Credibility very low.
It's about as reliable as BMI 😂😂
Cancalating? 🤣
9:19 are you really a native English speaker? Ethniticies? Ek cetera? I think your nativeness can change based on how much practice you had
What's your point?
@@appamemes4927 don't miss education, especially the basics.
😊aZ
Probabally? Wow, please have someone look at your english, even for a non native speaker this hurts the eyes.
im 24 and my max is 208 also a runner
The Formula 220-Age works good for me. Mine is 142. Riding a bicycle for 75 minutes @ 17.6 Kmh my HRM is 124 bpm maximum and my average is 99.