Age Related Heart Rate Formulas Don't Work, Use THIS Instead

preview_player
Показать описание
Today Sport Scientists Lindsey Parry, Devlin Eyden and Shona Hendricks tell you why shouldn't be using 220 minus age to calculate your training zones and what to use instead.

When you're ready, we'd love to help you become a better runner:

What is in this video:
00:00 Introduction
00:18 Where did 220 minus age come from?
01:34 Why we don't like 220 minus age
03:18 What do we prefer to use

#CoachParry #220minusAge #Running
Рекомендации по теме
Комментарии
Автор

I am 74 and my HR is supposed to be 146. However, my average during a 5 k race is 163-166 and the maximum that I have seen in training is 178. I have been running and cycling my whole life.

williamdemott
Автор

At 62 years old, I can still reach 192 bpm on pretty much every Mountain Bike training ride I do, and my ride average is in the 155-165 bpm range, this is over anywhere from 20 - 50 mile rides. My resting average is around 48-49 bpm, so the 220 - your age is just so far away from reality, it's basically useless.

Theshilling
Автор

Spot on! I’m 64, my max Hr using the formula would be 156. That just happens to be my Threshold run HR. The max HR I’ve seen this year running was 171 at the end of a Sprint Triathlon.

JohnSivyer
Автор

I suspected the formula doesn't apply to everybody. I'm 41 and I get easy runs to average 160-170. Now, during sprinting or interval training I easily get to 200-205. Someone told me that was way to high, but it doesn't feel that bad.

sabreum
Автор

At 70 years old, my maximum heart rate should be 150bpm. In fact, however, I'm still breathing through my nose at 150bpm. My maximum is actually about 180bpm. My resting heartrate (upon waking in the morning before rising) is in the 40s. I did spend a number of years up into my 50s as a avid road cyclist, and I do a lot of elliptical work these days.

kirkdarling
Автор

As a swimmer all my life, Div-I collegiate and Masters, my routine exercise HR on exercise Bikes is between 160-170 sustained while barely breathing hard. Sprinting in the pool and running up hills in sprints (definitely breathing hard) my Garmin HR hits 190-195 fairly often. I am 66. My friend, who is a Cardiologist, told me long ago that the 220-age is just another loose guideline that someone made up long ago.

jryan
Автор

A little historical context here. Many years ago while using a Polar heart rate monitor, I wondered if there was some standard for heart rates at various exertion levels. During my research, I found a story written by a cardiologist. He said that during a flight to a conference in the mid 60's, he was studying his records on 48 of his male patients. He had tested, among other things, their max heart rates. He noticed an interesting feature. If he subtracted their age from 220 the number came very close to their max numbers. He casually mentioned this during his presentation at the conference. To his surprise a few months later he saw this relationship mentioned in a medical paper. He said that he would see this pop up periodically over the next few years. Eventually it became an axiom in the medical community.
This doesn't actually surprise me.

chuckbroeker
Автор

It’s absolutely crucially important for runners to understand the new science of maximum exercise intensity for people over 65. It’s very very healthy if you run at 20% intense exercise and 80% average intensity too much intensity for an older runner actually can lead to heart problems there’s new research on this which is very very methodologically accurateand valid please post is very crucial for all of us runners who are older knowing how much to exercise very intensely and how much exercise moderately I’m 74. My heart rate is 186 but I only do this kind of very intense exercise 20% of the time.

evanshaw
Автор

I have been a lifelong hard trainer. Hill running, triathlon, cycling and weights. I`m a small bloke, 64 years old. The highest rate I ever measured was when doing repeated sprints up a big hill, I reahed 203 bpm. My resting pulse has always been around 56-58 bpm. I never measure when I`m cycling fast uphill these days, it seems pointless, just cycle as fast as you can for as long as you can.

HarryFenton
Автор

I am 71 and routinely run at 165 for long periods and have been well above 175 before as well. I have always been in shape throughout my life so I agree that 220 is bunk.

urstandingonmyfoot
Автор

Heart rate is completely individualistic. I'm around 5'10" 185lbs and 49yrs. 170 BPS is my mid-tempo. Recovering from injury and trying to get back into shape, I'm still routinely hitting 200BPS via chest strap by the end of a 5km. If you want to figure out your max heart rate, get a chest strap and put in the work.

timtrenholm
Автор

The equation "HRmax = 220 - age" is known as the Haskell & Fox formula. It works fairly well for young subjects, but beyond age 30 it loses accuracy quickly.
There is an assortment of other formulas that work better for older subjects. In order of highest to lowest HR at age 70, here are a few:
Nes: 211 - 0.64*age

No name: 209 - 0.62*age
No name: 207 - 0.67*age
Oakland nonlinear: 192 - 0.007*age^2
Tanaka, Monihan & Seals: 208 - 0.7*age
Inbar: 206 - 0.685*age

But still, none of them give a max HR figure as high as my actual max at age 69.

marianneoelund
Автор

I'm 54, so 220 - age for me is 166. I only run on a treadmill for about 20 minutes at a time, but I'm still pretty comfortable at 170. And toward the end of the 20 minutes, I reach the low 180s every time.

mikegb
Автор

still haven't explain what is the actual heart rate format we should use instead. So much jargon and learned nothing....

johnlim
Автор

At 31 I did a max VO2 test and hit 213. I’m now 65 and I routinely get to low 180s mountain biking up our steep hills. So many people think max is a pulse you shouldn’t go over instead of reality of it being the max pulse you are able to hit.

andyeunson
Автор

I'm 51. My max heart rate on TMT is 191. Thats when they stopped test.
I can run in conversational pace at 165 heart rate. 220 minus age is nonsense for me.

ramamoorthyh
Автор

220 - age, is meant regarding an untrained normal person, when you are training regularly then your Max heart rate will most often go up, as the heart get stronger and the blood flow better.

TheGarnhr
Автор

Yes. I am 58 and my max in the 190s. This is anecdotal but I have found "pure" distance runners tend to have lowish maxes, I am more middle distance. Funny how ACSM still quotes 220 - age formula!

philipcoleman
Автор

HR is such a variable data point, in my view it's much better to use a power meter, it's an absolute number with an immediate reading (HR is always lagging, specifically in shorter intervals) and although power as such doesn't mean much and might differ person to person - your power is yours and you can easily see trends and use the zones is a way that isn't impacted by time of the day, endocrine balance, temperature etc etc.

jackdebokx
Автор

I beat myself up over that calculation for almost 8 months before finding out that not only is it a very rough estimate, but the studies were based on men, and women have a naturally higher HR. I'd nearly lost my love of running because of the frustration!

Kelly_Ben