Is 220 minus age wrong?

It has no research basis and fits the data poorly, overestimating the young and underestimating the old. Tanaka fits better, though its error on an individual is still about ten beats.

Should I test my actual maximum?

A measured value beats any formula, but a maximal test is strenuous. It is worth discussing with a clinician before attempting one, particularly with any cardiac history.

Health & Fitnessfitness

Max Heart Rate Calculator

Maximum heart rate estimates, with the error stated. Every formula here has a standard deviation of around ten beats, which is wider than a training zone, so a measured maximum beats any estimate.

Also called: hrmax calculator, 220 minus age.

Estimated maximum heart rate

181.4

181.4 bpm by the Tanaka formula, against 182 from the old 220 minus age. The standard deviation is about 10 beats, so your true maximum is likely between 171.4 and 191.4. A measured maximum beats any formula. The error here spans more than one training zone.

220 minus age

182

Gulati formula, for women

172.6

Standard deviation

Likely lower bound

171.4

Likely upper bound

191.4

On measuring it

A measured maximum beats any formula. The error here spans more than one training zone.

How this is calculated

For reference only. Verify against your clinical protocol before acting on this number.

Method and background

This is what the calculation gives for the numbers you entered. It is an estimate, not advice, and it knows nothing about your situation beyond those numbers. Rules for United States change on a published schedule; the effective date is shown on every rule-based tool.

How this is calculated

The familiar 220 minus age has no research basis and systematically overestimates for younger people and underestimates for older ones. The Tanaka formula, 208 less 0.7 times age, fits the population data better, and Gulati is fitted specifically to women. All of them have a standard deviation of about ten beats, which means roughly a third of people fall outside the range shown. Since training zones are typically ten percent of maximum wide, that error spans more than a zone, and anyone training seriously should measure rather than estimate.

the Tanaka formula fits the data better than 220 minus age, which overestimates the young and underestimates the old

age: Age in years

Worked examples

Each of these is asserted on every build. If a change to the engine ever moved one of these answers, the build would fail before the page could print it.

a 38 year old

Age: 38
Sex: Male
Measured maximum, if you know it: 0

Estimated maximum heart rate181.4

208 - 0.7 x 38

Open this example

a measured value overrides the estimate

Age: 38
Sex: Male
Measured maximum, if you know it: 192

Estimated maximum heart rate192

boundary

Open this example

Method and limits

What it assumes

Healthy adults. Medication, particularly beta blockers, changes this substantially.

What it deliberately does not model

The standard deviation is about ten beats, wider than a training zone.
Beta blockers and some other medications lower maximum heart rate considerably.
A maximum heart rate test is strenuous and is not appropriate for everyone.

Formula version 1.0.0 · definition 1.0.0 · United States · Report a problem with this calculator

Frequently asked questions

Is 220 minus age wrong?: It has no research basis and fits the data poorly, overestimating the young and underestimating the old. Tanaka fits better, though its error on an individual is still about ten beats.
Should I test my actual maximum?: A measured value beats any formula, but a maximal test is strenuous. It is worth discussing with a clinician before attempting one, particularly with any cardiac history.