Maximum HR?

Virginia90

What is the most accurate way to calculate my Maximum heart rate? Originally I had my HRM set it for me, but during a couple of my workouts, I met and even went above my MHR (though very very briefly). Then I saw something that said to subtract my age from 226, which makes 205 - I updated my HRM settings and it also raised my target HR zone. Should I stick with these settings, or is there a different formula that is more accurate? Thanks!!

stebs1984

I think the number is actually 220 minus your age...

Virginia90

I think the number is actually 220 minus your age...

I think that's what my HRM did by default - but some website said for females it is the 226, so I got confused and wondered if that's why I somehow got above my "maximum" heart rate that my HRM set for me.

rockerbabyy

im also curious, since my HRM did 220-age for me too, and i dont think its quite right. im often over the range it gives me, tho i never hit my max... i can get within 20 of it and be fine.

heybales

What is the most accurate way to calculate my Maximum heart rate? Originally I had my HRM set it for me, but during a couple of my workouts, I met and even went above my MHR (though very very briefly). Then I saw something that said to subtract my age from 226, which makes 205 - I updated my HRM settings and it also raised my target HR zone. Should I stick with these settings, or is there a different formula that is more accurate? Thanks!!

You are correct, the formula is 226-age for women. 220 for men for the other poster.

Now, that estimate is a big wide bell curve, with a great potential for inaccuracy.

And since your watch allows entering the figure, it probably uses it for calculating calorie burn too, so I'm betting you would like it to be as accurate as possible.

Here is a decent test for finding out max HR, without actually doing the maximal test. There are other tests if you can have a partner adjust a treadmill while you are doing it. Just search Google for submaximal max heart rate.

The SubMax Step Test. Use an 8" step (almost any step in your home or in a club will do) and perform a 3-minute step test. After your warm-up, step up and down in a four-count sequence as follows: right foot up, left up, right down, left down. Each time you move a foot up or down, it counts as one step.

Count "up, up, down, down" for one set, with 20 sets to the minute. It is very important that you don't speed up the pace--keep it regular. After 2 minutes, you'll need to monitor your heart rate to the end of the last minute. The SubMax Step Test now can be used to predict your Max HR. Add to your last seen heart rate one of the following numbers:

1. Poor Shape: +55 bpm
2. Average Shape: +65 bpm
3. Excellent Shape: +75 bpm

Your result should be pretty close to your Max HR.

BTW, if someone's watch doesn't let you enter in a MHR, but it did ask for your age - it is doing the same thing without adjustment possible.
Unless you lie about your age to the HRM. So using the formula above, just figure out your aerobic age.

So at 43 yr old, formula says my MHR should be 177. But tested it is 194. So I would lie and tell HRM my age is 26.

Virginia90

What is the most accurate way to calculate my Maximum heart rate? Originally I had my HRM set it for me, but during a couple of my workouts, I met and even went above my MHR (though very very briefly). Then I saw something that said to subtract my age from 226, which makes 205 - I updated my HRM settings and it also raised my target HR zone. Should I stick with these settings, or is there a different formula that is more accurate? Thanks!!

You are correct, the formula is 226-age for women. 220 for men for the other poster.

Now, that estimate is a big wide bell curve, with a great potential for inaccuracy.

And since your watch allows entering the figure, it probably uses it for calculating calorie burn too, so I'm betting you would like it to be as accurate as possible.

Here is a decent test for finding out max HR, without actually doing the maximal test. There are other tests if you can have a partner adjust a treadmill while you are doing it. Just search Google for submaximal max heart rate.

The SubMax Step Test. Use an 8" step (almost any step in your home or in a club will do) and perform a 3-minute step test. After your warm-up, step up and down in a four-count sequence as follows: right foot up, left up, right down, left down. Each time you move a foot up or down, it counts as one step.

Count "up, up, down, down" for one set, with 20 sets to the minute. It is very important that you don't speed up the pace--keep it regular. After 2 minutes, you'll need to monitor your heart rate to the end of the last minute. The SubMax Step Test now can be used to predict your Max HR. Add to your last seen heart rate one of the following numbers:

1. Poor Shape: +55 bpm
2. Average Shape: +65 bpm
3. Excellent Shape: +75 bpm

Your result should be pretty close to your Max HR.

BTW, if someone's watch doesn't let you enter in a MHR, but it did ask for your age - it is doing the same thing without adjustment possible.
Unless you lie about your age to the HRM. So using the formula above, just figure out your aerobic age.

So at 43 yr old, formula says my MHR should be 177. But tested it is 194. So I would lie and tell HRM my age is 26.

That is very helpful! Thank you! I will do that!

sammywil

Bump

taso42

What's the highest number you ever remember seeing on the HRM? Use that number, especially if it's far off from the calculated number.

sacrey

Maximum Hear Rate is calculated by taking 80% of your age and subtracting from 226. To find out the best rate for losing weight take 85% of that number (MHR) and that is your peak or maximum heart rate for losing weight. Take 65% of the MHR and that would be the target number to get for starting a true cardio workout. I got these numbers from the January "Prevention Magazine" to which I have a subscription.

Regards,

Deborah

Virginia90

Oh gosh...well I got 125 as my last heart rate, and I picked average (even though that's a stretch - I've only been working out a little over 3 weeks...lol) and it gave me 190...which is lower than what my HRM was originally set at when it was subtracting it from 220. However, I've hit heart rates of 191 and 194 while doing the 30 Day Shred....so it isn't possible for it to be 190...I know I did the test right too, I completed a set every 3 seconds. Goodness this stuff is complicated!

Right now, I have my max manually set at 205 after I read the 226-age thing... so will it just underestimate my calories a little if it is a little higher than my actual maximum or should I put it back to its default guess (which was 199)? I'd rather underestimate how many calories I burn instead of overestimate.

heybales

Oh gosh...well I got 125 as my last heart rate, and I picked average (even though that's a stretch - I've only been working out a little over 3 weeks...lol) and it gave me 190...which is lower than what my HRM was originally set at when it was subtracting it from 220. However, I've hit heart rates of 191 and 194 while doing the 30 Day Shred....so it isn't possible for it to be 190...I know I did the test right too, I completed a set every 3 seconds. Goodness this stuff is complicated!

Right now, I have my max manually set at 205 after I read the 226-age thing... so will it just underestimate my calories a little if it is a little higher than my actual maximum or should I put it back to its default guess (which was 199)? I'd rather underestimate how many calories I burn instead of overestimate.

3 weeks is actually decent enough to use the +75. You are young and body can adjust quickly. And more fit doesn't really make it go up more.
The results of this also depend if you have more slow twitch (endurance) or fast twitch (strength) muscle type. You probably have more slow twitch, so this type of submaximal test goes low for you.

I'd agree 200 about is probably right. If you belong to a gym, one of the treadmills probably has another type of walk test to estimate it. Ask if they will enable that or show you how to use it. Don't pay $25 for just that though if they demand it. The test procedure can be found online.

heybales

Here is the ultimate site that will use several different formulas to estimate max HR.

There are also fitness tests on the left if so desired.

http://www.brianmac.co.uk/maxhr.htm


Just to comment, the highest estimate here was still 13 below my actual tested MHR.
Just goes to show formula's aren't the best.

Pebble321

Hmmm, this is interesting stuff.
I'd love some comments (or best guess!) on what I should use as my Max HR. I think the step test would be a good idea but I'm just getting back on track from a hip flexor injury, so I'm not prepared to push that at the moment.

Here's my dilemma:
- Female, 45, 70kg (about 156 pounds), 5'4", runner.
- According to the calculator from Brian Mac, my max heart rate could be anywhere between 166 - 179.
- Using the old formula of 220 - my age, it's 177.
- looking at the stats from my HRM, which I've been using since Christmas, the max heart rate recorded has gone as high as 201 and 204, though more often around 188.
- Resting HR is around 57 (tested in the morning, in bed).

Any suggestions as to what I should use? With a difference of almost 40 bpm, it's a bit hard to know which number to pick!!
Having a fairly low resting heart rate seems like it should make a difference too, though I don't know if this is a factor.

heybales

Here's my dilemma:
- Female, 45, 70kg (about 156 pounds), 5'4", runner.
- According to the calculator from Brian Mac, my max heart rate could be anywhere between 166 - 179.
- Using the old formula of 220 - my age, it's 177.
- looking at the stats from my HRM, which I've been using since Christmas, the max heart rate recorded has gone as high as 201 and 204, though more often around 188.
- Resting HR is around 57 (tested in the morning, in bed).

Any suggestions as to what I should use? With a difference of almost 40 bpm, it's a bit hard to know which number to pick!!
Having a fairly low resting heart rate seems like it should make a difference too, though I don't know if this is a factor.

Females do have higher MHR, and do have more variance from the formula's.

Your low resting HR is because you are still in shape, excellent. This just means you have a better range for zones to be in. Some zone calculations take into account resting HR.

If you remember that workout hitting 204 required stopping right after you hit it, that is probably your max.
If that was just the high and you backed off a bit, the max is probably a tad higher yet.

I'd go for 210, it's not like you will be aiming for it, it just sets the pre-set zones if you don't manually, and helps make the calorie count slightly more accurate.

Now, it is entirely possible those 2 high numbers were an inaccuracy, a blip, interference, a misread. Which can occur.
In which case the max is closer to 195.

Pebble321

That's great feedback, thanks.
The 204 reading was the very first day I used the hrm so I'm inclined to ignore it. Maybe I'll pick 201 - though I have time to play around with the numbers as I can't run too much yet (first run in two weeks today, it will be slow intervals but after being injured and stalled for two weeks I'm going to enjoy it!!)