Maximum heart rate confusion.

220 - age is a very inaccurate gestimate. Best off doing a field test as per the link. Remember max HR is sport specific i.e. your running max will be different to your cycling max. Once you have calculated your max HR you can work out your training zones.

https://www.polar.com/blog/calculate-maximum-heart-rate-running/

Your maximum HR is the maximum you can actually hit - not a estimate that was intended as a rough guide for cardiology patients.

A ramp test to exhaustion is the normal way to test it but it should only be attempted if you are fit and heart healthy as it pushes you to your limit.

What is your reason for wanting to know it?

If you are regularly hitting your estimated maximum then the estimate is wrong! It should take exceptional effort.

FYI - my older brother could still attain over 200bpm at age 60 when the estimate would be 160bpm, there's a huge variation in min/max HR between different people.

AnnPT77 wrote: »

Rate of perceived exertion (RPE) is another way of gauging your exercise intensity, and is useful for guiding fitness training efforts (frankly, used honestly, it's likely to be at least as good as a heart rate monitor for guiding sub-elite training efforts, especially for people who don't know their actual max HR).

This is a description of the scale (be sure to note the subjective impressions guidance on the right-hand side).

https://www.cdc.gov/physicalactivity/basics/measuring/exertion.htm

If you search/Google the term, you can find other guidance, but be sure to stick to responsible sources.

This video uses a different overall scheme, but also has some useful info about percieving your exercise intensity level:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8vRWNb0suE

That's because perceived exertion is a thing that evolved over millions of years to help cave men and cave women chase prey and run from predators. It doesn't just take your HR and nothing else into account, it's specially consolidated feedback from your lungs and legs and everything else combined into a state of the athlete report.

VUA21 wrote: »

sijomial wrote: »

Your maximum HR is the maximum you can actually hit - not a estimate that was intended as a rough guide for cardiology patients.

A ramp test to exhaustion is the normal way to test it but it should only be attempted if you are fit and heart healthy as it pushes you to your limit.

What is your reason for wanting to know it?

If you are regularly hitting your estimated maximum then the estimate is wrong! It should take exceptional effort.

FYI - my older brother could still attain over 200bpm at age 60 when the estimate would be 160bpm, there's a huge variation in min/max HR between different people.

^^^^^ All of this!! And, yes genetics can play a huge part in maxHR. Myself, my daughter, my siblings - we all have relatively low resting heartrates (mine hovers around 50bpm - per medical checkups), so my Max would be different than someone who's resting HR is 65pbm, without considering conditioning. Conditioning will also play a huge role, most competitive distance runners don't have the huge increases in HR that the average person has - because of years of conditioning, they still have an increase, just not as much.

I would go by 'percieved effort'.

I'm not expert, but in my understanding, max heart rate is more a matter of genetics, and while it declines with age in general, there's less degradation with aging in people who stay active. Resting heart rate, OTOH, is more malleable: In an individual, it generally decreases with increasing CV fitness, even if it has a genetic tendency to be relatively lower or relatively higher.

A person can have a high max but a low resting: They're not linked, necessarily. (My tested max HR is 20+ beats above my (220 - age) estimated max, but my pre-anaesthesia resting heart rate repeatedly set off the bradycardia alarm, set at 50, at a surgical center. (My surgeon was not concerned; called it "fitness induced bradycardia" )).

In general, a more conditioned person will be able to hit performance benchmark X (a mile run at a certain pace, perhaps) at a lower average heart rate than a less conditioned person who may coincidentally have the same max heart rate. (As an aside, that doesn't imply that the more conditioned person is burning materially fewer calories because of "efficiency".) The conditioned person can still raise their heart rate higher, but they need to increase intensity in order to do it (run the mile faster, for example).

AnnPT77 wrote: »

VUA21 wrote: »

sijomial wrote: »

Your maximum HR is the maximum you can actually hit - not a estimate that was intended as a rough guide for cardiology patients.

A ramp test to exhaustion is the normal way to test it but it should only be attempted if you are fit and heart healthy as it pushes you to your limit.

What is your reason for wanting to know it?

If you are regularly hitting your estimated maximum then the estimate is wrong! It should take exceptional effort.

FYI - my older brother could still attain over 200bpm at age 60 when the estimate would be 160bpm, there's a huge variation in min/max HR between different people.

^^^^^ All of this!! And, yes genetics can play a huge part in maxHR. Myself, my daughter, my siblings - we all have relatively low resting heartrates (mine hovers around 50bpm - per medical checkups), so my Max would be different than someone who's resting HR is 65pbm, without considering conditioning. Conditioning will also play a huge role, most competitive distance runners don't have the huge increases in HR that the average person has - because of years of conditioning, they still have an increase, just not as much.

I would go by 'percieved effort'.

I'm not expert, but in my understanding, max heart rate is more a matter of genetics, and while it declines with age in general, there's less degradation with aging in people who stay active. Resting heart rate, OTOH, is more malleable: In an individual, it generally decreases with increasing CV fitness, even if it has a genetic tendency to be relatively lower or relatively higher.

A person can have a high max but a low resting: They're not linked, necessarily. (My tested max HR is 20+ beats above my (220 - age) estimated max, but my pre-anaesthesia resting heart rate repeatedly set off the bradycardia alarm, set at 50, at a surgical center. (My surgeon was not concerned; called it "fitness induced bradycardia" )).

In general, a more conditioned person will be able to hit performance benchmark X (a mile run at a certain pace, perhaps) at a lower average heart rate than a less conditioned person who may coincidentally have the same max heart rate. (As an aside, that doesn't imply that the more conditioned person is burning materially fewer calories because of "efficiency".) The conditioned person can still raise their heart rate higher, but they need to increase intensity in order to do it (run the mile faster, for example).

Interesting, mine is also higher than the 220-age, my sister is lower ($20 and free movie tickets for 2 hours of testing for a research project at school). Per the doctors and grad students, maxHR formula is an average, but being a deviation higher or lower is perfectly normal and nothing to be concerned with. Maintaining heart rate in an increased rate to optimize cardiovascular health through expenditure is much more important. It's like everything else, no two people are exactly the same and using "averages" just gives a ballpark idea where one should fall, but not an absolute.