Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Jockology

How do I determine my maximum heart rate?

ALEX HUTCHINSON

From Friday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 12:15 PM EST 14/04/08

The only way, it turns out, is to get heart pumping that fast ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Peter Walker from Calgary, Canada writes: I had a heart attack a year ago and during the workouts to get me back to normal at the Calgary Cardiac Wellness Institute, the talk test was the one used. We also had to undergo stress tests each time a medication was changed, BUT it was the talk test really that governed.
  2. Murray Braithwaite from Canada writes: The test I use is to get on an exercise bike and increase resistance linearly every two minutes and recording the heart rate just before each increase. I then draw a graph. When I am in the aerobic zone, the heart rate increases proportionally to the increase in resistance (both lines have the same slope). Once I hit the aerobic threshold, the slope of the heart rate line will become less than the slope of the output line. The difference in slope happens when a portion of the output is anaerobic (i.e., not using oxygen from the blood). This test is more accurate than other methods, particularly by averaging multiple sessions using different resistances and time intervals. The age calculation does not account fo rthe individual fitness level (the aerobic threshold varies with fitness level) and the talk test is fairly subjective and thus not precise enough in identifying the threshold.
  3. R Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: I have never understood these calculations about maximal heart rate and frankly don't believe in them...

    I once saw someone whose heart was beating at 300 bpm...

    Fortunately, they were in good shape and could tolerate it... Wouldn't recommend it to many people, however.

    Cheers.
  4. emilio D from Vancouver, Canada writes: This is the problem with exercise, the more you go into it, the more
    unscientific and controversial it becomes. Dr. Tanaka's formula: 208 minus .7 times your age (55) = 11401.5 What is this? Or maybe 208
    minus your age (55) times .7 = 107.1. But this is too low for a heart rate to achieve!!!
  5. Ed Op from Canada writes: What I don't get is that if I use the 220-age (38) I get 182. If I do the 208-age*0.7 I get 181.4 - what's the big deal? If I were 50 the results would be 170 and 173. How old do you have to be for this to make a difference?

    I understand that neither is particularly useful but I play hockey for exercise anyway - so I'm probably in the "zone" for about three seconds on the way up to my max and then another three seconds on my way down to resting. Doesn't really have much use for me but I am curious.
  6. Jocelyn Beckett from Calgary, Canada writes: A couple of things to clarify for anyone who's new to this stuff;

    - The upper (max) heart rate is largely determined by genetics and age. You will not increase your max HRT through exercise.
    - However, if you are fit, you may prevent the max HRT from declining with age. That is why the 220- 70% of age formula is most inaccurate for older people who have always been fit.
    - Your resting heart rate reflects fitness.
    - The only accurate method of getting a max heart rate is to take your heart to its max on a treadmill or V02 test
  7. Alex Hutchinson from Canada writes: emilio, your math (both versions) is off. 208-(0.7x55) is 169.5.

    Ed Op, the crucial point isn't the difference between the two formulas (though it's a difference of 10 beats once you hit 70) -- the point is that even the revised formula only reflects an average, which is off by more than 10 beats for one in every three people. It's like knowing that the "average" hair colour is light brown -- that doesn't really tell you anything about what your individual hair colour is. That's why you need to either measure your max HR directly, or use alternatives like the Talk Test to gauge your effort. (And as you point out, it's not relevant for playing hockey!)
  8. Alistair McLaughlin from Canada writes: How to find your maximum heart rate: Walk up to Mike Tyson. Call him a bunch of names. Slap him across the face. Then run away. If you manage escape his clutches, stop and take your pulse. THAT is your maximum heart rate.
  9. Mike Tyson from Canada writes: I thay Mr. M you postulization about the extraordinary upbeatness of your hearth beaths ath it pertainths to me ith pothitively unactheptable and pothentially inthendiary, thereby forthing me to ingesth your children ath a consequenth for this inanithy
  10. s t from quebec, Canada writes: I got more confused reading the article than when I first started... What beats me (and my heart too!) is the fact the article is written by a Ph.D. candidate. G-d save the Queen and the rest of us from such accurate or non-scientific knowledge.I rest my case.
  11. Albin Forone from Canada writes: Alistair and Mike convince me that my first impression was right, that to reach my maximum heart rate I will have to phone up and invite Uma Thurman to dinner. Another good reason to just do it.
  12. emilio D from Vancouver, Canada writes: Alex Hutchinson, thanks for correcting my math. I owe you one. So using Dr. Tanaka's formula gives us 169.5 Using the old method 220 minus 55( age) gives us 165. Dr. Tanaka's gives us 4 heart beats more. But does it mean better or more risky? Why not use the target heart rate method which allows us to progress our exercise to achieve the desired heart rate. Is Dr. Tanaka assuming that it will take us one year to achieve 169.5 maximum heart rate or die of heart failure trying to achieve it? I'll just walk until I feel the tiredness in my legs.
  13. R B from Vancouver, Canada writes: R. Miller - if I saw someone with a heart rate of 300, I wouldn't be admiring his fitness, I'd be calling 911. And Ed Op, the old saying is "don't play hockey to get fit, get fit to play hockey". The thing I've noticed about playing hockey is that my heart rate will exceed the standard 220-age. I've tested this with my heart rate monitor, and I reach a peak of about 105% of my "max" (according to the formula). So, I guess my "max" isn't really my max. The good news is, after a shift, my heart rate recovery is pretty good (about 40 beats/2 minutes), which I've always understood to be a good thing. I don't want to go into cardiac arrest just as I'm about to score on a breakaway, so I'm in the gym several days a week doing intervals on the bike or treadmill.
  14. israel barsky from Guadalajara, Mexico writes: What about the Karvonen formula?
  15. Jimmy Jensen from Toronto, Canada writes: Emilio...duh....! Not a math major were you...?
    208-(.7x55) = 208-38.5=169.5 or lets just round off shall we to 170 as the max for a 55 year old. Does that help?
    Were you on the global warming calculation group?
  16. emilio D from Vancouver, Canada writes: Jimmy Jensen, ya man. Screwed that one really bad. A maximum heart rate of 11401.5 rounded to 11402? Even bionic woman will die of cardiac arrest. I am walking with my doggie until his tongue sticks out is a better way to measure maximum heart rate than perceived exertion or talk test. Very unscientific.
  17. R Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: R B from Vancouver, Canada:

    Oh, the person with a 300 bpm heart beat...

    Actually, it was a she and I am not kidding she was completely without any symptoms at that heart rate...

    I actually did one better than call 9-11, I reached for a defibrillator and cardioverted her at 200J...

    I think our maximal heart rate probably has a lot more to do with our personal genetics and fitness than any equation does...

    That's just my opinion, however...
  18. warren fullerton from Tecumseh, Ontario, Canada writes: A pointless article. At my age of 54, the difference in the two methods is 4 beats per minute, 166 v. 170. So the new and improved method is about 2.5% more accurate, which I am certain is meaningless.
  19. emilio D from Vancouver, Canada writes: The Borg rating of RPE scale being recommended by CDC is even more stupid. The rating starts at 6 which means no exertion at all. 7-8 is extremely light. 9-10 is very light. 11-12 is light exertion. 13-14 is somehat hard; 15-16 is hard. 17-18 is very hard 19 is extremely hard and 20 is maximal exertion. You are supposed to multiply the number by 10 to get correct heart rate. How does a person differentiate accurately between somewhat hard, hard, very hard and extremely hard? If you chose hard rated at 15 x10 =150. And very hard at 18 x10 = 180, then thats a difference of 30 heart beats.
    This is all subjective too. Exercise is based on age, level of fitness, and state of health. This formula ignores all of these conditions.
    Don't go to the gym. It is all guesswork.
  20. Alex Hutchinson from Canada writes: Warren (and a few others): Not to belabour the point, but the article advises you to use NEITHER formula. Either measure your heart rate directly (which is challenging), or use a method of perceived exertion (the Talk Test is one example, but there are many others).
  21. Alistair McLaughlin from Canada writes: Odd how Mike Tyson lisps while writing, just as he does while speaking. I've never seen that before.

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top