The Myth of Maximum Heart Rate

How many times have you heard from your students that the heart rate you asked for is just too easy? How many times have you been faced with comments like I mentioned in my last post, where my student Annie said she rode at 95% for the entire class (and you know that that would be impossible)?

Indoor cycling instructors are faced with a conundrum. The fitness industry is “stuck” on the concept of using age to determine max heart rate (MHR), yet we know it is an incorrect assumption. Even worse, the bogus formula of 220 – age = max heart rate is ubiquitous; every cardio machine and heart rate monitor that asks you for your age is using that formula to prescribe training zones based on MHR.

You’re no better off than if you closed your eyes and threw a dart at the maximum heart rate chart.

Studies have shown that maximum heart rate does not correlate well with age. We know that it doesn’t decline by one beat on your birthday every year. This formula of 220 – age (or 226 – age for females) was never intended by the original authors to be a universal formula; rather it was intended to prescribe a safe exercise level for patients in cardiac rehab. It was the line of best fit in a regression analysis of limited data!

But somehow, it has stuck. The formula can be off by as much as 20–25 beats in either direction, and it may apply to perhaps only 30% of the population. In any other industry, those statistics would be considered far too invalid on which to base a theory, but in fitness, it is the cornerstone of most programs.

In my years of personal training, teaching Spinning, coaching, and performing metabolic tests, I have found that more often than not, the age-predicted maximum heart rate (APMHR) formula underestimates MHR. I myself am an anomaly, with an actual maximum that is lower than the APMHR (i.e. my MHR is overestimated), so I will use myself as an example to show that if in fact the formula does match your MHR, it may only be by coincidence.

About ten years ago I was 36. I was racing mountain bikes and often reached my “max” in the race. The highest heart rate I ever attained – one that produced a fleeting blurred vision and a sensation of nausea if I were to attempt to continue – was 176. I never liked being at this intensity (which might also tell you that I wasn’t a very successful mountain bike racer).

Using the gender adapted APMHR of 226 – 36 predicted a max HR for me of 190. You can see that my actual maximum was 14 beats lower; that’s significant. Does my lower maximum heart rate mean I am less fit? No, it has absolutely nothing to do with fitness. MHR is genetically determined.

Ten years later, I am no longer racing mountain bikes (thank God) but on occasion I have still reached a painful HR of, you guessed it, 176 (usually on my mountain bike). And yes, it hurt every bit as much as before. My MHR did not decline by 10 beats in that decade.

At age 46, the formula gives me a MHR of 180. You can see that by total coincidence, I am now fairly close to the APMHR charts. In a couple of years, I will be exactly as “predicted”.

For those with higher MHR than the charts predict, their prescribed training zones are far too easy. It’s no wonder why so many people say they feel like they’re doing nothing when they follow the “aerobic” training zones on the charts. This was the case with Annie, my student.

In my eBook Keep it Real (which yearly members received as a bonus for signing up early for ICI/PRO) I discuss the myth of MHR and suggest several methodologies of heart rate training, including utilizing MHR. As per my training with Mad Dogg Athletics and Spinning, I continued to condone the use of MHR zones. However, the past year I have researched more deeply into heart rate training methodologies, and since I resigned from the Spinning program I no longer have to adhere to their MHR methodology. Consequently, I have asked myself why I am still talking about it. The question remains, is maximum heart rate even valid? Does it really even matter?

The honest answer is, No! I am ready to dump using MHR charts for good and so is John Macgowan here at ICI/PRO. My new 2009 edition of Keep it Real will reflect this change in thinking. (Note that all previous owners of Keep it Real will receive the new version for free when it is released in about a month).

Why is the fitness industry so stuck on using MHR as the determinant for training zones, when there is enough information out there to prove that what is far more important is one’s lactate threshold (or anaerobic threshold) as a predictor of performance and as an anchor for training zones? Why push yourself that hard in a max test when there is an alternative sub-max method that’s even better?

It’s a bit of a dilemma for the fitness industry because one cannot expect the average fitness enthusiast to pay for a lactate threshold test, but there is an easier way for the indoor cycling instructor by doing a field test with your own students. Teaching instructors and students that zones should be based on one’s LTHR and not MHR is a daunting task. It may take years for the fitness industry to make the transition and educate fitness providers from personal trainers to indoor cycling instructors, and even longer for them to educate their clients and students, on how to use it.

But someone has to take the lead, and we at ICI/PRO have decided that we are going to provide the education for indoor cycling instructors on how to train your students properly using threshold based heart rate zones, and give you the means to explain it to your students as simply as possible.

In doing so, you and your students will have far more success than ever before in reaching weight loss as well as performance goals. And that alone will be worth your membership!

5 Responses to “The Myth of Maximum Heart Rate”

1. Linda Gordon says:

   September 29, 2009 at 7:42 am

   When will we get the information on the proper way to teach LT based zones? This will be greatly beneficial to my classes?
2. Jennifer Sage says:

   September 29, 2009 at 10:46 am

   Linda,
   great question. Have you read Part II of Keep it Real? There is some good information in there to get you started. Also, I plan to write a post every Monday on HR training and give tips and advice on how to cue it. I am writing another ebook on HR training and will be posting excerpts on the blog. I’ll also give tips on how to use RPE.

   As you can see, we’ll be providing you with lots of great information on HR Training!
3. Gino Nacey says:

   September 29, 2009 at 3:03 pm

   It’s funny how we are so often “in sync” Jennifer. Quite independently, I wrote a blog post about the 220 MYTH called “Formulas Don’t Work” in my Cycling Fusion blog: http://cyclingfusion.com/fanatics. Mine post came 1 day after yours since Sally Edwards (creator of Heart Zones) was out for a workshop and visit.

   We have to keep telling people about the fallacy, but then soon, we need to provide them the tools to know how to do proper field tests – ideally with a trained professional to help them.
4. Linda Schmidt says:

   October 3, 2009 at 4:36 pm

   Looking forward to future posts on this. Every week I get at least one new HRM user flummoxed by the gap between what his HRM says and what the standard HRmax formula predicts. I send experienced exercisers to the 208 – (.7 x age) formula for HRmax. It seems to be more in line with RPE for fit people, but it doesn’t work for all. (Jennifer, thanks a million for offering upgrades for those of us who already have Keep It Real.)
5. sandra ballardini says:

   February 21, 2010 at 8:21 am

   Thanks for the article. I forwarded it to everyone on my spin member list and told them this is why we do Threshold test and use percieved exhertion and are moving away from %’s of HR numbers. I also sent this to my club owner and GFD.
   Is it just my imagination or are more Spin instructors aware or even care about this more than the general fitness/trainers are?