Do you hit your MAX heart rate?

[warriorprincess]

According to the formula 220-your age, my max is 157 which I hit exactly once this year for about 5 seconds before stopping and bending over gasping for breath in one of Cathe's HIIT workouts. I got into the 150's a couple of other times but never quite touched the max, so I think this is quite a valid formula for me.

I'm curious as to how accurate it is for those of you who know.

[hch]

I haven't recently tried anything like reaching my maximum (and for multiple medical reasons, I won't be trying it anytime soon), but in the past I've found the "220 - age" formula significantly inaccurate for me. It didn't accurately predict what I could actually reach, and related calculations didn't match what I noticed from perceived exertion or the talk-sing test.

[eventmom]

I'd love to get past 100 - 110 bpm. (my max is 159) wish I could get to say 130 - 140. maybe if I could learn to love burpees or jump squats (which would also ruin my knees).

[Vantreesta]

According to that example mine would be 170 smthg. I regularly get in the 150s and 160s when running. I think I've only seen 170 at races when I have extra adrenaline going!

[Jules]

According to that formula mine would be 168. According to my Apple watch, I have an average heart rate in the 150's-160's while doing steady state cardio and will get as high as the low 190's when I am doing HIIT workouts. My resting heart rate is usually around 60 bpm.

[kristiep]

Yes, I do. Happens when I do steady state cardio or HIIT. My number is 164, and I often look at my watch and see that I am at 170-173. I generally go with how I feel and adjust down as needed.

This morning, I was under the whole time I worked out (Katami 4x4 I Am Change WO 1), but I felt like stopping even though I was only at 143. Go figure.

[Helen]

I went to a favourite source of information: scholar.google!
It works well-enough for me, non-elite athlete. I reach mine regularly, for brief moments.

Anwyay, found these (linked):

• "Consequently, the formula HRmax=220-age has no scientific merit for use in exercise physiology and related fields."
  
• This was was comparing the Sheffield table with the 220-age (Astrand) formula as methods to predict maximum heart rate.
  "The maximum cardiac heart rate is similar with both protocols. This parameter in normal individuals is better predicted by the 220-age formula."
• Journal of the American College of Cardiology. Thought this one most interessting - gives another formula. The 220 - age is simple, which is in large part why it has become so commonly used.
  
  "OBJECTIVES
  We sought to determine a generalized equation for predicting maximal heart rate (HRmax) in healthy adults.
  
  BACKGROUND
  The age-predicted HRmaxequation (i.e., 220 − age) is commonly used as a basis for prescribing exercise programs, as a criterion for achieving maximal exertion and as a clinical guide during diagnostic exercise testing. Despite its importance and widespread use, the validity of the HRmaxequation has never been established in a sample that included a sufficient number of older adults.
  
  METHODS
  First, a meta-analytic approach was used to collect group mean HRmaxvalues from 351 studies involving 492 groups and 18,712 subjects. Subsequently, the new equation was cross-validated in a well-controlled, laboratory-based study in which HRmaxwas measured in 514 healthy subjects.
  
  RESULTS
  In the meta-analysis, HRmaxwas strongly related to age (r = −0.90), using the equation of 208 − 0.7 × age. The regression equation obtained in the laboratory-based study (209 − 0.7 × age) was virtually identical to that obtained from the meta-analysis. The regression line was not different between men and women, nor was it influenced by wide variations in habitual physical activity levels.
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  1) A regression equation to predict HRmaxis 208 − 0.7 × age in healthy adults. 2) HRmaxis predicted, to a large extent, by age alone and is independent of gender and habitual physical activity status. Our findings suggest that the currently used equation underestimates HRmaxin older adults. This would have the effect of underestimating the true level of physical stress imposed during exercise testing and the appropriate intensity of prescribed exercise programs."
  

[prettyinpink]

No, not by 220- age. I have hit that number briefly doing HIIT.

There are other ways to figure out max heart rate which are supposed to be more accurate. Then you have to account for the inaccuracy of whatever heart rate device you are using.

I routinely get to the 90’s percentile of the 220-age number, and can stay there a while. That has to mean that my max is higher than that, or that my watch isn’t accurate in these ranges. Maybe it’s both things.

[kat999]

Supposedly mine is 173 based on the standard formula and about 175 based on the formula posted above. I almost never hit that nor do I actually want to, really, as it seems slightly scary to me and I have a lot of strain/discomfort when I hit near or above that. I actively check my HR during most workouts and honestly try to keep it below 160 but above the 120s or thereabouts. My resting HR tends to run a little bit higher than the norm, so I feel no need to elevate it beyond a fat-burning zone when working out. Typically the only time I get into the 170s is if I'm running really hard or if I'm lifting extremely heavy in an AWT workout (so quicker high reps, and when I say "heavy," I never go above 10 lbs.). Even then, it's only for like a minute or less, and if I notice it, I always back off.

[bee]

I hit it fairly regularly but maybe it's because I am old? I didn't match the results to workouts, but I mostly do weight workouts that are heavy enough or something like PHA so that my heart gets a workout, too. I do hiit workouts once in a while, but not regularly. I do tend to do Cathe step workouts with blasts on a fairly regular basis.