HR-based training is about as effective as BMI is for tracking your weight. For those of you that are unfamiliar many of your personal trainers, health care providers, and general practitioners will use BMI as a way to track your body weight. Essentially, it is a height/weight proportion equation, and used by itself it’s completely archaic and ridiculous. HR-based training is much the same in this regard–based off of archaic and imperfect data.

Currently, there remains no formula that provides an acceptable accurate prediction for HRmax (Roebergs & Landwehr, 2002). Indeed, there is a correlation to HR in response to exercise. As your exercise intensity increases, so too will HR, and this increase mirrors cardiac output (Roebergs & Landweht, 2002). However, researchers and practitioners need a way to quantify this work and to prescribe accurate ranges so that athletes can continue to improve their cardiovascular systems. Currently, this is very difficult to do without a true ‘to exhaustion’ test. This is where 220-age=HRmax comes in, which was actually preceded by a similar equation, 212-.077(age)=HRmax.

Both of these equations are inadequate in terms of predicting your HRmax. In order to further prove this point, a short history lesson is required. Original data on 225 subjects (115 male, 110 females) was used in either a treadmill or cycle ergometer test (the details are not 100% verifiable) and from these tests an equation was derived, 216.6-.84(age)=HRmax (Roebergs & Landweht, 2002). While this equation shows a strong significant correlation (r=.43) the error is considerable (Sxy=11 b/min) not to mention in this study it was found that average decrease in HRmax for women was 12 beats over 21 years and 19 beats in 33 years. What this all means, that, even the empirically-backed 216.6-.84(age) equation is plagued with so much variance that for the avid exerciser or athlete, it essentially becomes a worthless equation, much like BMI.

Furthermore, it has been found that the 220-age=HRmax equation was “not derived from original research” (Roebergs & Landwehr, 2002). Actually, the 220-HRmax was an equation derived from set of 35 data points, in a small section on intensity as it pertains to physical activity and heart disease. In this review the researcher states no single line will adequately represent the data on the apparent decline of maximal heart rate with age. The formula maximum heart rate=220-age in years defines a line not far from many of the data points (Roegergs & Landwehr, 2002). So essentially what this equates to in statistics is throwing darts at a dartboard.

Roebergs & Landwehr (2002) fit a linear regression to the data found in over 30 studies, over the past 100 years and derived this equation: 208.754-.734(age) (age)=HRmax. Despite this strong positive relationship (r=.93), the error is a massive 7.2 b/min (Roebergs & Landwehr, 2002). So what does this all mean actually? First it means that HRmax prediction is probably not the greatest in terms of identifying your various “zones”. Secondly, it brings to light an equation that isn’t all that empirically backed.

If you are concerned with improving your VO2max, lactate threshold, and all other aerobic and anaerobic numbers then there are other options available. For instance, ratings of perceived exertion (RPEs) have been shown to have a strong correlation to VO2max and lactate thresholds (Fabre et al., 2013; Zamuner et al., 2011). If you are unfamiliar with these RPE’s ask your coach (or if you’re one of our members as us). If your coach doesn’t know what RPE means, find a new coach.

The take home message is consider the implications of taking up a group fitness class, or conditioning program that bases it’s methodology solely on HRmax-based equations. The proof is in the science, which clearly is in desperate need of a closer look.

Reference:

  • Fabre, N., Mourot, L., Zerbini, L., Pellegrini, B., Bortolan, L. & Schena, F. (2011). A novel approach for lactate threshold assessment based on rating of perceived exertion. International Journal of Sports Physiology, 8, 263-270.
  • Roebergs, R. A. & Landwehr, R. (2002). The surprising history of the “hrmax=220-age” equation. Journal of Exercise Physiology, 5(2), 1-10.
  • Zamuner, A. R., Moreno, M. A., Camargo, T. M., Graetz, J. P., Rebelo, A. C. S., Tamburus, N. Y. & de Silva, E. (2011). Assessment of subjective perceived exertion at the anaerobic threshold with the borg cr-10 scale. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine, 10, 130-136.