Summary A max heart rate calculator puts a 30-year-old at about 187 beats per minute using the Tanaka formula, 208 minus 0.7 times age. That is the estimate we recommend, because two other large data sets, Gellish (2007) and Arena (2016), land within about 1 bpm of it at every adult age. The other published formulas give 184 to 192 bpm for a 30-year-old man and 180 to 192 bpm for a woman. No formula is exact for one person: the standard error is about 11 bpm, so 2 in 3 healthy 30-year-olds have a true max between 176 and 198. The familiar 220 minus age reads 9 beats below Tanaka by age 70, and a careful field test with a chest strap is the only way to learn your own number.

Your maximum heart rate is the highest number of beats per minute your heart reaches in an all-out effort. It falls by a little less than one beat a year as you age, training does not raise it, and it anchors every percent-of-max workout and heart rate zone you will ever use. That is why it is worth knowing where each formula came from before you trust one.

This maximum heart rate calculator, or max HR calculator, runs eight published prediction equations on your age and sex, shows the people each one was built on and the error it carries, and names a recommended estimate. If you have recorded a peak in a hard effort, add it and the calculator shows how unusual it is. For the history of the 220 minus age rule, read our research review of max heart rate formulas. If you were looking for a normal heart rate by age at rest, that is a different number, covered in resting heart rate by age.

Every maximum heart rate formula, side by side

Eight equations sit behind nearly every max heart rate calculator online. They disagree because each was fitted to different people tested in different ways. This table shows who each one describes, the error its authors reported, and how it did in an independent check.

Formula Equation Who it was built on Reported error Independent check*
Tanaka 2001 208 − 0.7 × age Meta-analysis of 351 studies and 18,712 people, then a lab test of 514 healthy adults Not given for individuals Read 0.39 bpm low on average; typical error 10.74 bpm
Gellish 2007 207 − 0.7 × age 132 adults of mixed age and fitness, 908 maximal tests in all between 1978 and 2003 Not given in the abstract Runs exactly 1 bpm below Tanaka at every age
Arena 2016 209.3 − 0.72 × age 4,796 apparently healthy adults (63% men) on a treadmill, all with verified maximal effort Standard error 11.35 bpm Read 0.14 bpm high on average; typical error 10.75 bpm
Nes 2013 211 − 0.64 × age 3,320 healthy Norwegian men and women in the HUNT Fitness Study, verified maximal effort Standard error 10.8 bpm Read 4.9 bpm high on average; typical error 11.76 bpm
Sydó 2014 Men 220 − 0.95 × age; women 210 − 0.79 × age 19,013 Mayo Clinic patients on a treadmill test, ages 40 to 89, without heart disease, heart-rate drugs, smoking, diabetes or obesity Not given in the abstract Not tested
Fairbarn 1994 Men 208 − 0.8 × age; women 201 − 0.63 × age** 231 healthy adults aged 20 to 80, spread evenly by decade, on a cycle ergometer Not given in the abstract Men: read 4.8 bpm low. Women: 3.2 bpm low, not a significant difference
Fox 1971 220 − age No study of its own: a line drawn by eye through about 35 data points in a review A fitted line through the same points had an error of 21 bpm Read 0.15 bpm high on average; typical error 11.65 bpm
Gulati 2010 Women 206 − 0.88 × age 5,437 women without symptoms, average age 52, on a symptom-limited stress test Not given in the abstract Read 8.2 bpm low in fit women; typical error 14.77 bpm

*The independent check is Shookster et al. (2020) in the International Journal of Exercise Science. They ran treadmill tests to exhaustion on 99 fairly fit adults aged 17 to 67, 67 men and 32 women, and kept only tests with a verified maximal effort. "Read low" means a formula gave a smaller number than people actually reached. Their table lists Gellish with almost the same average as Tanaka, which does not fit a line that sits 1 bpm lower, so we leave that cell out.

**A note on Fairbarn. The 1994 paper in Chest tested 231 adults on a cycle ergometer, but its abstract does not print the equations and we could not open the full text. The coefficients above are the ones Shookster et al. listed when they tested it. Robergs and Landwehr (2002) credit the same women's line, 201 minus 0.63 times age, to an earlier cycle study of 60 women, so treat this row as the least certain of the eight.

Three runners of different ages, a young woman, a middle-aged man and a grey-haired older woman, jogging together up a forest trail in dappled light, showing how maximum heart rate differs with age
Three runners on the same trail have three different heart rate ceilings. Age explains about a third of the difference in max heart rate between people, so formulas give a starting estimate rather than an exact number.

Which formula this calculator recommends, and why

The headline number is the Tanaka et al. (2001) equation in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology. Tanaka, Monahan and Seals pooled 351 studies covering 492 groups and 18,712 people, fitted 208 minus 0.7 times age, then tested 514 healthy adults in their own lab and got 209 minus 0.7 times age, almost the same line. The line did not differ between men and women and did not shift with habitual activity.

Size alone would not settle it. What does is agreement. Gellish et al. (2007) followed 132 people through 908 maximal exercise tests over 25 years in Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise and found 207 minus 0.7 times age. Arena et al. (2016) took 4,796 treadmill tests from the FRIEND registry, kept only people whose breathing data confirmed a maximal effort, and found 209.3 minus 0.72 times age, which stays within 1 bpm of Tanaka from age 20 to 80. Three groups using different methods arrived at nearly the same line, and in the Shookster test Tanaka missed by less than half a beat on average.

Why not 220 minus age? It was never fitted to data. Robergs and Landwehr traced it to a 1971 review by Fox, Naughton and Haskell, where the authors noted that a line of 220 minus age passed "not far from many of the data points." When Robergs and Landwehr fitted a regression to those same points, it came out as 215.4 minus 0.91 times age with an error of 21 bpm. Because 220 minus age falls a full beat per year, it sits 6 bpm above Tanaka at 20, crosses it at 40, and reads 6 below at 60, 9 below at 70 and 12 below at 80. To be fair to it, Shookster et al. found no proportional bias for 220 minus age and called it a possible best option for the general population, but their sample was mostly 26 to 51 years old, the ages where the two formulas differ by 4 bpm or less.

For women, the evidence pulls two ways. Tanaka and the HUNT study found no difference between the sexes. Gulati et al. (2010) in Circulation tested 5,437 women without symptoms, average age 52, and found 206 minus 0.88 times age, and women whose peak fell 1 standard deviation or more below that line had higher mortality over 16 years. Sydó et al. (2014) in Mayo Clinic Proceedings found that women's peak heart rate starts lower and falls more slowly with age: 210 minus 0.79 times age, against 220 minus 0.95 times age for men. Both came from clinical stress testing, and in Shookster's 32 fit women the Gulati line read 8 bpm low. So the calculator keeps Tanaka as the headline for women and shows both women's formulas beside it as the lower end of the likely range.

Nes et al. (2013) is the high end. The HUNT Fitness Study measured 3,320 healthy Norwegians, verified that each one reached a true maximum, and found 211 minus 0.64 times age with no interaction by sex, activity level, VO2 max or body mass index. Older adults in HUNT reached higher peaks than earlier formulas predicted, so Nes runs 6 bpm above Tanaka at 50 and 8 above at 80. In Shookster's fit, mostly middle-aged sample it read 5 bpm high. If you are over 50 and a hard effort takes you past the Tanaka number, the Nes line suggests that is common rather than strange.

Max heart rate chart by age

The chart below gives the five general formulas from age 20 to 80, rounded to whole beats. The likely range is the Tanaka estimate plus or minus 11 bpm, the band that holds about 2 in 3 healthy adults.

Age Tanaka (recommended) Likely range 220 − age Gellish Arena Nes
20194 bpm183–205200193195198
25191 bpm180–202195190191195
30187 bpm176–198190186188192
35184 bpm173–195185183184189
40180 bpm169–191180179181185
45177 bpm166–188175176177182
50173 bpm162–184170172173179
55170 bpm159–181165169170176
60166 bpm155–177160165166173
65163 bpm152–174155162163169
70159 bpm148–170150158159166
75156 bpm145–167145155155163
80152 bpm141–163140151152160

Read across any row and the pattern is the same. Tanaka, Gellish and Arena sit within 2 bpm of each other at every age. Nes runs higher, by 4 bpm at 20 and 8 bpm at 80. The 220 minus age column starts above the rest and ends well below them.

Max heart rate by age for men and women

Three formulas give men and women separate lines. The Sydó values under 40 extend a line that was fitted on ages 40 to 89, so read them as a guide only. The Fairbarn coefficients carry the caveat noted above.

Age Men: Sydó Men: Fairbarn Women: Gulati Women: Sydó Women: Fairbarn
20201192188194188
30192184180186182
40182176171178176
50173168162171170
60163160153163163
70154152144155157
80144144136147151

Gulati gives the lowest values in the table, 6 to 16 bpm under Tanaka at the same age. The two women's lines from Sydó and Fairbarn fall more slowly with age than the men's lines, so by 70 they sit above the men's values from the same studies.

How far off any age formula can be

The fitted formulas that report an error carry a standard error of about 11 bpm: 10.8 in the HUNT study and 11.35 in Arena's 4,796 treadmill tests, and Tanaka showed a typical error of 10.7 in Shookster's independent sample. In practical terms, about 2 in 3 healthy adults have a true maximum within 11 beats of the estimate, and about 1 in 20 sit more than 21 beats away. Shookster's 95 percent limits for Tanaka ran from 20.8 bpm below to 21.5 above. For a 50-year-old with a Tanaka estimate of 173, that is a plausible true max anywhere from about 152 to 194.

The spread is this wide because age explains only part of the difference between people. In Arena's data the correlation between age and max heart rate was 0.61, which means age accounted for about 37 percent of the variation. Reviewing two decades of research, Robergs and Landwehr put the error of age-based estimates at 7 to 11 bpm and concluded that no current method estimates an individual's max with acceptable accuracy.

That error flows straight into training. Say your estimate is 173 but your real max is 184, 11 beats higher. A session you run at 80 percent of the estimate, 138 bpm, is really about 75 percent of your max. If your real max sits 11 beats lower, the same 138 bpm is 85 percent. A formula is a fine place to start, and a measured peak is worth having if you train by heart rate.

Max heart rate worked examples

Seven people run through the calculator. The middle column is what it shows as the headline, and the last column is what it tells them.

Person Recorded peak Headline result Formula spread What the calculator says
Man, 30 None 187 bpm (likely 176–198) 184–192 Tanaka estimate; the seven formulas for men agree within 8 beats
Woman, 30 None 187 bpm (likely 176–198) 180–192 Same headline; Gulati at 180 is the low end of the spread
Man, 24 178 bpm 191 bpm 189–197 13 below the estimate; the effort was probably not all out
Woman, 44 205 bpm on a wrist watch At least 205 bpm 167–183 28 above the estimate, further than about 19 in 20 adults; check it on a chest strap
Man, 50 182 bpm on a chest strap At least 182 bpm 168–179 9 above the estimate, inside the band where 2 in 3 adults land; train from at least 182
Woman, 60 None 166 bpm (likely 155–177) 153–173 The formulas spread 20 beats apart at this age, Gulati lowest and Nes highest
Man, 70 None 159 bpm (likely 148–170) 150–166 220 minus age gives 150, 9 below Tanaka

The fourth and fifth rows show why the recorded peak matters. A real reading you reached is a floor for your maximum, because nobody exceeds their own max. A reading far above every formula is more often a sensor error than a rare heart, which is why the calculator asks where it came from before you train by it.

A heart rate target only helps if you train with it every week.

FitCraft builds cardio, strength and mobility workouts around your goal, adjusts them as you progress, and keeps you coming back with streaks and leaderboards. Take the free 2-minute quiz to get your plan.

Take the Free Assessment Free • 2 minutes • Personalized to you
Man running hard up a steep wooded hill with a heart rate chest strap around his chest, the kind of all-out effort a max heart rate field test asks for
A max heart rate test ends in an all-out effort, and running uphill usually draws a higher peak than cycling. Only people who already exercise regularly and have no warning symptoms should try one.

How to measure your max heart rate safely

A lab measures maximum heart rate with a graded test to exhaustion, usually on a treadmill, while checking breathing gases to confirm the effort was truly maximal. You can approximate that outdoors. What follows is a field version of the lab test, not a protocol any study has validated, so read the safety list first.

Who should not do an all-out test

A field protocol you can run on a hill

  1. Wear a chest strap. In Gillinov et al. (2017), a chest strap matched an ECG almost exactly (agreement 0.996), while wrist monitors ranged from 0.67 to 0.92.
  2. Bring a partner and pick a safe route. A steady hill or a quiet flat path where you can stop at any moment.
  3. Warm up for 10 to 15 minutes at an easy pace, with three or four short, brisk pickups near the end.
  4. Build the pace in steps. Speed up every 1 to 2 minutes so that you reach exhaustion in roughly 8 to 12 minutes. Buchfuhrer et al. (1983) found that tests bringing people to exhaustion in 8 to 17 minutes drew a higher aerobic capacity, and suggested aiming for about 10.
  5. Finish with 1 to 2 minutes as hard as you can go, uphill if you have one, and stop the moment you cannot hold the pace.
  6. Cool down for 10 minutes by walking or jogging easily, then read the highest number from the strap's recording rather than mid-effort.
  7. Stop at once if you feel chest pain or pressure, dizziness, unusual breathlessness or a pounding, irregular heartbeat, and get those symptoms checked.

The peak you record is a floor: if your legs or motivation gave out first, your true max sits a little higher. Testing on rested legs helps, since a hard training block can pull the number down slightly.

Running or cycling?

Test in the activity you train in. Buchfuhrer's 12 men reached a slightly but significantly higher maximum heart rate on a treadmill than on a cycle ergometer, and Robergs and Landwehr point out that max heart rate is specific to the type of exercise. A cyclist who uses a running max will set every target a little too high on the bike.

Which sensor to trust

Wrist monitors read steady treadmill running reasonably well, but Gillinov found accuracy fell on the bike and on the elliptical, and the authors advise a chest strap whenever an accurate reading matters. A max test is that case. If you are choosing a wearable for everyday training, our WHOOP, Oura, Apple Watch and Garmin comparison covers how close each one's readings come to a chest strap.

Overhead view of a black heart rate chest strap, trail running shoes, a sage green water bottle and a folded towel on a wooden bench beside a forest trail
A chest strap matched an ECG almost exactly in a 2017 test against five optical monitors, which makes it the sensor to use when you want a true peak.

Does getting fitter change your max heart rate?

Not in the way most people expect. Tanaka et al. found that habitual activity did not shift the line between age and max heart rate, and the HUNT study found no interaction with activity level or VO2 max. A review by Zavorsky (2000) in Sports Medicine went further: across the studies he pooled, max heart rate tended to fall as VO2 max rose with endurance training, by an estimated 3 to 7 percent, and to rise again with detraining or a taper.

So a fitter heart does not beat faster at the top. It pumps more blood per beat, which shows up as more pace or power at the same heart rate and a quicker drop once you stop; our review of heart rate recovery research covers that second measure. If you come back from months off, or finish a long block of endurance training, your max may have moved a few beats, and a fresh test is worth it.

Is it safe to train at 90 to 95 percent of max?

For healthy adults who already train, yes, in short and well-recovered doses. In a study by Helgerud et al. (2007), 40 moderately trained men ran 4 intervals of 4 minutes at 90 to 95 percent of max with 3 minutes of easy running between them, three days a week for 8 weeks. That raised VO2 max more than the same total work done at 70 or 85 percent of max.

Risk depends on who is exercising. The American Heart Association statement notes that vigorous exercise briefly raises the risk of a cardiac event in susceptible people, mostly those with underlying heart disease. Even then the absolute numbers are small: across 4,846 heart patients in Norwegian cardiac rehabilitation, Rognmo et al. (2012) recorded 1 cardiac arrest per 23,182 hours of supervised high-intensity intervals and 1 per 129,456 hours of moderate exercise. Build up to hard intervals over weeks, and treat any warning sign as a reason to stop and get checked.

When to ignore this calculator

Age formulas describe healthy adults. In these situations the estimate can mislead you, and your own clinician is the better guide.

Related reading

References

  1. Tanaka H, Monahan KD, Seals DR. "Age-predicted maximal heart rate revisited." J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001;37(1):153-156. doi:10.1016/S0735-1097(00)01054-8
  2. Gellish RL, Goslin BR, Olson RE, McDonald A, Russi GD, Moudgil VK. "Longitudinal modeling of the relationship between age and maximal heart rate." Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2007;39(5):822-829. doi:10.1097/mss.0b013e31803349c6
  3. Arena R, Myers J, Kaminsky LA. "Revisiting age-predicted maximal heart rate: Can it be used as a valid measure of effort?" Am Heart J. 2016;173:49-56. doi:10.1016/j.ahj.2015.12.006, PMC4919019
  4. Nes BM, Janszky I, Wisløff U, Støylen A, Karlsen T. "Age-predicted maximal heart rate in healthy subjects: The HUNT Fitness Study." Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2013;23(6):697-704. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0838.2012.01445.x
  5. Fox SM 3rd, Naughton JP, Haskell WL. "Physical activity and the prevention of coronary heart disease." Ann Clin Res. 1971;3(6):404-432. PMID:4945367
  6. Robergs RA, Landwehr R. "The surprising history of the HRmax=220-age equation." J Exerc Physiol Online. 2002;5(2):1-10. Journal PDF (ASEP)
  7. Gulati M, Shaw LJ, Thisted RA, Black HR, Bairey Merz CN, Arnsdorf MF. "Heart rate response to exercise stress testing in asymptomatic women: the St. James Women Take Heart Project." Circulation. 2010;122(2):130-137. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.110.939249
  8. Sydó N, Abdelmoneim SS, Mulvagh SL, Merkely B, Gulati M, Allison TG. "Relationship between exercise heart rate and age in men vs women." Mayo Clin Proc. 2014;89(12):1664-1672. doi:10.1016/j.mayocp.2014.08.018
  9. Fairbarn MS, Blackie SP, McElvaney NG, Wiggs BR, Paré PD, Pardy RL. "Prediction of heart rate and oxygen uptake during incremental and maximal exercise in healthy adults." Chest. 1994;105(5):1365-1369. doi:10.1378/chest.105.5.1365
  10. Shookster D, Lindsey B, Cortes N, Martin JR. "Accuracy of commonly used age-predicted maximal heart rate equations." Int J Exerc Sci. 2020;13(7):1242-1250. PMC7523886
  11. Gillinov S, Etiwy M, Wang R, et al. "Variable accuracy of wearable heart rate monitors during aerobic exercise." Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2017;49(8):1697-1703. doi:10.1249/MSS.0000000000001284
  12. Buchfuhrer MJ, Hansen JE, Robinson TE, Sue DY, Wasserman K, Whipp BJ. "Optimizing the exercise protocol for cardiopulmonary assessment." J Appl Physiol. 1983;55(5):1558-1564. doi:10.1152/jappl.1983.55.5.1558
  13. Zavorsky GS. "Evidence and possible mechanisms of altered maximum heart rate with endurance training and tapering." Sports Med. 2000;29(1):13-26. doi:10.2165/00007256-200029010-00002
  14. Helgerud J, Høydal K, Wang E, et al. "Aerobic high-intensity intervals improve VO2max more than moderate training." Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2007;39(4):665-671. doi:10.1249/mss.0b013e3180304570
  15. Rognmo Ø, Moholdt T, Bakken H, et al. "Cardiovascular risk of high- versus moderate-intensity aerobic exercise in coronary heart disease patients." Circulation. 2012;126(12):1436-1440. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.112.123117
  16. Thompson PD, Franklin BA, Balady GJ, et al. "Exercise and acute cardiovascular events: placing the risks into perspective." Circulation. 2007;115(17):2358-2368. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.181485
  17. Riebe D, Franklin BA, Thompson PD, et al. "Updating ACSM's recommendations for exercise preparticipation health screening." Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2015;47(11):2473-2479. doi:10.1249/MSS.0000000000000664
  18. Brawner CA, Ehrman JK, Schairer JR, Cao JJ, Keteyian SJ. "Predicting maximum heart rate among patients with coronary heart disease receiving beta-adrenergic blockade therapy." Am Heart J. 2004;148(5):910-914. doi:10.1016/j.ahj.2004.04.035

How this calculator differs from typical max heart rate calculators

Most max heart rate calculators online return one number from 220 minus age, sometimes with a second formula beside it, and say nothing about who the formula was built on or how far off it runs for one person. That single number looks precise, while the research behind it shows the most-used formula was never fitted to data and every fitted one carries a standard error of about 11 beats per minute.

This calculator runs eight published formulas at once and shows the sample behind each, from the 18,712 people pooled by Tanaka to the 5,437 women in Gulati's stress-test cohort. It names one recommended estimate and gives the reason, prints a likely range built from the reported standard errors, and labels the sex-specific lines so men and women see the ones meant for them. Where we could not check a coefficient against the original paper, the page says so. An optional recorded peak is placed against the expected spread, and every input is checked against realistic adult values before a number appears.

Frequently Asked Questions

How do I calculate my maximum heart rate?

Use 208 minus 0.7 times your age, the Tanaka formula. At 30 that gives 187 beats per minute, at 50 it gives 173 and at 70 it gives 159. Enter your age in the calculator above and it runs seven other published formulas beside it, so you can see how closely they agree for someone your age and sex. Every formula carries a standard error of about 11 bpm, so the only way to know your own number is a hard effort measured with a chest strap, and only if you are healthy and already exercise regularly.

Is 220 minus age accurate?

It lands close for people around 40 and drifts away from the data at both ends of adult life. Fox and colleagues drew the line by eye in 1971 without running a regression, and when Robergs and Landwehr (2002) fitted a line to the same points, its error was 21 bpm. Because 220 minus age drops a full beat per year while large data sets show about 0.6 to 0.7, it reads 6 bpm above Tanaka at 20, 6 below at 60 and 12 below at 80. It is a fair rough guess in midlife and a poor one after 60.

What is a good maximum heart rate for age?

There is no good or bad maximum heart rate. It is a ceiling that falls with age and varies a lot between people of the same age, and it is not a fitness score. The typical value by the Tanaka formula is about 194 bpm at 20, 187 at 30, 180 at 40, 173 at 50, 166 at 60 and 159 at 70. About 2 in 3 healthy adults sit within 11 beats of those numbers and about 19 in 20 within 21 beats, so a healthy 50-year-old could have a true max anywhere from about 152 to 194.

Is your max heart rate higher if you are fitter?

No. Tanaka et al. (2001) found that habitual activity did not change the relationship between age and max heart rate, and the HUNT Fitness Study found no interaction with activity level or VO2 max. If anything, endurance training lowers it slightly: a review by Zavorsky (2000) estimated that max heart rate can fall by 3 to 7 percent with training and rise again with detraining or a taper. Fitness shows up as more speed or power at the same heart rate and a faster recovery afterward, not a higher ceiling.

Is it normal to have a 200 heart rate while working out?

It depends on your age. At 20 the Tanaka estimate is 194, so 200 is ordinary. At 30 the estimate is 187, and 200 sits 13 beats above it, inside the range that holds about 19 in 20 adults. At 50 the estimate is 173, and 200 is 27 beats above it, further out than about 19 in 20 adults and worth checking with a chest strap, because wrist sensors misread hard efforts more often. A rate that jumps suddenly, stays high after you stop, or comes with dizziness, chest pain or fainting needs a doctor's check at any age.

Is it unsafe to run at 95% of max heart rate?

For a healthy adult who already trains, short bouts at 90 to 95 percent of max are standard interval work. In a study by Helgerud et al. (2007), 4-minute intervals at 90 to 95 percent of max with 3-minute recoveries raised VO2 max more than steady running at 70 or 85 percent. The risk is higher for people with heart disease or who are not used to hard exercise: an American Heart Association statement notes that vigorous effort briefly raises cardiac risk in susceptible people, most of all in the least active. Build up over weeks, and get cleared first if you have symptoms or a heart condition.

Is there a separate max heart rate formula for women?

Yes, two. Gulati et al. (2010) studied 5,437 women on a stress test and found 206 minus 0.88 times age, and a Mayo Clinic analysis by Sydó et al. (2014) found 210 minus 0.79 times age for women aged 40 to 89. Both run below Tanaka at nearly every adult age. Both came from clinical testing, and in an independent test of 32 fit women the Gulati formula read 8 bpm low on average. This calculator keeps Tanaka as the headline for women, because large healthy samples found no difference between the sexes, and shows both women's formulas beside it.