Back to Kriterion
← Reference library

The Problem With 220 Minus Your Age

Training1 min readTanaka et al. (2001)

The best known formula in fitness is also one of the least accurate. "220 minus age" was never derived from a proper study. It emerged from a rough fit to scattered data in the 1970s and stuck because it's easy to remember. Tanaka and colleagues revisited it against a meta-analysis of more than 18,000 people and found maximum heart rate actually declines by about 0.7 beats per year rather than a full beat, giving 208 minus 0.7 times age. The difference is small in your twenties and substantial later: around 6 beats at 60 and 9 at 70, easily enough to shift which training zone a given heart rate falls into.

Gulati's later work found women decline differently again. Worth knowing regardless of formula: any estimate based on age carries roughly ±10 beats of individual variation, so treat zones as guidance rather than precision instrumentation.

How Kriterion uses this

Kriterion's HIIT timer works your heart-rate zones out from a better estimate than that one, and shows you the actual BPM window rather than a percentage to do in your head.

References

  1. Tanaka H, Monahan KD, Seals DR. Age-predicted maximal heart rate revisited. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 2001.
  2. Gulati M, Shaw LJ, Thisted RA, Black HR, Bairey Merz CN, Arnsdorf MF. Heart rate response to exercise stress testing in asymptomatic women. Circulation, 2010.
  3. Karvonen MJ, Kentala E, Mustala O. The effects of training on heart rate: a longitudinal study. Annales Medicinae Experimentalis et Biologiae Fenniae, 1957.

Kriterion is the app this reasoning is built into

It measures your maintenance calories from what you actually ate against what the scale actually did, tells you how firmly the number is pinned down, and checks its own past predictions against your results. Free logging, UK food data, and no ads.