220 Minus Age: Quick Lookup Table (Every Age)
Find your estimated max heart rate for any age using 220 − age. For what these numbers mean and how accurate they are, keep reading below.
| Age | 220 Minus Age Max HR |
|---|---|
| 10 | 210 bpm |
| 11 | 209 bpm |
| 12 | 208 bpm |
| 13 | 207 bpm |
| 14 | 206 bpm |
| 15 | 205 bpm |
| 16 | 204 bpm |
| 17 | 203 bpm |
| 18 | 202 bpm |
| 19 | 201 bpm |
| 20 | 200 bpm |
| 21 | 199 bpm |
| 22 | 198 bpm |
| 23 | 197 bpm |
| 24 | 196 bpm |
| 25 | 195 bpm |
| 26 | 194 bpm |
| 27 | 193 bpm |
| 28 | 192 bpm |
| 29 | 191 bpm |
| 30 | 190 bpm |
| 31 | 189 bpm |
| 32 | 188 bpm |
| 33 | 187 bpm |
| 34 | 186 bpm |
| 35 | 185 bpm |
| 36 | 184 bpm |
| 37 | 183 bpm |
| 38 | 182 bpm |
| 39 | 181 bpm |
| 40 | 180 bpm |
| 41 | 179 bpm |
| 42 | 178 bpm |
| 43 | 177 bpm |
| 44 | 176 bpm |
| 45 | 175 bpm |
| 46 | 174 bpm |
| 47 | 173 bpm |
| 48 | 172 bpm |
| 49 | 171 bpm |
| 50 | 170 bpm |
| 51 | 169 bpm |
| 52 | 168 bpm |
| 53 | 167 bpm |
| 54 | 166 bpm |
| 55 | 165 bpm |
| 56 | 164 bpm |
| 57 | 163 bpm |
| 58 | 162 bpm |
| 59 | 161 bpm |
| 60 | 160 bpm |
| 61 | 159 bpm |
| 62 | 158 bpm |
| 63 | 157 bpm |
| 64 | 156 bpm |
| 65 | 155 bpm |
| 66 | 154 bpm |
| 67 | 153 bpm |
| 68 | 152 bpm |
| 69 | 151 bpm |
| 70 | 150 bpm |
| 71 | 149 bpm |
| 72 | 148 bpm |
| 73 | 147 bpm |
| 74 | 146 bpm |
| 75 | 145 bpm |
| 76 | 144 bpm |
| 77 | 143 bpm |
| 78 | 142 bpm |
| 79 | 141 bpm |
| 80 | 140 bpm |
| 81 | 139 bpm |
| 82 | 138 bpm |
| 83 | 137 bpm |
| 84 | 136 bpm |
| 85 | 135 bpm |
| 86 | 134 bpm |
| 87 | 133 bpm |
| 88 | 132 bpm |
| 89 | 131 bpm |
| 90 | 130 bpm |
| 91 | 129 bpm |
| 92 | 128 bpm |
| 93 | 127 bpm |
| 94 | 126 bpm |
| 95 | 125 bpm |
| 96 | 124 bpm |
| 97 | 123 bpm |
| 98 | 122 bpm |
| 99 | 121 bpm |
| 100 | 120 bpm |
Figures use 220 − age, rounded to the nearest bpm. Individual max heart rate varies by roughly ±10–12 bpm at any given age, more on that below.
What Is the 220 Minus Age Formula?
The 220-minus-age formula estimates your maximum heart rate, the highest number of beats per minute your heart can reach during all-out physical effort. The formula is exactly what it sounds like:
A 30-year-old's estimated MHR is 190. A 50-year-old's is 170. A 65-year-old's is 155. It's on every treadmill display, gym chart, and fitness app. If you've ever been told to stay in a "zone" during exercise and seen a heart rate number next to it, this formula likely produced that number.
The appeal is obvious: it requires no equipment, no testing, and no expertise. Subtract once and you have an anchor for every zone calculation on the planet.
Where the Formula Came From
In 1970, Dr. William Haskell and Dr. Samuel Fox co-authored a review paper on exercise testing standards that included the formula. Its origin is less rigorous than its ubiquity suggests: as Haskell later explained in a 2001 interview, the number wasn't the result of a controlled study, it was a rough approximation assembled from data points across various sources, some of which weren't even studying maximum heart rate directly.
"It was never meant to be an absolute guide to rule people's training," Haskell said. The formula was a working approximation that got picked up, reproduced in textbooks, and eventually embedded in consumer fitness technology worldwide, far beyond what the original authors intended.
Subsequent research has produced better-fitting formulas. But the original stuck because it's simple, and simple gets repeated.
How Accurate Is 220 Minus Age?
The formula has a standard deviation of approximately ±10–12 bpm when checked against directly measured MHR values. That's the recurring finding across several large meta-analyses spanning diverse populations.
Here's what that means practically for a 45-year-old (estimated MHR: 175 bpm):
If this sounds like your Garmin, Whoop, or Apple Watch, see exactly how each device calculates zones and how to fix it.
- Formula estimate: 175 bpm
- 68% of people: 163–187 bpm (±12 bpm)
- 95% of people: 151–199 bpm (±24 bpm)
At the extremes, someone with a true MHR of 199 who's been calculating zones based on 175 has been training in zones that are 20+ bpm too low. Their "Zone 4 threshold" effort is Zone 2. This isn't academic: it explains why many people find heart rate zone training produces underwhelming results when using formula-derived targets without adjustment.
When the Formula Breaks Down Most
The ±10–12 bpm average hides some much bigger gaps. These 4 groups feel it the most:
Older adults: The 220-minus-age formula reliably underestimates MHR in people over 50–55. Most newer formulas (Tanaka, Gellish) use a smaller age coefficient (0.7 rather than 1.0), which produces higher MHR estimates at older ages, estimates that better match measured values in this population. For what that means for training zones after 60, see our guide to target heart rate for seniors.
Well-trained athletes: Training status barely changes max heart rate. Tanaka's meta-analysis found the same age curve in sedentary, active, and endurance-trained adults, and a review of training studies found endurance training can lower max heart rate slightly. An athlete whose max sits well above or below the estimate is showing individual variation, not fitness. Athletes also tend to train with precise zones, so a measured max matters more for them than for most people.
Women: Research by Gulati et al. (2010) studied more than 5,000 women and found that the standard formula overestimates MHR for women at every age, by about 10 bpm at age 30 and about 6 bpm at age 70. The researchers proposed a sex-specific formula (206 − 0.88 × age) as more accurate for female populations. Use the Gulati formula calculator to get a women-specific estimate and training zones.
People on beta-blockers: These medications directly lower maximum heart rate. Formula-derived zones are meaningless for people on beta-blockers. Perceived exertion or clinical guidance should guide training intensity instead. See our guide to heart rate zones on beta-blockers for how to train without a reliable max heart rate number.
Better Formulas for MHR Estimation
Several newer formulas outperform 220-minus-age in research:
| Formula | Equation | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| 220 − Age | 220 − age | Approximation, 1970 |
| Tanaka (2001) | 208 − (0.7 × age) | Meta-analysis, 18,712 subjects |
| Gellish (2007) | 207 − (0.7 × age) | Treadmill testing, broad age range |
| Oakland Nonlinear (Gellish 2007) | 191.5 − (0.007 × age²) | Same study, quadratic fit, decline accelerates with age |
| Gulati (women) | 206 − (0.88 × age) | Women-specific population study |
The Tanaka formula is the most rigorously derived and most commonly cited alternative. It crosses 220-minus-age at age 40. Below that age, 220-minus-age gives the higher number (by 6 bpm at age 20). Above it, Tanaka gives the higher number, by 9 bpm at age 70. Neither removes individual variation. For how to choose between them, see the max heart rate calculator comparison, or look up your age in the max heart rate by age chart.
Why Karvonen Beats Any MHR Formula for Training Zones
Here's the key insight: even if you had a perfect MHR estimate, using raw percentages of that MHR to set zones ignores another major source of individual variation, your resting heart rate.
Consider 2 people, both age 40, with identical estimated MHRs of 180 bpm. One has a resting heart rate of 48 (trained cyclist), the other has 78 (sedentary office worker). Their cardiovascular fitness levels are completely different, but raw MHR percentage gives them identical zones: Zone 2 = 108–126 bpm for both.
The Karvonen formula fixes this by calculating zones from heart rate reserve, the gap between resting and maximum HR. For the trained cyclist (HRR = 132), Zone 2 using Karvonen is 127–140 bpm. For the sedentary person (HRR = 102), it's 139–149 bpm, higher in absolute terms. The reason: Karvonen anchors zones to resting heart rate, and the sedentary person's resting heart rate runs 30 bpm above the cyclist's. The cyclist reaches true Zone 2 effort at a lower heart rate because a bigger HRR gives more room above resting to work with. Same relative effort, different absolute numbers, which is exactly what raw MHR% misses.
When 220 Minus Age Is Good Enough
For general health and wellness exercise, not serious training, the formula is good enough. Staying somewhere in the moderate aerobic range is what matters, and 220-minus-age zones get you close enough: if you're walking for general fitness or doing casual gym workouts, the formula's imprecision is unlikely to undermine your goals. It earns the criticism it gets, but it has its place.
It's also a useful starting point before you have better data. If you don't know your resting heart rate or haven't tested your MHR, 220-minus-age gets you into the right ballpark, and you can refine as you gather more information about your own physiology.
Where it breaks down is when people use it as a hard limit ("I shouldn't go above X bpm") or when they're training seriously for performance goals and zone accuracy matters. In those cases, measuring your resting heart rate and using the Karvonen formula, or better yet, directly testing your MHR, will produce meaningfully better training outcomes.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who invented the 220 minus age formula?
The formula is most commonly attributed to Dr. William Haskell and Dr. Samuel Fox, who published it in 1970 as part of a review on exercise testing standards. Haskell himself later stated the formula was never derived from a specific study: it was a rough approximation based on observations from numerous data points compiled by Fox. It was never intended to be used as a definitive, universal standard for training zones.
How accurate is the 220 minus age formula?
The formula has a standard deviation of approximately ±10–12 bpm. This means about 68% of people have an actual MHR within 10–12 beats of the estimate, and about 32% fall outside that range, sometimes significantly so. A 45-year-old with an estimated MHR of 175 could realistically have a true MHR anywhere from 153 to 197 bpm. For training zone calculations, this level of imprecision is meaningful.
Does the 220 minus age formula work differently for women?
Yes. Research on more than 5,000 women found that the 220-minus-age formula overestimates maximum heart rate for women, by about 10 bpm at age 30 and about 6 bpm at age 70. A formula specifically derived for women (206 − 0.88 × age, from Gulati et al., 2010) has been proposed as more accurate for female populations. That said, individual variation within any gender group remains substantial, and the only definitive answer comes from direct measurement.
What is a better alternative to the 220 minus age formula?
The Tanaka formula (208 − 0.7 × age) and Gellish formula (207 − 0.7 × age) both outperform 220-minus-age in research, particularly for older adults. For training zone purposes, the Karvonen formula (which uses heart rate reserve rather than raw MHR percentage) produces more physiologically accurate zones regardless of which MHR estimate you use, because it also incorporates your resting heart rate.
What happens if my actual max heart rate is higher than 220 minus my age?
This is common and completely normal. About 1 in 6 people have a true MHR more than 12 bpm above their formula estimate. If you're regularly hitting heart rates higher than your formula-derived max without distress or symptoms, your actual MHR is higher than average for your age. Using a fitness wearable's peak HR reading from a hard race or intense workout as your personal MHR gives a better zone calculation than the formula would.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Please consult a physician or certified fitness professional before performing maximal exercise tests or starting a new training program.