Max Heart Rate Calculator
Calculate your maximum heart rate and your five training zones from your age. The headline value uses the Tanaka formula, the best-validated replacement for the old 220 minus age rule, and the result compares all four published formulas. Add your resting heart rate to also get personalized Karvonen zones.
How Max Heart Rate Is Calculated
Maximum heart rate is the highest number of beats per minute your heart reaches during an all-out effort. It declines steadily with age, and that decline is regular enough that a formula can estimate it. The four formulas in this calculator come from published research, and they disagree just enough that the choice matters.
Tanaka: 208 minus (0.7 x age)
The headline value here. Tanaka and colleagues combined data from 351 studies covering 18,712 subjects, then cross-validated the result against direct lab measurements in 514 people (Tanaka et al., 2001). Their conclusion: the traditional 220 minus age rule overestimates max heart rate in younger adults and underestimates it in older adults, and 208 - (0.7 x age) fits the real decline better across the whole age range.
HUNT study: 211 minus (0.64 x age)
The largest single dataset of directly measured max heart rates: 3,320 healthy adults ran a maximal exercise test in the Norwegian HUNT Fitness Study (Nes et al., 2013). The resulting formula runs slightly higher than Tanaka, and the study also quantified the individual spread: about 11 bpm standard error, meaning real max heart rates commonly land 10 bpm above or below any formula's estimate.
Gellish: 206.9 minus (0.67 x age)
Most formulas come from comparing different people at different ages. Gellish and colleagues instead tracked the same 132 adults for up to 25 years of repeated maximal tests (Gellish et al., 2007), confirming that an individual's max heart rate falls along nearly the same line as the population's. Its estimates sit within a beat or two of Tanaka's for most ages.
Fox: 220 minus age
The formula everyone knows, proposed in 1971 as a rough approximation for cardiac rehabilitation work (Fox et al., 1971). It was never meant as a precise standard, and later research confirmed its bias at both ends of the age range. It survives because it is easy to compute in your head, not because it is accurate.
Max Heart Rate by Age
The two best-known formulas, side by side. Note how they agree at 40 and drift apart in both directions: Fox runs high for younger people and low for older people, which is exactly the bias the Tanaka data documented.
| Age | Tanaka (208 - 0.7 x age) | Fox (220 - age) |
|---|---|---|
| 20 | 194 bpm | 200 bpm |
| 30 | 187 bpm | 190 bpm |
| 40 | 180 bpm | 180 bpm |
| 50 | 173 bpm | 170 bpm |
| 60 | 166 bpm | 160 bpm |
| 70 | 159 bpm | 150 bpm |
Your Heart Rate Training Zones
The reason to know your max heart rate is to train at the right intensities. The standard five-zone model divides effort into percentages of max HR, and the calculator above turns them into bpm ranges for your age. Two zones do most of the work: zone 2 (60 to 70%), the conversational pace that builds your aerobic base, and zone 5 (90 to 100%), where interval protocols like the Norwegian 4x4 push your VO2 max. The evidence-based split is roughly 80% of weekly training in the easy zones and 20% in the hard ones. What each zone does, and the exact targets for common interval protocols, is covered in our heart rate zones guide.
Karvonen Zones: More Personal, Slightly Higher
Straight percentage zones ignore one personal variable: your resting heart rate. The Karvonen method (Karvonen et al., 1957) works from your heart rate reserve instead, the span between resting and max: target = (HRmax - HRrest) x intensity + HRrest. A fit person with a resting HR of 50 and an unfit person with 80 get different zone boundaries even at the same age, which matches how hard the efforts actually feel. Enter your resting heart rate above to see both zone sets side by side. Most fitness trackers measure resting HR automatically overnight; first thing in the morning before getting up is the manual gold standard.
Formulas Estimate. A Hard Effort Measures.
Every age formula carries that plus or minus 10 bpm individual spread, so if you train seriously by heart rate, it is worth finding your real max once. The highest value you have ever seen in a maximal effort while wearing a monitor is a good approximation. A dedicated field test looks like this: warm up thoroughly, then run 2 to 3 hill repeats of about 2 minutes, each harder than the last, and sprint the final one to exhaustion. The peak reading is close to your true max. Attempt this only if you are healthy and already used to hard training; if you have any cardiac risk factors, get medical clearance first.
Your max heart rate feeds directly into the two numbers this site is about: the interval target of 90 to 95% of max HR that drives VO2 max improvement (Helgerud et al., 2007), and the zone 2 ceiling that builds your base. Once you know your zones, estimate your current fitness with the VO2 max calculator.
PEAKVO2. The interval app for your cardio fitness.
Run your intervals with the target heart rate zone shown each phase, automatic transitions, and a haptic tap at your wrist. On iPhone and Apple Watch, with your VO2 max tracked over time.
Download PEAKVO2Frequently Asked Questions
What is my max heart rate for my age?
Using the Tanaka formula, typical values are 194 bpm at age 20, 187 at 30, 180 at 40, 173 at 50, 166 at 60, and 159 at 70. Individual values spread roughly plus or minus 10 bpm around any formula, so treat the estimate as a starting point and refine it with real workout data.
Is 220 minus age accurate?
It is the least accurate of the common formulas. The Tanaka meta-analysis showed it overestimates max heart rate in younger adults and underestimates it in older adults. At 60, the difference is 6 bpm (160 vs 166), enough to put every training zone noticeably off target.
How do I find my actual max heart rate?
The highest reading from a truly maximal effort while wearing a heart rate monitor. After a thorough warmup, 2 to 3 hard hill repeats of about 2 minutes, sprinting the last one to exhaustion, will get you within a few beats of it. Only attempt a maximal test if you are healthy and accustomed to hard exercise.
What heart rate should I train at?
Mostly easy, sometimes hard. Around 80% of weekly training in zone 2 (60 to 70% of max, conversational), and one or two interval sessions per week at 90 to 95% of max. The full reasoning behind that split is in our heart rate zones guide and zone 2 guide.
Does training change my max heart rate?
Barely. Max heart rate is set mostly by age and genetics. Training lowers your resting heart rate and raises how much of your max you can sustain, which is why your zones and your VO2 max improve while the max itself stays roughly where it is.
What are Karvonen heart rate zones?
Zones computed from your heart rate reserve (max minus resting) rather than straight percentages of max. They account for your resting heart rate, so they are more personalized and sit slightly higher than plain percentage zones. Enter your resting heart rate in the calculator above to compare both sets.
References
- Tanaka H, Monahan KD, Seals DR. Age-predicted maximal heart rate revisited. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001;37(1):153-156. PubMed
- 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. PubMed
- 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. PubMed
- Fox SM, Naughton JP, Haskell WL. Physical activity and the prevention of coronary heart disease. Ann Clin Res. 1971;3(6):404-432. PubMed
- Karvonen MJ, Kentala E, Mustala O. The effects of training on heart rate; a longitudinal study. Ann Med Exp Biol Fenn. 1957;35(3):307-315. PubMed
- 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. PubMed