High max heart rate for age - should I be worried?
Discussion
I'm a reasonably fit 53 year old male, but have a high maximum heart rate for my age of around 192 (Polar strap) to 195 (Garmin watch) bpm.
Obviously that's way higher than the 167 that 220-age would suggest, so I wonder if it's anything to worry about.
For background, during exercise I can regularly maintain a heart rate of >180bpm for 15 to 20 minutes (or longer) without ill effects or feeling totally exhausted. As an example, I ran a 23:51 parkrun today and my Garmin showed an average heart rate of 165bpm, consistently above 180 for the last 10 minutes and with a max of 195bpm, which all felt fairly tough but certainly not terrible; I could still utter a few words of thanks to the marshalls as I passed them, didn't feel nauseous or gasping for breath and finished feeling happy and that I could have gone a bit quicker.
Resting heart rate is 53bpm according to Garmin. BMI 25.1. Blood pressure normal. No health issues and not on any medications. No family history of cardiac disease. I train 3 to 5 times a week, with a mix of cardio and weights. Max heart rate has always been quite high, as far as I can recall (and my 21 year old daughter's is too).
So my question is, is having a max heart rate well above what 220-age would forecast a problem? Am I putting myself at risk if I exercise up towards (or at) that level? Or do I just have a stupidly high max heart rate and should just accept I'm a freak and not be concerned about it?
Obviously that's way higher than the 167 that 220-age would suggest, so I wonder if it's anything to worry about.
For background, during exercise I can regularly maintain a heart rate of >180bpm for 15 to 20 minutes (or longer) without ill effects or feeling totally exhausted. As an example, I ran a 23:51 parkrun today and my Garmin showed an average heart rate of 165bpm, consistently above 180 for the last 10 minutes and with a max of 195bpm, which all felt fairly tough but certainly not terrible; I could still utter a few words of thanks to the marshalls as I passed them, didn't feel nauseous or gasping for breath and finished feeling happy and that I could have gone a bit quicker.
Resting heart rate is 53bpm according to Garmin. BMI 25.1. Blood pressure normal. No health issues and not on any medications. No family history of cardiac disease. I train 3 to 5 times a week, with a mix of cardio and weights. Max heart rate has always been quite high, as far as I can recall (and my 21 year old daughter's is too).
So my question is, is having a max heart rate well above what 220-age would forecast a problem? Am I putting myself at risk if I exercise up towards (or at) that level? Or do I just have a stupidly high max heart rate and should just accept I'm a freak and not be concerned about it?
Edited by chemistry on Saturday 2nd November 13:35
Edited by chemistry on Saturday 2nd November 14:00
As others say, and I think will be the unanimous message back to you, no, nothing to worry about. HR is very individual, the fact you’re able to run a 23 ish 5k and all the other info on lifestyle suggests you’re fit, aware of your health, and are good indicator nothing is wrong.
The durations and %’ages all seem fine to me broadly speaking. I’d go as far to say It’s quite difficult to routinely hit your max hr. From what you said, I’d suggest it is probably higher than you currently state.
Have fun, and enjoy those park runs!
The durations and %’ages all seem fine to me broadly speaking. I’d go as far to say It’s quite difficult to routinely hit your max hr. From what you said, I’d suggest it is probably higher than you currently state.
Have fun, and enjoy those park runs!
Thanks for the comments!
I wasn't too worried until Mrs chemistry brought it up (in a nice way, being aware of the 220-age 'rule')...which put a seed of doubt in my mind
Having looked a into it a bit more, it does appear that i) 220-age is, at best a VERY rough guide and tends to err on the low side, and ii) I'm not special
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234050494...
I wasn't too worried until Mrs chemistry brought it up (in a nice way, being aware of the 220-age 'rule')...which put a seed of doubt in my mind
Having looked a into it a bit more, it does appear that i) 220-age is, at best a VERY rough guide and tends to err on the low side, and ii) I'm not special
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234050494...
As others have said the 220-age is not a rule, its a small step up from a wild guess and not to be taken seriously.
Also whilst those chest straps are pretty accurate they can wander a little so you might not be seeing it quite that high.
Im the same, high max HR, and my HR always seems to be a higher than my breathing or how I feel would suggest.
Ive had ECGs as part of routine tests and there are no issues so I crack on and not worry
Also whilst those chest straps are pretty accurate they can wander a little so you might not be seeing it quite that high.
Im the same, high max HR, and my HR always seems to be a higher than my breathing or how I feel would suggest.
Ive had ECGs as part of routine tests and there are no issues so I crack on and not worry
If you can hold 180 for 10 mins and you weren’t feeling like you were about to die at 195, your real max will be a good bit higher than that.
Zone 5 (95%+ of max HR) is only sustainable for very short periods and you will feel close to collapse!
Do some research on HR zones and then do a max HR test.
Zone 5 (95%+ of max HR) is only sustainable for very short periods and you will feel close to collapse!
Do some research on HR zones and then do a max HR test.
Your age/BMI/park run time are all similar to mine. My max on a chest strap is 178 (intervals on a turbo trainer) and RHR is 47 (Garmin watch) Yours is high, but if you feel fine then it’s nothing to worry about. Get an ECG if you are worried though.
My insurance covers me for an annual full body MOT and the ECG was fine.
My insurance covers me for an annual full body MOT and the ECG was fine.
isleofthorns said:
similar age and similar 5km time, but my running max is usually around 165. I can't sustain much beyond this. my actual max is probably 175 ish (resting 45-47)
would love to have another 10-15bpm... as long as the other metrics are OK, I'd see this as a blessing.
Maybe I could swap you a few of my max bpm for a few of your impressively low resting bpm… would love to have another 10-15bpm... as long as the other metrics are OK, I'd see this as a blessing.
I had to increase my max HR on garmin yesterday as it happens, as my last mtb ride had me 19% in zone 5, which can't be right. I regularly see 180 HR on a ride, and very occasionally 192, so i increased max to 190. Am 49. Resting HR is high 40's, have seen it in 30's!
My mates HR is normally 165 for the same rides.
Everyones different. I would presume a higher max HR is no bad thing tbh, unless it comes with pain.
My mates HR is normally 165 for the same rides.
Everyones different. I would presume a higher max HR is no bad thing tbh, unless it comes with pain.
Lots of interesting replies, thanks.
It seems that 220-age is extremely inaccurate and almost useless in the majority of cases, which now I've looked into it's history isn't that surprising (e.g. https://www.asep.org/asep/asep/Robergs2.pdf). I'm slightly surprised as I'd always thought that it was a fairly accurate 'rule' (hence my original post).
Instead, the prevailing thinking seems to be that each persons MaxHR simply is what it is and there's a huge range of variability between people. If one has to estimate a MaxHR, 220-age gets you into the rather large ballpark at best, but will most likely under estimate MaxHR by a significant amount in most cases. The only reliable way to find out what someone's MaxHR actually is, is to do a test.
It seems that 220-age is extremely inaccurate and almost useless in the majority of cases, which now I've looked into it's history isn't that surprising (e.g. https://www.asep.org/asep/asep/Robergs2.pdf). I'm slightly surprised as I'd always thought that it was a fairly accurate 'rule' (hence my original post).
Instead, the prevailing thinking seems to be that each persons MaxHR simply is what it is and there's a huge range of variability between people. If one has to estimate a MaxHR, 220-age gets you into the rather large ballpark at best, but will most likely under estimate MaxHR by a significant amount in most cases. The only reliable way to find out what someone's MaxHR actually is, is to do a test.
bmwmike said:
I had to increase my max HR on garmin yesterday as it happens, as my last mtb ride had me 19% in zone 5, which can't be right. I regularly see 180 HR on a ride, and very occasionally 192, so i increased max to 190. Am 49. Resting HR is high 40's, have seen it in 30's!
My mates HR is normally 165 for the same rides.
Everyones different. I would presume a higher max HR is no bad thing tbh, unless it comes with pain.
Not picking holes, but I’d suggest your max is then at least 192. Not that it makes a huge difference to any zone setting. My mates HR is normally 165 for the same rides.
Everyones different. I would presume a higher max HR is no bad thing tbh, unless it comes with pain.
At my fittest, my hr also dropped into the 30’s. At a couple of hospital visits when ‘wired up’ I closed my eyes to relax, my hr then dropped, and the machines started to alarm and nurses came rushing in. Had to explain it was ‘normal’ rhr for me!
Gassing Station | Health Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff