Maximum Heart Rate Calculator — 220−age, Tanaka & Gulati formulas

How it works

Maximum heart rate falls with age, so every formula for it is a line in age. The one almost everyone knows — printed on gym charts and used by the American Heart Association — is 220 − age. It's easy to remember and close enough for most people, but it was never a precise fit, and it drifts at the ends of the age range.

Two better-validated equations came later. Tanaka's 208 − 0.7 × age (2001) came from a meta-analysis of many studies and is more accurate for the young and the old; it declines more gently, so it reads lower than 220 − age for young adults and higher for older ones, crossing it at about 40. Gulati's 206 − 0.88 × age (2010) was derived specifically in women, whose age-predicted maximum the older formula tends to overstate. This page shows all three so you can see where your estimate lands and how much the method matters.

Worked example

At age 40:

• 220 − age: 220 − 40 = 180 bpm.
• Tanaka: 208 − 0.7 × 40 = 208 − 28 = 180 bpm — the same, because 40 is where the two lines cross.
• Gulati (women): 206 − 0.88 × 40 = 206 − 35.2 = 171 bpm.

At age 20 they spread apart: 200, 194 and 188 respectively. The decline table puts all three side by side down the decades, so you can see the gap open up: at 20 they range across 12 beats (200 / 194 / 188), by 40 they meet (180 / 180 / 171), and 220 − age falls fastest — almost exactly one beat a year, 200 at 20 down to 150 at 70.

Frequently asked questions

Which maximum heart rate formula is most accurate?

Tanaka's 208 − 0.7 × age is generally the best-validated for the population, and Gulati's 206 − 0.88 × age is more accurate for women specifically. 220 − age is the most familiar and fine for rough guidance, but it tends to overestimate for younger people and, especially, for women. None replaces a measured test — they all predict a population average, not your personal maximum.

Why do the formulas disagree?

Because they were fitted to different data with different methods. 220 − age is a simple round-number approximation; Tanaka pooled many laboratory studies; Gulati measured women during stress testing. They agree around age 40 by coincidence of their slopes and diverge most for the young and old, where the cruder 220 − age is least reliable.

How accurate is any age-based estimate?

Only moderately. Real maximum heart rates scatter about ±10–12 beats per minute around any age prediction, so two people the same age can genuinely differ by 20 bpm or more. The estimate is a reasonable anchor for setting training zones, but if precision matters — for a heart condition or serious training — a supervised maximal test measures it directly.

Should women use the Gulati formula?

It's the option derived in women and tends to fit them better than 220 − age, which was built largely on data from men and overpredicts women's maximums. If you're a woman setting heart-rate zones, Gulati's figure is a more defensible starting point — though the same ±10–12 bpm caveat applies.

Can I raise my maximum heart rate by getting fitter?

No, not meaningfully. Training lowers your *resting* heart rate and raises how much work you can do at any given rate, but maximum heart rate is set largely by age and genetics and changes little with fitness. That's why these formulas use age alone.

What lowers maximum heart rate besides age?

Some medications, most notably beta-blockers, reduce both resting and maximum heart rate substantially, so the age formulas won't apply if you take them. Any condition affecting the heart's electrical system can also change it. If you're on such medication or have a cardiac condition, use zones set by your clinician rather than an age formula.

What does this exclude?

It gives a number from age only. It doesn't set training zones (see the heart rate zones calculator), find a target for a chosen intensity using your resting rate (the target heart rate calculator), or account for medication, fitness, altitude or a measured test.