What is a good running heart rate for your age?
Age formulas give you a population average. Your own heart gives you a number that is actually yours.
Where 220 minus age came from, and why it is wrong
The 220 minus age rule has no real derivation behind it. It was a rough fit, it spread, and it ended up printed on gym equipment.
In 2001 a team went back and did the work properly. They pooled 351 published studies covering 492 groups and 18,712 people, then cross-validated the result in a laboratory study measuring maximum heart rate directly in another 514 healthy adults. What came out was a different equation: 208 minus 0.7 times your age. [1]
The two agree almost exactly at 40, and then they separate. At 50 the old rule reads 3 beats low. At 60 it reads 6 low. At 70 it reads 9 low. You can check that arithmetic yourself, and the direction is the part that matters for anybody reading this site: the older you are, the more the familiar rule underestimates you.
Why even the better formula is not your number
Both equations predict a population average. Neither predicts you.
Individual maximum heart rates at any given age scatter widely around the line. Two healthy people the same age can sit far enough apart that a single formula is useless for both of them. An equation built from group means was never going to resolve one person, and the paper that produced the better formula is explicit that this is what it is for. [1]
Which is a problem if you are using that number to decide how hard to go, because an estimate that is 10 beats high turns an easy run into a moderate one, every time, for months.
What to use instead
The talk test. If you can speak a full sentence without gulping air, you are in the easy range. If you can only manage three or four words, you are above it. It costs nothing, it needs no equipment, and it adjusts itself on a hot day or after a bad night, which no formula does.
The other option is to stop estimating and start measuring. Your watch records your heart rate on every session. Over a few weeks that gives you a real range for your own body, at your own current fitness, which is a far better input than an equation built from other people.
Going too hard is not a harmless mistake at the start. Novice runners are injured at more than twice the rate of experienced ones, and the mechanism is load added faster than tissue adapts. [2]
What First Gear does with it
It reads your heart rate on your watch and holds you under a ceiling, then moves the ceiling as you get fitter. You are not typing your age into a calculator and trusting the output. The number comes from you.
Common questions
Is 220 minus your age accurate?
Not particularly, and it gets worse with age. The better-validated equation is 208 minus 0.7 times your age, built from 351 studies covering 18,712 people. The two agree around age 40, but by 70 the old rule reads about 9 beats too low.
What heart rate should I run at as a beginner?
Low enough to hold a conversation. Rather than picking a number off a formula built from other people, use the effort you can speak full sentences at, and let your own recorded heart rate over a few weeks tell you where that sits.
Why is my running heart rate so high?
Usually because the run is harder for you than it looks from outside, which is normal early on. Heat, poor sleep, caffeine and stress all raise it too. A high number is information about today, not a verdict on your fitness.
Do I need a chest strap or is a watch enough?
A wrist sensor is enough for steady easy running, which is where a beginner spends nearly all of their time. Optical sensors struggle most with abrupt changes in intensity, and steady effort is the opposite of that.
References
- Tanaka H, Monahan KD, Seals DR. Age-predicted maximal heart rate revisited. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 37(1):153-156, 2001.
- Videbaek S, Bueno AM, Nielsen RO, Rasmussen S. Incidence of Running-Related Injuries Per 1000 h of running in Different Types of Runners: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Sports Medicine 45(7):1017-1026, 2015.