The NEW Theoretical Maximum Heart Rate | Cardio Tips for Beginners 

In theory, your suggestion is a good idea! It's best to know one's actual maximum heart rate instead of theoretical. However, as an exercise physiologist, specifically caring for the population of 40 and older, I have to advise strongly against suggesting an individual put on the HR monitor and exercise at intervals until they are gasping. As I work with individuals over 40, many have underlying health concerns -- even some they do not know about. The type of testing you suggest should be done in a supervised environment while a specialist consistently tracks blood pressure and checks for ECG "s" wave abnormalities. I agree that theoretical equations are only predictive, so there is, of course, variation. However, for any exerciser looking for a good starting point that does not have access to physiological testing, it just so happens that the Tanaka formula is more accurate than the other formula typically used (Haskell's 220 minus age). In fact, Haskell's equation usually drastically under-predicts theoretical maximum heart rate for individuals above 40, and therefore, Tanaka is seen to be more accurate. I agree entirely that formulas should be taken as predictive and not exact; you have an excellent idea regarding using the chest-strap heart rate monitor! However, completing this test in a controlled, supervised environment is best. Thank you so much for watching, and I greatly appreciate your comment!

You're so welcome! I'm glad it was helpful. Thank you for watching 😊

And it will be off for many who have an exceptional VO2 max, such as yourself! That's the only downside with theoretical equations is that they, of course, are only predictive. It just so happens that the Tanaka formula is more accurate than the other formula typically used (Haskell's 220 minus age). In fact, Haskell's equation usually drastically under-predicts theoretical maximum heart rate for individuals above 40, and therefore, Tanaka is seen to be more accurate. Of course, your situation exemplifies why we should all take formulas as theoretical estimates of varying accuracies and also striate them with other exertion measures such as rate of perceived exertion, talk test, and if anyone has access to appropriate physiological testing, their actual maximum heart rate or percentages of their actual VO2 max. Keep up the incredible work, Lance! You sound like you're taking great care of yourself 🙌 Thanks for watching!

Hi there! I’m glad you found the information in the video useful, and I appreciate your question-it’s an important topic to discuss, especially for individuals in their 40s and beyond. When determining your safe and effective exercise intensity, layering different methods of measuring exertion can provide a more comprehensive understanding. In your case, you mentioned that your heart rate shoots up to 185-190 bpm during a 500m sprint on the treadmill, and then it returns to 110-115 bpm during a 2-3 minute cooldown, whereas your theoretical maximum heart rate (MHR) is calculated to be 173 bpm. If your heart rate naturally does this, and you have no underlying medical conditions and are cleared for exercise by your doctor, then you would be safe to do this, provided you give yourself the appropriate work-to-rest ratio. I recommend, however, ensuring you layer your RPE, talk test, and individualized HR % (zones) with each other, as I describe in my video on exertion. I strongly recommend watching the video I created on exertion, where I delve deeper into these topics, which you can find at ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-R8b6zthnUpc.html. It will give you a clearer understanding of how to safely layer RPE, the Talk Test, and theoretical calculations to gauge your exercise intensity. However, suppose I am misunderstanding you, and you have yet to reach that intensity of HR (185-190 bpm) and have the theoretical max of 173 bpm. In that case, you mustn't attempt a maximal exercise test yourself. This must be done with the supervision of a medical professional, especially if you have any underlying conditions. It’s imperative to ensure that it’s safe for you to engage in such high-intensity exercise, and a healthcare provider can provide guidance based on a thorough evaluation of your overall health, fitness level, and any potential risks. Additionally, to get a more accurate calculation of your exercise zones tailored to your heart rate and age, I recommend watching the video on the Karvonen method at ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE---pkgcMDZto.html. This method incorporates your resting heart rate into the formula, providing a more individualized approach to calculating your target heart rate zones. To answer your question about "damaging" the heart, building heart muscle (cardiac hypertrophy) can indeed be a result of regular, intense exercise, but there’s a delicate balance to strike to ensure that it’s beneficial and not harmful. Overexerting yourself, especially without proper preparation and recovery, can lead to adverse outcomes, including the risk of cardiac events, particularly in older adults or those with pre-existing conditions. Stay safe, and keep prioritizing your health! Emma Mattison

@@EmmaMattisonFitness thank you for a detailed reply 🙏

Thank you for your insightful question about resting heart rate (RHR) and its implications for calculating training zones. It's indeed true that the RHR measured by devices like your Garmin watch during sleep is typically lower than when you're up and moving. This difference is largely because, during sleep, our bodies are in a state of deep rest, which naturally results in a lower heart rate. Scientifically speaking, the most accurate RHR measurement is captured immediately upon waking, while still lying in bed. This method is considered ideal as it reflects your body's true resting state, free from the influence of physical activity or daily stress. However, I recognize that not everyone can measure their RHR first thing in the morning. In such instances, taking a seated, relaxed measurement, ensuring no recent stressful activity, is also beneficial. It's critical to be consistent with your measurement approach to accurately track changes over time. When it comes to calculating training zones, using the morning measurement is preferable for its accuracy in reflecting your resting state. If you rely on your Garmin's sleep-based reading, consistency is key to gaining insightful data. Nonetheless, it's essential to consider factors like exercise-induced tachycardia, especially if you wake up with a low RHR but observe significant changes during the day (I'd ask your doctor about this if you feel concerned about any significant deviation from waking). Exercise-induced tachycardia, a condition where the heart rate increases significantly during or after physical activity, can impact your RHR readings and overall heart rate variability. This condition highlights the importance of understanding how various factors, including exercise intensity and frequency, affect your heart rate over time. If you notice a substantial change in your RHR throughout the day, it could be a sign of exercise-induced tachycardia or other stressors affecting your body (including something as simple as an annoying or stressful conversation with a boss or spouse). Monitoring these changes is crucial for adapting your training regimen to your body's needs and for identifying potential health issues early on. In conclusion, while both sleeping and awake RHR measurements offer valuable insights, the morning reading right after waking up is the most reliable for training zone calculations. Bear in mind the impact of exercise-induced tachycardia and maintain consistency in your measurement practices for the most accurate and useful heart rate data. I hope this helps clarify your question further! Tracking your heart rate is an excellent way to gauge your health and adjust your training effectively. Best wishes, Emma Mattison

Ok thank you Emma. Now I have another question I thought of: Assuming that the max heart rate and resting heart rate numbers are accurate, do you know how closely the HR reserve-based method of calculating HR zones falls in comparison to the lactate threshhold method? Also, it was hilarious when you drank the cricket juice. Thanks for the great content, and greetings from KC.

Hey again, Chad! Thank you for your patience and for bringing up such an interesting topic! I'm glad you enjoyed the cricket juice episode-definitely one of my more adventurous moments! The comparison between the Heart Rate Reserve (HRR)-based method and the Lactate Threshold (LT) method for calculating heart rate zones reveals distinct advantages and applications for each. The HRR-based method, personalized and widely accessible, is supported by research like Yabe et al. (2021) for its practical application in developing exercise programs for diverse populations, including hemodialysis patients. The LT method, on the other hand, offers precision for endurance training by identifying the shift from aerobic to anaerobic metabolism, essential for delineating the highest sustainable intensity for endurance athletes. Faude, Kindermann, and Meyer (2009) validate the LT method's accuracy in assessing endurance capacity, especially when integrated within the aerobic-anaerobic transition framework. Despite the LT method's precision, its reliance on specialized equipment and testing protocols limits its accessibility. However, the advent of reliable and accurate hand-held blood lactate analyzers, as demonstrated by Bonaventura et al. (2015), provides a practical tool for sports physiology, albeit with added complexity. Conversely, a recent predictive model developed by Römer and Wolfarth (2023) for estimating HR at the individual anaerobic threshold (IAT) and workload (W/kg at IAT) without direct lactate measurement offers a significant advancement in making sophisticated training management more accessible and cost-effective. I have yet to make a video on this topic because it is such a recent publication! Nevertheless, this approach is proving additionally valid, and does not require the usage of lactate testing (Römer & Wolfarth, 2023). In summary, while the LT method provides a detailed and precise assessment of endurance capacity, beneficial for high-level athletes, and specific training regimen adjustments, the HRR-based method and its predictive counterparts offer a more universally accessible, practical approach for managing exercise intensity across diverse populations. Thank you so much for such a great question, and for your continuous support! All the best, Emma Mattison

Hi Carol! It's not an easy concept for many; where is it that you are feeling lost?