For a 45-year-old man the Tanaka formula gives 177 bpm, while the other formulas range from 175 to 182 - a 7-beat spread from the formulas alone.
Sex
Result
Estimated maximum heart rate177 bpm
Estimate by formula
Nes / HUNT (211 − 0.64 × age)182 bpm
Tanaka (208 − 0.7 × age)177 bpm
Gellish (207 − 0.7 × age)176 bpm
Fox (220 − age)175 bpm
The formulas disagree by7 bpm
What this is based on
208 − 0.7 × age - Tanaka, Monahan & Seals, J Am Coll Cardiol 2001;37:153–156 (2026-09-10)
Five formulas, one age
Each formula is a straight line through the maximum heart rates of a group of
people: Fox’s 220 − age from 1971, Tanaka’s 208 − 0.7 × age from a 2001
analysis of 351 studies, Gellish’s 207 − 0.7 × age from repeated tests of the
same people over years, Nes’s 211 − 0.64 × age from the Norwegian HUNT study,
and Gulati’s 206 − 0.88 × age from more than five thousand women. The
calculator runs them all and leads with Tanaka.
Why the spread matters more than the number
The gap between the highest and lowest estimate is printed on purpose. It is
the part of the answer the formulas agree they do not know, and it is before
counting how far any one person sits from the line - which, for healthy
people of the same age, can be well over ten beats. Heart rate zones built on
an estimate inherit that uncertainty.
Getting a real number
A maximum is measured, not calculated: a supervised stress test, or a hard
field test once you are already fit - for example, several minutes of hard
uphill running finished with an all-out minute. Some medications, beta-blockers
among them, lower the maximum substantially; if you take one, formula values do
not apply to you, and your doctor is the right person to set your limits.
Worked example
A 45-year-old man
Nes / HUNT (211 − 0.64 × age)
182 bpm
Tanaka (208 − 0.7 × age)
177 bpm
Gellish (207 − 0.7 × age)
176 bpm
Fox (220 − age)
175 bpm
The formulas disagree by
7 bpm
Calculated by Endurina with the same engine that runs the tool above.
For runners in the US
"220 minus age" is still the number printed on gym posters and treadmill consoles across the US, and it is the least accurate of the formulas here for most adults over 40. If you have had a stress test - common in US cardiology and sports medicine - the peak heart rate on that report is a better number than any line on this page.
Questions
Which max heart rate formula is the most accurate?
For adults in general, Tanaka (208 − 0.7 × age) is the most widely used today, based on 351 studies and more than 18,000 people. For women, Gulati's formula came from 5,437 women and gives lower values. No formula is accurate for an individual; a measured maximum always wins.
Is 220 minus age wrong?
It is not wrong on average for young adults, but it drops too fast with age: it assumes one beat less per year, while the larger studies behind Tanaka and Nes find about 0.6 to 0.7.
Can I run above my max heart rate?
Not above your real maximum, by definition - but easily above an estimated one. If your watch regularly shows higher numbers than the formula, the formula is wrong for you, not the watch.