Skip to main content

HEALTH · MAX HEART RATE

Max Heart Rate Calculator

Calculate your age-predicted maximum heart rate using three formulas — Fox (220−age), Tanaka (208−0.7×age), and Gellish (207−0.7×age) — and compare the results side-by-side.

Your Age

Ages 10–100

HR Estimates
Fox (most common)
190 bpm
All Formula comparison
Fox (Fox et al. (1971))190 bpm
Tanaka (Tanaka et al. (2001))187 bpm
Gellish (Gellish et al. (2007))186 bpm

Fox: Most widely used; population SD ≈ ±10–12 bpm.

Tanaka: Lower prediction error for trained adults (JACC 2001).

Gellish: Longitudinal study; widely cited in ACSM guidelines.

Age-predicted formulas carry a population standard deviation of ±10–12 bpm. Use your estimated max HR as a training guide, not a physiological ceiling.

About This Calculator

Your maximum heart rate (HRmax) is the upper limit of your cardiovascular effort. It drives your training zones — knowing your HRmax helps you train at the right intensity for fat burning, aerobic fitness, or peak performance. This calculator shows estimates from all three leading age-prediction formulas so you can choose the one that fits your situation.

How It Works

All three formulas are population-derived regression equations that predict HRmax from age alone. The Fox formula (220 − age) is the most widely taught; the Tanaka and Gellish formulas were derived from larger, more diverse study populations and are considered more accurate, particularly for trained adults. Because all formulas have a population standard deviation of ±10–12 bpm, the safest approach is to use these estimates as starting points and adjust based on how your heart rate responds during actual exercise.

The Formula

HRmax = 220 − age [Fox]

age
age in years (10–100)

Frequently Asked Questions

Which maximum heart rate formula should I use?
The Tanaka and Gellish formulas are considered more accurate than the classic Fox formula, especially for trained adults and older individuals. Fox (220 − age) tends to overestimate HRmax in older adults and underestimate it in younger ones. For most purposes, Tanaka or Gellish are preferred.
Why do the three formulas give slightly different numbers?
Each formula was derived from a different study population, sample size, and methodology. Tanaka's 2001 study (JACC) was a meta-analysis of 351 studies involving 492 subjects; Gellish's 2007 study was a longitudinal design. The small differences reflect these methodological variations.
Can I test my actual maximum heart rate?
Yes, but it requires a maximal-effort graded exercise test and carries cardiovascular risk for untrained individuals. Most people should use an age-predicted estimate as a training guide and consult a healthcare provider before maximal testing.