❤️ Target Heart Rate Calculator
Get your five training zones from a max heart rate formula that is actually validated — plus why 220 minus your age is wrong, and by how much at your age.
Every age formula carries a standard error of about 10.8 bpm (HUNT study). No age-based estimate can tell you where in that range you personally sit — only a supervised maximal test can.
5 Target Heart Rate Training Zones
Why this differs from the American Heart Association chart
The AHA chart takes a plain percentage of your maximum heart rate. The zones above use the Karvonen method, which adds your resting heart rate back in. Both are legitimate; they answer slightly different questions, and they disagree most at easy intensities.
| Intensity | Karvonen (%HRR) | Plain %HRmax (AHA style) | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| 50% | 126 BPM | 94 BPM | +32 BPM |
| 60% | 138 BPM | 112 BPM | +26 BPM |
| 70% | 150 BPM | 131 BPM | +19 BPM |
| 80% | 163 BPM | 150 BPM | +13 BPM |
| 90% | 175 BPM | 168 BPM | +7 BPM |
Runs entirely in your browser. Nothing is uploaded. If you take beta blockers or any other rate-controlling medication, age formulas do not apply to you — ask your doctor for a target range.
What Target Heart Rate Calculator Does
Almost every heart rate chart in circulation starts from 220 minus your age. It is easy to remember, it has been printed on gym walls for fifty years, and the American Heart Association still uses it. It is also wrong in a way that gets worse as you get older, and the evidence against it is neither new nor marginal.
Tanaka, Monahan and Seals pooled 351 studies covering 18,712 people and found maximum heart rate is much better described by 208 − 0.7 × age. Their conclusion was blunt: the conventional equation underestimates maximum heart rate in older adults, which means it underestimates how hard they are actually working. A longitudinal study following the same individuals over 25 years landed on 207 − 0.7 × age, and the Norwegian HUNT study, measuring 3,320 healthy adults, landed on 211 − 0.64 × age.
The three replacements disagree with each other by only a few beats. They all disagree with 220 − age in the same direction, and the crossover sits at almost exactly age 40: below it the old formula runs high, above it the old formula runs low. At 70 it is about 9 beats too low, at 80 about 12.
None of which makes any age formula precise. The HUNT study reports a standard error of 10.8 beats per minute, which is the number that really matters and the one no calculator on the first page of results shows you. Your zones are a starting point to be adjusted by how the effort actually feels, not a prescription.
How to Use Target Heart Rate Calculator
- Enter your age and your resting heart rate, counted for a full minute before getting out of bed
- Pick a max heart rate formula — Tanaka is the default because it is the best-validated
- Read your estimate together with the range beneath it; the standard error is about 10.8 bpm
- Use the five Karvonen zones, and check the comparison table if you also follow the AHA chart
Formula Used by Target Heart Rate Calculator
Maximum heart rate — the three validated equations
Tanaka: HRmax = 208 − 0.7 × age · Gellish: HRmax = 207 − 0.7 × age · HUNT: HRmax = 211 − 0.64 × age
- HRmax
- Highest heart rate reached at maximal exertion, in beats per minute
- age
- Age in years
Worked example
A 55-year-old
- Traditional: 220 − 55 = 165 bpm
- Tanaka: 208 − (0.7 × 55) = 208 − 38.5 = 169.5 bpm
- HUNT: 211 − (0.64 × 55) = 211 − 35.2 = 175.8 bpm
Result: The traditional formula is 5 to 11 beats low — and a stress test stopped at 165 could end before the heart is genuinely stressed
Karvonen method — target rate from heart rate reserve
Target = HRrest + (HRmax − HRrest) × intensity
- HRrest
- Resting heart rate, counted before getting out of bed
- HRmax − HRrest
- Heart rate reserve (HRR) — the range you actually have to work with
- intensity
- Target fraction of that reserve, e.g. 0.70 for 70%
Worked example
Age 40, resting heart rate 60, Tanaka HRmax of 180, training at 70%
- HRR = 180 − 60 = 120 bpm
- 120 × 0.70 = 84
- 60 + 84 = 144 bpm
- A plain 70% of HRmax would give 0.70 × 180 = 126 bpm instead
Result: 144 bpm by Karvonen against 126 bpm by plain percentage — an 18 bpm gap for the same stated intensity
What each formula says at your age
The traditional formula crosses over at about age 40: too high below it, increasingly too low above it.
| Age | 220 − age | Tanaka | Gellish | HUNT | 220 − age error vs Tanaka |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 20 | 200 | 194 | 193 | 198 | 6 bpm too high |
| 30 | 190 | 187 | 186 | 192 | 3 bpm too high |
| 40 | 180 | 180 | 179 | 185 | agrees |
| 50 | 170 | 173 | 172 | 179 | 3 bpm too low |
| 60 | 160 | 166 | 165 | 173 | 6 bpm too low |
| 70 | 150 | 159 | 158 | 166 | 9 bpm too low |
| 80 | 140 | 152 | 151 | 160 | 12 bpm too low |
What a 10.8 bpm standard error actually means
Using the HUNT equation. Roughly two thirds of people fall within one standard error of the prediction, and about 95% within two.
| Age | Predicted HRmax | Range for ~68% of people | Range for ~95% of people |
|---|---|---|---|
| 30 | 192 bpm | 181–203 | 170–213 |
| 45 | 182 bpm | 171–193 | 161–204 |
| 60 | 173 bpm | 162–183 | 151–194 |
Source: Nes et al., Scand J Med Sci Sports 2013 (HUNT Fitness Study)
Karvonen against plain percentage, same person
Age 40, resting heart rate 60, HRmax 180 by Tanaka. Both methods are in common use; they are furthest apart exactly where beginners train.
| Stated intensity | Karvonen (%HRR) | Plain %HRmax | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| 50% | 120 bpm | 90 bpm | 30 bpm |
| 64% | 137 bpm | 115 bpm | 22 bpm |
| 70% | 144 bpm | 126 bpm | 18 bpm |
| 85% | 162 bpm | 153 bpm | 9 bpm |
| 90% | 168 bpm | 162 bpm | 6 bpm |
How to Read Your Result
Why the old formula survives despite the evidence
The 220 − age rule traces to Haskell and Fox in 1971 and was never derived from a study designed to establish it; Tanaka’s team noted its validity had never been tested in a sample containing enough older adults. It persists because it is memorable and because it is embedded in printed charts, gym equipment and clinical habit. For a healthy 30-year-old the practical difference is about three beats and genuinely does not matter. For a 70-year-old on a treadmill stress test it can mean stopping before the heart is properly loaded, which is exactly when an accurate number matters most.
Sex does not change the age estimate
Several calculators ask whether you are male or female, and "max heart rate calculator by age and gender" is a common search. The two largest datasets do not support the distinction: Tanaka reported the regression line was no different between men and women, and the HUNT study found no interaction with gender — nor with physical activity, VO2max or BMI. Fitness does not raise your maximum heart rate either, which surprises people; training raises what you can sustain, not the ceiling.
The fat burning zone is real physiology and a misleading goal
At low intensity a greater proportion of energy comes from fat, which is where the label comes from. But proportion is not the same as amount: a harder session burns more total calories, and body composition follows total energy balance rather than substrate ratio during the session itself. Low-intensity work is genuinely valuable for building aerobic base and for being repeatable without wrecking you. Choose it for those reasons, not because a chart implies it melts fat faster.
Know which method your watch uses
Most wrist devices let you set zones by percentage of maximum heart rate or by percentage of heart rate reserve, and many default to the former while fitness literature quotes the latter. The two labels look identical and mean different heart rates — about 30 bpm apart at 50% intensity for a typical 40-year-old. If a prescribed easy session feels impossibly hard or suspiciously trivial, a mismatch between the two conventions is a likely culprit.
When to stop calculating and see a doctor
Chest pain, unusual breathlessness, dizziness or fainting during exercise are reasons to stop and seek medical advice, whatever the numbers say. Beta blockers and other rate-controlling medication invalidate every formula on this page. And if you need a genuinely accurate maximum — for clinical testing or serious competition — it can only come from a supervised maximal exercise test, not from arithmetic on your age.
Limitations & Accuracy Notes
- Every equation here predicts a population average. With a standard error near 10.8 bpm, roughly one person in three sits more than 10 beats away from their predicted maximum, and the formula cannot tell you whether you are one of them.
- The equations were derived in healthy adults. They do not apply to people on beta blockers or other rate-controlling drugs, to those with arrhythmias or pacemakers, or to children, whose maximum heart rate does not follow the same age relationship.
- Wrist-based optical heart rate sensors lose accuracy during high-intensity and interval work, where they can lock onto cadence instead of pulse. A chest strap is markedly more reliable if you are training to specific zones.
- Zone boundaries are conventions, not physiological thresholds. Your actual lactate and ventilatory thresholds sit where they sit regardless of where a five-zone model draws its lines, and they move as your fitness changes.
- This is general fitness information, not medical advice. Anyone with known heart disease, or who is starting exercise after a long gap or with risk factors, should get a target range from a clinician rather than a calculator.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is 220 minus your age accurate?
Does maximum heart rate differ between men and women?
Why does this show different numbers from the American Heart Association chart?
Which heart rate zone burns the most fat?
What if I take beta blockers?
How reliable is 220 minus age?
What is the Karvonen method?
What are the training zones for?
Why is my heart rate higher than usual today?
Should I get a proper maximum heart rate test?
Is this medical advice?
References & Further Reading
- Tanaka H, Monahan KD, Seals DR — Age-predicted maximal heart rate revisited — J Am Coll Cardiol 2001;37(1):153-6 — meta-analysis of 351 studies and 18,712 subjects behind 208 − 0.7 × age
- Nes BM et al. — Age-predicted maximal heart rate in healthy subjects (HUNT Fitness Study) — Scand J Med Sci Sports 2013;23(6):697-704 — 211 − 0.64 × age in 3,320 adults, and the 10.8 bpm standard error
- Gellish RL et al. — Longitudinal modeling of the relationship between age and maximal heart rate — Med Sci Sports Exerc 2007;39(5):822-9 — 207 − 0.7 × age, tracking the same people across 25 years
- American Heart Association — Target Heart Rates Chart — The widely used chart based on 220 − age and plain percentage of maximum, reconciled in the table above