The classic '220 - age' formula for estimating maximum heart rate is not well-suited to women, and it is preferable to use the specific alternative: '206 - (0.88 × age)'.

noli's read

The traditional '220 - age' formula is indeed based on limited observations from the 1970s, which primarily included male cohorts, explaining its lack of precision for women. The alternative formula mentioned comes from the 'St. James Women Take Heart Project', an observational study published in the journal 'Circulation' (Gulati et al., 2010), which analyzed over 5,000 women to establish a more representative equation. Research confirms that women often show a different slope in the decline of maximum heart rate with age compared to men. However, it is important to note that these formulas remain statistical estimates; actual maximum heart rate is highly variable from one individual to another and depends on genetics and training level. Using a specific formula is a notable improvement for tracking intensity, although direct assessment via an exercise stress test remains the gold standard.

the sources

No named source held this one up — that absence is part of the verdict.