Max Heart Rate & Training Zones

220-age and Tanaka formulas with percentage-based zones

Prepared by the Nutricity editorial teamLast updated:
Calculator

How it is calculated

Two formulas are shown:

  • Traditional: 220 − age
  • Tanaka: 208 − 0.7 × age

Training zones are percentage bands of the Tanaka maximum: recovery 50–60%, aerobic 60–70%, endurance 70–80%, threshold 80–90%, maximum 90–100%.

How to interpret the result

The Tanaka formula is generally considered more accurate than 220 − age in modern research, especially in older adults. Zones are general fitness guidance; heart-rate response varies with fitness, medications and health conditions.

How to use the zones

Use the zones to guide workout intensity: recovery for easy sessions, aerobic for base building, endurance for steady-state work, threshold for harder efforts and maximum for short intervals. Pair with the TDEE and calories burned tools for energy planning.

Limitations

  • Formulas estimate population averages; individual max HR can differ by ±10–15 bpm.
  • Medications (e.g. beta-blockers) and conditions can alter heart-rate response.
  • This is general fitness guidance, not a medical stress test.

Related tools

Work with clients? Try Nutricity Pro

Nutricity Pro is software for nutritionists and dietitians: manage your clients, build diet protocols that adapt to their weight, and follow their progress on one timeline. Join the waitlist for the trial.

Learn more about Nutricity Pro

Frequently asked questions

Which max-heart-rate formula is more accurate?
Tanaka (208 − 0.7 × age) is generally more accurate than 220 − age, particularly in older adults.
Are training zones exact?
No. They are general percentage bands; individual response varies with fitness, medications and health.
Can I use this if I take beta-blockers?
Beta-blockers lower heart rate, so the zones may not reflect your effort. Consult your doctor for personalised guidance.

Sources

  1. Tanaka H, Monahan KD, Seals DR. Age-predicted maximal heart rate revisited. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001;37(1):153-156.
Found an error? Report it here.