传统最大心率估算公式为 220 − 年龄，被美国心脏协会和英国心脏基金会等机构广泛传播。例如按该公式计算，50 岁人的最大心率约为 170 次/分钟。最大心率常用于制定训练强度：低于最大心率 70% 的运动主要提升有氧能力，而更高强度训练更强调无氧能力。不过研究表明，同年龄人群的最大心率差异很大，因此单一公式难以准确预测个体极限。
最大心率受生理机制限制且难以通过训练改变。随着运动强度增加，心率上升以向肌肉输送更多氧气，但当心跳间隔过短、心室无法完全充盈时，每次搏动输送的血量反而下降。心脏窦房结的起搏细胞决定心率上限，它们能发出的电信号频率有限，因此限制每分钟心跳次数。最大心率测量通常需要将受试者推至极限并在医疗监督下进行，因此普通人多依赖基于年龄的估算公式。
更现代研究提出替代公式，例如 Tanaka 方程：208 − 0.7 × 年龄，对 50 岁人预测最大心率约 173 次/分钟。然而个体差异仍然显著。一项 2025 年 10 月发表于 PLOS ONE 的研究比较 7 种公式与 230 名受试者的实测数据，发现预测误差常达到 ±20 次/分钟。这种差距意味着对某些 50 岁人来说属于中等强度的运动，对另一些人可能已接近高强度训练，因此训练时更重要的是持续使用同一种方法监测变化。
The traditional formula for estimating maximum heart rate is 220 minus age, widely promoted by organizations such as the American Heart Association and the British Heart Foundation. Under this rule, a 50-year-old would have an estimated maximum of about 170 beats per minute. Maximum heart rate helps define training intensity: exercise up to 70% of maximum improves aerobic fitness, while higher intensities emphasize anaerobic capacity. However, studies show people of the same age can have very different maximum heart rates, meaning no single formula accurately predicts individual limits.
Maximum heart rate is constrained by physiology and cannot easily be changed through training. As exercise intensity increases, heart rate rises to deliver more oxygenated blood to muscles, but when intervals between beats become too short the heart’s ventricles cannot fully refill and pumping efficiency declines. Cells in the sinoatrial node, the heart’s natural pacemaker, determine this upper limit because they can generate electrical impulses only so quickly. Measuring true maximum heart rate typically requires pushing athletes to their limits under medical supervision, so most people rely on age-based formulas instead.
More recent research proposes alternative equations, such as the Tanaka formula: 208 minus 0.7 × age, which predicts about 173 beats per minute for a 50-year-old. Yet large individual variation remains. A study published in October 2025 in PLOS ONE compared seven formulas with measured values from 230 people and found prediction errors often reached ±20 beats per minute. Such variation means exercise considered moderate for one 50-year-old could be vigorous for another, making consistent use of a single method more useful for tracking training progress.