Many sources calculate maximum heart rate as 220-age, then recommend that you do not exceed, for example, 85% of that. I often go higher than 220-age for sustained periods during aerobic exercise, even when not exercising very intensely. I don’t have any untoward symptoms and usually recover to a more normal HR within minutes of stopping exercise. I’m measuring with fingers to my neck or wrist or using handles on a treadmill.
Should I worry about routinely exceeding some percentage of 220 - age?
No, and you’ll notice that the sources claiming that will not provide citations outside of specific contexts, e.g. certain diseases or environments. That said, you are probably not higher than your max HR during exercise and certainly not for extended periods of time. That doesn’t make sense, right? It is likely that there’s substantial measurement error, though there’s not a substantial increase in risk at having a high HR during high intensity exercise for the vast majority of individuals.
When you say I’m not higher than my max HR do you mean actual max or 220-age max?
You are most probably right about measurement error. It’s hard to count one’s own pulse when it’s high and treadmill handles are notoriously inaccurate. I also checked with a cheap pulse oximeter, which is accurate for normal pulses, but could easily be off at high pulses. Today I did 30 minutes on a treadmill at a steady pace. All three methods were all in the neighborhood of 160. 220 minus 64 (i.e,. my age) is 156.
Is this a case of your frequent statement that running tests in the absence of symptoms is not usually a wise strategy?