Resting heart rate: Bragging right, Goal or just an indicator

I ran in college for a while and had a great resting heart rate (as low as 39). However, I never saw that as grounds for bragging. Imagine that as a pick up line, "You know, my resting heart rate is 39" I don't imagine that anyone would have much success with that one. I always just used it as a guage of how healthy my heart was. I still do now; although it is a little higher than back then. I don't think that you should worry about that; if your resting heart rate starts spiking, yeah, be concerned, but I wouldn't associate a low RHR with a reason to brag.

RHR *is* a measure of fitness.  However, everyones will be different.  It's not an absolute measure by any means.

Mainly it's an indicator of your level of rest/recovery/stress.  If you track it regularly, you'll find that it will become elevated when you've got an impending sickness, are overreached, or just in need of a little more "recovery" time.

So, of the three options you give, I'd say it's "indicator".

-Chris

Just a related question... when people are saying what their resting hr is, that is when they are awake isn't it? Not the lowest hr acheived while asleep?

What i do to calculate RHR is sleep with a monitor on and then take the average heart rate. you can also just do it manually first thing in the morning before you get out of bed.

I check mine most mornings right before I get out of bed. It's usually 46. One of these nights I'm gonna wear my HRM to bed and see what it is in the morning. Purely scientific reasearch, mind you!

Ditto to all the above posters. I am an exception. Last fall in the peak of my training my RHR was 39. Mind you I was 34, 50 pounds overweight, and hardly at my peak conditioning for what I think my body can do. So you see, it's hard to compare person to person. I was very suprised that it was that. RHR during the day, watching TV or on the computer is was in the low 50's.

Or maybe I am part sloth, that is what it feels like a lot of the time!

I wear mine to bed once a month or so to test my RHR... I weigh 255 or so and am abt. 50 lbs overwight, but my RHR overnight is usually mid 60's.

"My question is this, should RHR be a goal or should it simply be an indicator of when injury or sicknesses are approaching. My current RHR is about 63, should I say “ok, by fall 2006 I want it to be down to 55”. "




First of all... RHR is but one benchmark that in and of itself is not as vauable when taken independent of other equally important training effect benchmark.

The key aspect about RHR is that you can not compare your RHR to other (as someone noted this is not an absolute value).

How you use the HR benchmarks (i.e., MaxHR and RHR - for example) is an element evolving around the more useful benchmark of AT (Aerobic Threshold). There are many different ways to determine this... but, they basically use Maximum HR and/or Resting HR as a starting point. Your fitness level is determined by the difference between your resting HR and your Maximum HR. The bigger the difference, the more fit you are. However, another method is rate at which your HR drops to a pre-specified rate after a specific % of AT HR training session. Both are good methods... but are only good if the information is applied properly to the training process.

The second less obvious is taking the HR and incorporating it into distance and times. The key is using a ratio between HR (usually AVERAGE HR) and time for a constant distance (done in a constant environment when repeated). For example, If your Ave. HR was 150 bpm with a time of 10 mins., then your effort to efficiency ratio would be 150 divided by 10 = 15. If you decrease your time by 2 min. and your Ave. HR went to 180, then your ration would be 22.5. That's not good... the cost for the added 2 min. resulted in increase in effort (...50% increase in effort to get only a 20% decrease in time to be exact). You want both Ave. HR AND time to go down. You want the ratio to go down (or, at least gain more in time saved than gain in effort needed to make that faster time). That's very hard to accomplish without a good training base. The key is to run, bike or swim efficiently not just fast. Base training is the method to achieve this.

How far you run doesn't say anything either... it just says you did more volume but doesn't say whether the volume was producing positive or negative results. Again... intensity and volume are not useful without effort being defined. Moreover, how much of each - volume, intensity and distance (to name only a few) is determined by your training goals. Usually those goals are two types - Endurance base (i.e., long distances) or Sprint based (i.e., short distances). In essense, there are difference training methods for different goals... and on an equally good footing... the training methods change relative to the general level of fitness the athlete has as his current base.

Another correlation is the concept that higher than normal RHR can determine over-training.
Overtraining is not as easy to determine as many may have noted. In fact, there are few agreements among those that study this phenomena...

First, in general higher than normal Heart Rates do not indicate anything specific. However, higher than normal Heart Rates that remains consistent for a period of time (some say 1-2 weeks other sight 3-6 weeks) can be indication of problems that may or may not be overtraining related. Unusually high HR shouldn't be assumed to be caused by training miscalculations (only). In fact, unusually high HR's can be something as simple as chronic dehydration or blood volume changes (see, *ref. 3) to other more serious problems such as Thyroid problems, Vascular illness, Virus related or blood sugar imbalance. The simple suggestion that high HR is training related is simple not easy to determine without first ruling out serious medical conditions (even if taken into consideration of perceived effort).

The question is how can you tell if unusually high HR is serious or not (assuming you know YOUR RHR over and externded time periods)? ...well, there isn't a easy way... however, what seems to be consistent is its length of time the unusual HR conditions lasts. As I mentioned earlier... that seems to be anywhere from 1-6 weeks. Also, another consideration is pain... Pain is not a necessary element to indicate a serious Heart problems. However, if chest pain is present, it would definitely be a symptom to indicate Vascular problems that need to be tended to immediately. Bottom line, don't mess with irregular HR (low or high) if pain is present - period.

Sorry, but I digressed a bit ... back to the specific issue of overtraining and RHR correlation. The only common symptom that I know of is when the RESTING HR is unusually high while laying down (specially if "heavy legs or sleepiness" is also noted - perhaps this is what you meant by your b. symptom of overtraining?). This is why most coaches seem to suggest that measuring your morning HR (while in bed) is a good indication of overtraining. Higher than normal HR while taken in bed during the morning is a reasonable benchmark to use in determining overtraining.(see ref. 1 and 2 below)

The other conditions of high/normal HR's you mentioned are not necessarily indications of overtraining... they could be indications of many things - some serious but most likely only a change in blood volume (or with some females, a hormonal imbalance). ...Which (ironically) could be a case of being overly rested as well (such as during a recovery period after an IM).

To summarize, the only acceptable pedestrian (i.e., without exhaustive medical testing) way to determine overtraining is comparing resting HR's in the prone position (although it is not universally accepted). Any other irregular HR changes may be the result of something other than overtraining.

Well, that's my .02 cents worth... And, as you can see the RHR is but one element of training and by itself says very little. Moreover, you can not use it in a compartive format between individuals as a benchmark for fitness level or degree or fatigue/overtraining. Getting caught up in the technical aspects of the various statical information is not all bad... but, knowing how to apply that information is still the most crucial aspect of stastical information.

FWIW Joe Moya

1) "Cardiac autonomic imbalance in an overtrained athlete". (Note: Higher HR is ref. as HF (high Frequency) spectrum power) by Hedelin R, Wiklund U, Bjerle P, Henriksson-Larsen K.

2) "Intense endurance training on heart rate and blood pressure variability in runners." by Portier H, Louisy F, Laude D, Berthelot M, Guezennec CY.

3) "Effects of detraining on cardiovascular responses to exercise: role of blood volume." by Coyle EF, Hemmert MK, Coggan AR.

Overall good research regarding overtraining:

Heart rate monitoring: applications and limitations.
Achten J, Jeukendrup AE.

Diagnosis of overtraining: what tools do we have?
Urhausen A, Kindermann W.

Yea, that'll be the night you average 130!!

Why's there tack in the room?  And a stetson?

Hmm...aka The Tin Man I presume...

:-)

Joe

Edited by Joe M 2006-01-07 11:17 PM

Joe, the formula seems a little sketchy - in your example lets say I can now run the same distance 2 min faster with the SAME AHR of 150 BPM. The ratio is now 18.75 or if it the run is accomplished in 7 min with the same AHR then the ratio is 21.4, which sounds like a decrease in fitness from above. But it seems your fitness has certainly increased to run 20-30% faster with the same AHR. I agree it would be awesome to drop 30% in time and have a lower heart to do it but seems I think there is still a marked increase in overall efficiency / fitness. There might a slightly more complicated formula which takes in account the change in HR not a linear realtionship.

The ratio increases because it indicates that only time has improved with the same AHR. This doesn't mean you didn't become fitter even if the ratio increased... what it indicates is that the optimal fitness ratio would be to have a lower AHR in conjunction with increasing times.

To gain a faster time without a gain in a lower AHR means that the efficiency aspect of the training equation hasn't been achieved although they may be more fit. What you have described is precisely what a majority of all athletes do... they improved time without improving efficiency of effort. Athletes that only improve time without decreasing efficiency of effort are not training in the optimal fashion. This lack of "efficiency of effort" improvement in conjuction with faster times will result in poorer performance the longer the event. This is why many athletes are better at shorter course triathlons vs... say... IronMans or the Tour De France.

It's not about simply becoming more fit... that is only half the equation. It's about becoming more fit with less effort applied to achieve this higher level of fitness. This is specially true the longer the endurance event. Shorter endurance events are much more forgiving and effort can frequently overcome poor levels of "efficient effort".

When I define "fitness", I define it in two terms - faster times and "effort costs" to achieve this faster time. Using this in conjunction with the period of time this "effort cost" was expended, there are times where the "effort cost" is not worth the trade off of slower times. A sprint distance triathlon will accept a trade off of faster times at the expense of poor running, biking, swimming form because you have enough stamina and physical strength to overcome these poor form effort costs. I call this the "Bigger Hammer" approach to achieving faster times, On the otherhand, the "Bigger Hammer" approach is much less likely to be successful for longer endurance sports such as IronMans.

SKETCHY FORMULA?:

The formula seems sketchy, but it's not when you consider it in general terms but may be if you looking for absolute accuracy... IMHO... it holds firm the belief that there are two elements that are needed to achieve better performance in the long term - efficiency of effort AND faster times.

Is this linear? Probably not... but, I don't exactly know what that exponential rate is... I've never seen a non-linear explanation (...although A. Coggin does a good job showing this non-liener relation relative to actual biking vs. trainer biking effort). And, if there is a non-linear equation, I wonder if the degree of effort factor would have to be defined in such a fractional level that it would be negated (....biking doesn't have this problem because effort can be defined in watts and not just HR. And, Watts can be defined in relatively accurate fractional numbers.) In essense, even if this ratio is non-linear (which it probably is) it would be impossible to find a definable AHR in terms that would be useful (i.e., using a AHR such as 148.459 vs. 148 would have little effect on the ratio... worse yet, how exact is a AHR of 148.459 vs. a 148?).

CONCLUSION:

Bottomline, increasing speed with the same AHR will only get someone so far. At some point, the "effienciency of effort" will need to improved in order to improve time. Athletes call this a performance peak... and, frequently try to simply go faster to become faster. The fact of the matter is that they need to improve techinical form and go slower for longer periods of time to achieve a higher performance level. This is what is commonly called "base training". For base training to be successful, you need to incorporate proper form with lower effort for longer periods of time.

Exactly how much technique/form training vs. effort level traing is needed is dependent upon current level of fitness, technique flaws and ultimate training goals (to name a few). What drills are needed, how frequently and in what kind of environment are difficult to determine without prior experience. This is why good coaching can be very advantages. IMO, coaching can significantly reduce the slower trial and error approach to achieving improved results.

FWIW Joe Moya

Uhh..39?  That's sexy.  See, that's a great pick-up line on BT.

In general, the RHR is not an absolute value that can be compared between individuals.

The RHR is used in comparisons of an individual's physiological changes as training progresses though different phases of intensity, volume, periods/cycles, etc.

The RHR (in useful and comparitive terms) is defined by consistancy of when and how the RHR is determined. So long as you use the same methodology, general environment and time to determine the different RHR's, then you should not have any issues as to it's comparitive value.

A link? I know of no link that defines a acceptable methodology. Maybe someone has one... However, in my mind that wouldn't be that relavant since the issue is defined by consistancy of methodology and not what kind of methodolgoy.

FWIW Joe Moya

Just wanted to mention that I'm one of those weirdo's with a low RHR. I'm about 30 pounds overweight, just getting off the couch, and the bakery guys know that every Tuesday I pick up a dozen gingerbread men for myself. My RHR is around 55. Woot.