What is your resting heart rate? (Page 2)

Well played Sir!!

x2 - but wrong.

My  resting HR is 48-52.  But in all actuality I check it at the beginning of every shift using our pulse ox.  So I'm sure what my actual resting HR is unknown.  I'm hesitant to put it on for the night, but I guess it'd only be about 4 hours anyway.  Maybe tonight...

The next step is to get an EKG.  If you get really relaxed the machine will have a hard time getting a reading.  It will frequently read it as a terribly abnormal EKG.

I almost didn't get my pilot license because of my EKG.  I had to get a note from a cardiologist.  Even then it took about 3 months for the FAA to okay it.

Currently in the early 40's but the intensity of my program is still quite low. As soon as i am a few weeks in with 2 runs a week around 89% mhr i will be below 40 i estimate.

I have been as low as a regular 36 as an experiment with block training.

If you care to go off topic you can read on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Running or swimming 4 x 5 minutes at 90% - 95% of my maximal heart rate.

I would do 2 - 3 running and 2 - 3 swimming sessions a week of those and workout about 90' x 3 - 4 a week on non hard weeks. On block weeks i did 2 sessions a day (one of each). I would do one week every 6 weeks or so where i worked daily then focus on upping the intensity after an easy week of just 2 workouts each.

My heart rate was below 40 most of the time.

This was 2003, my running and swimming fitness where really good for what i did then.
I was very fast for short distance running (1'57" with regular shoes and poor running form for 600 meters) and i swam 10'15" for 800 meters what for me also is great considering i didn't have a build up or didn't swam more then 6000 meters a week (mostly).

Doing just 4 - 6 workouts a week of about 30 minutes total might sound exotic but it had disadvantages as well (why at the moment i am doing another type of training)

- hidden recovery time: after each workout i had to lay down for 20 minutes to come back to my old self and function again well mentally and well focused.

§ research had been done and mental speed and memory are affected by running at 100% of vo2max till exhausting and this lasted for up to 48 hours after the test. Though the training is not running to exhaustion (done well it hurts a bit, but feels just under control). Second thought on it was that the mind itself might adapt to this stress causing me to become smarter eventually.

$ research clearly states that heavy training leads to downward turn in the endocrine system as you recover. There is even a so called open window period of time where you easily get infected.
*** experience: i had some colds, but zero flu bouts by luck or just by a good immune system in general.

$ Also the same research says that  the open window period of heavy exercise is of shorter duration then the open window of long but less hard workouts. The open window period of 20 minutes intense exercise is about 2 - 4 hours while for a longer bout of 2 hours at 76% vo2max it lasted 48 hours also there was no supercompensation in the curve of the lather kind of exercise bout. Recent research done on rats stated that rats injected with cancer lived three times longer while doing 30 minutes of exercise at 85% of vo2max a day then those who did not do exercise. So one has to think what happens to the immune system beyond the open window period and if the immune system doesn't adjust after a while by creating more killer cells to compensate during those open window periods.

- the pain during exercise you look forward to them by habit during the easy weeks, you really want to attack the workout but there is the second risk, it is easy to go to fast on them. And the pain gets real afterward in the form of delayed onset of muscle soreness or some kind of tendinitis(for tendinitis i am still affectable today even at low intensity). You have to remember that this kind of exercise comes from lab rats (also humans) who have heart rate monitors treadmills adjusting and constant follow up. During a hard week the workouts really hurt mentally. Also you need an hour a day of extra sleep at least.

- poor peak control: you want to keep improving with the same time and almost the same intensity variables. You up the intensity and work at it for a while but you need to be sure it is upped at the appropriate time and not to much otherwhise you will fall back. Also you improve really slowly after 2 blocks and could fall back to a previous fitness level by working out just a bit to hard. And eventually you still have to play with intensity to keep improving. I wasn't doing strictly 4 x 5 minutes anymore after the fourth block but really just changing time and intensity a bit as well this was a good experience though and gave me other possibility's to work up. (aka 5 pace training).

Right now i am in better shape then back then, but not so much better and my resting heart rate still is 9 bpm higher. One big advantage is no workout really feels like a pain in the . Second if i am sick i might still get some work done, doing intervals when being sick is risky.

All in all a good experiment i did for myself and it kind of works if done right and if i had to do it again i would do it much more correct from the start on, just like with other training it takes months to learn what the proces does to your body and how far you can push. Somethimes i even wonder if i could get to a PR if i would do this with 20' - 40' recovery or base training on non intensity days.

If you look at the overall schedule it is something close to what coe would have done. 4 x 4 minutes at 5 km pace and 6 x 800 at 3000 meter pace and 15 x 30" at mile pace or something like that every week all those things get your heart rate to 90% - 95% of mhr for a certain amount of time and all are with good recovery not to feel to hard.
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 





 




 

Ninjas - Heart beats only on command.

And never during a parade.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_QLUJHaB6U

In my marathon days my resting heart rate used to be somewhere in the upper 30's.  At the time, the Air Force used to evaluate fitness using something called the cycle ergometry test.  When I would perform this test on the stationary bike, I would usually get an invalid result.  I would tell the person administering the test that I was a marathoner and competitive runner.  They would shrug their shoulders and say "you've got to do it again".  The problem was, that the test was base lined to a normal resting heart rate which was probably 30 bpm higher than mine.  Guess that's the price you pay for being fit.

Ralph

I'm one of those who doesn't have a super low resting hr (somewhere in the 50's), but my highest measured HR is only 185 so far since I got my HR monitor (but I haven't tried to max it out either)

resting HR is usually between 40-45, max ive seen so far is 210 at the end of a 10k run.  i think its sweet that i can go from 40 to 210, although im not sure what (if anything) that means.

I am at 33-34 bpm, 38 years old, 155lbs. Now I don't see anything over 180bpm. At the age of 16 during the training camp for the Worlds in flat water sprint kayaking, at the institute for sports medicine, graded treadmill test to a failure(VO2 max) was conducted, I showed 240bpm, they stopped the test. I was at the breaking point, they were taking the ekg as well at the same time, remember a bunch of sports doctors looking at me  than. All was good and the test was valid. 
It is so individual that means nothing. Still can't win any triathlon in spite such a low  RHR.

Well, last year for a week I slept with my HR monitor on. My coach asked me to.

For the most part my avg hr while I was sleeping was 65-72 and my max was 100-110.

Not sure how the average plays into my resting HR. ????

Oh... and I have seen a max HR of 207. And we did a test to determine my max HR is 207.




Edited by KSH 2009-08-26 10:05 PM

LOL! This is a funny post. Who cares? I have had my supposed RHR tested but it's meaningless in regards to your fitness or triathlon performance. I love it that now we can have some sort of "who has the lowest RHR" competition! LOL!!!!!!

Edited by bryancd 2009-08-26 10:09 PM

I don't know, how fast can you run a 10K? sub 35min? Folks, it doesn't matter what your HR is, all that matters is how fast you can go at those HR's.

Edited by bryancd 2009-08-26 10:12 PM

Agree with the performance part but not sure what you mean about fitness. Can you explain cause mine gets lower with better fitness as I am sure is the case for others?

Yes, your RHR will decrrase with fitness, as will your aerobic and anerobic threshod. But at the end of the day, it's all based more off you max HR. A guy like Daermo with a high HR max will see higher aerobic and anerobic and RHR numbers than someone else, but he is still in better shape and will have better perfromance. It's specific the the individual.

Yes, agreed.

I never expected it to become some kind of competition. It was just that I noticed my RHR has gone down dramatically over the last 9 months since I started training and my fitness in all 3 sports has drastically increased.  I was just curious if people had seen a correlation between their RHR and their performance.  9 months isn't a long time in the scientific data realm of things, but was wondering if others had experienced similar things.  I do enjoy hearing the issues people have had with doctors/tests because they don't "fit the norm" of the general public.  Considering that average RHR is 72, I figured BTers would be lower... which, obviously they are. 

I'm aware performance is based on a lot of things, and one thing like RHR can't be singled out as "the person with the lowest RHR will win", but to each individual is there a connection between their RHR and their PRs?  Obviously comparing one persons stats to another is just not possible because of WAY too many other factors.

I would flip my sh*! if I ever saw a BP of 162/x! Actually, I'd probably get so upset about it that I would jack it up! I had to fight with one particular doctor because she refused to believe me that I was seriously concerned about my systolic getting all the way up into the 120s. What she didn't get was that it was a 20+ point gain over about four months. Yikes! I finally pulled my own records to make her see the trend. Fortunately, the steps I took to drop my cholesterol took care of the issue. Lately it has been creeping back up, where I sometimes break 110. I just figure I'm seriously stressed about going to the doc's office with all the stuff going on.

As for my RHR, I've measured anywhere from high 30s to high 50s throughout my adult life. So yeah, it definitely fluctuates. I would guess I'm around mid 40s right now, but haven't taken it in awhile. But, I used to regularly max out the treadmill reading my strap at 220, so I have no idea how high it can go, but I would guess 230s. If I haven't recovered at least 30 beats in two minutes, I know I've pushed too hard. Usually I recover substantially faster than that, depending on what I'm doing for recovery.

This user's post has been ignored.

I agree 100%. This one is just as good as posting your monthly volume numbers here as some keep on doing it. I don't see the point as it has no bearing on anything. 

Don't know, but Frank Shorter's was only in the upper 50's.  Nobody can claim the guy couldn't run well.

And I bet I've got everyone beat in the upper range!!  When I'm having an atrial fibrilation episode I can register up into the 250 bpm range!

Of course the atrium aren't actually pumping blood much then and are just fluttering around.  Kind of makes the risk of dying or having a stroke from blood clots just a bit higher during those episodes ........ but I've got a really high max HR for those couple of seconds to a few minutes!

Apparently his RHR was in the 70's.......... 

I'm just busting your chops.

And you answer your own question above. RHR and max HR are simply numbers specific to an individual at a specific level of fitness at the time. What matters is what's in between and how fast they can go at those numbers.

Ryans = 75. Yes, I came from a x-c ski background and I have seen Olympic Medalists with what some would extimate to be high RHR's and others with low ones. Makes no difference. Just like someone else sad, training logs don't win races either.