Resting Heart rate
DV1
Posts: 22
Does a lower resting heart rate indicate a fitter althlete ? the reason i ask is i have a resting heart rate of 50 i am a fairly good rider but nothing special !! on the other hand my friend is an Elite level rider with a resting rate of 65 who can happily kick my arse when ever he sees fit , i suppose i have answered my question , but why is there this miss conception !!
0
Comments
-
I think a lower resting HR indicates a stronger, more efficient heart. That does not mean to say though that someone with a low resting HR is necessarily 'fit' in any given sport.0
-
Is a resting HR measurement accurate if you just wake up, wack the strap on and measure it whilst laying in bed? Cause if so I've got a 39 which I'd be quite please with.0
-
Why would you be pleased - it means nothing.freehub wrote:Is a resting HR measurement accurate if you just wake up, wack the strap on and measure it whilst laying in bed? Cause if so I've got a 39 which I'd be quite please with.0 -
I think there is a significant genetic component to RHR - mine has always been low even when I was unfit and overweight.
We can start the "mine's lower than yours thread" now
--
"Because the cycling is pain. The cycling is soul crushing pain."0 -
Freehubs "pleased" as the lower HR could suggest a more effective/efficient supply of oxygenated blood to working muscles and disposal of used blood etc.
In any given time, it would therefore beat less often than a higher beating heart,
So, if 2 people had similar body sizes, his "may" be more efficient, by working less hard.
If he's pumping the same amount of blood around in less beats, it's a better pump!
It doesn't mean he's Fitter, but his HR Reserve could be better.0 -
blackhands wrote:
Why would you be pleased - it means nothing.freehub wrote:Is a resting HR measurement accurate if you just wake up, wack the strap on and measure it whilst laying in bed? Cause if so I've got a 39 which I'd be quite please with.
As Splottboy suggested I guess.
But it's nice to have a low resting HR, better than have say 60..0 -
You mentioned my name...my pulse has gone up now!0
-
fitness is about how quickly you can return to resting heart rate - after a work out.
i.e. recovery
nothing to do with resting heart rate. Although lower is generally better as a starting point.0 -
Scrumple wrote:fitness is about how quickly you can return to resting heart rate - after a work out.
i.e. recovery
nothing to do with resting heart rate. Although lower is generally better as a starting point.
Always seen that mentioned however it has never made the slightest sense to me as resting heart rate is often understood to be your heart rate as measured on waking however when do you ever see that number again after you get up and start the normal business of getting on with life.
So could someone please advise me as to exactly what "heart rate" before exercise and after exercise am I trying to measure and on what time scale do things go from excellent to very unfit so that I can have a go at this.0 -
36.0
-
Scrumple wrote:fitness is about how quickly you can return to resting heart rate - after a work out.
i.e. recovery
nothing to do with resting heart rate. Although lower is generally better as a starting point.
When I'm on a ride, if I go up a big climb, my HR gets up to 190 odd, then say if there is a long decent after, I reckon my HR returns to between 90 and 110 within 1min, I notice on the trainer tho more, after the 15mile ride my HR returns to 90 odd after a couple of mins.0 -
-
-
mine was 38, but that wasn't a wake up thing. I got it reading a lance armstrong thread whilst sitting on an office chair. Waking up it is mid 40's
As above, the rapidity of response to stimuli is a better measure of fitness.0 -
ride_whenever wrote:mine was 38, but that wasn't a wake up thing. I got it reading a lance armstrong thread whilst sitting on an office chair. Waking up it is mid 40's
As above, the rapidity of response to stimuli is a better measure of fitness.
Define please.0 -
-
skinson wrote:
Thanks. I understand the relationship between resting heart rate as measured in the morning and monitoring that on an ongoing basis in order to show increases or declines in fitness and to alert to possible problems such overtraining or illness however what I am particularly interested to understand is this whole issue of heart rate recovery in the post exercise period and that relationship to fitness.
It seems to me that it is often quoted however never defined therefore what is good, what is bad, what pre workout heart rate am I looking for (ie is it sitting down for 5 mins and resting and then taking my heart rate or is it just looking at before I jump on the bike?) Ok I do my workout - does it matter how long and intense it is and if it does how is that defined? On what time scale is recovery considered good or bad?0 -
RHR is a measure of fitness relative to you, but not really to anyone else. As you get fitter your RHR will tend to get less, but people of the same fitness can have very different RHRs, as is proven by the big differences amongst pro cyclists. I guess some people just have smaller hearts that beat faster, all other things being equal. I know myself that when my RHR gets down to 50 I am in good condition, but for some people this would be quite high. But then my maximum HR is about 195, which is about 15-20bpm higher than it's supposed to be for my age. I think the whole thing about RHR being taken in the morning just after waking up when it is likely to be lowest is just to get a constant reference point, as it varies so much during the day depending on what you are doing or thinking.
Personally I don't think pre-workout HR counts for much, it is influenced too much by state of mind and other factors. Just the thought of jumping on the bike raises my HR significantly, I guess in preparation! But as soon as I start warming up and get my HR to about 60-70% of max I can tell whether it is higher or lower than normal, which relates to week to week fitness, possible illness etc.It seems to me that it is often quoted however never defined therefore what is good, what is bad, what pre workout heart rate am I looking for (ie is it sitting down for 5 mins and resting and then taking my heart rate or is it just looking at before I jump on the bike?)0 -
Personally I don't think pre-workout HR counts for much, it is influenced too much by state of mind and other factors. Just the thought of jumping on the bike raises my HR significantly, I guess in preparation! But as soon as I start warming up and get my HR to about 60-70% of max I can tell whether it is higher or lower than normal, which relates to week to week fitness, possible illness etc.
I was talking specifically about those in this thread that have said that it is how quickly that you return to a resting heart rate after exercise that determines your fitness therefore my question was to ask for that to be quantified. If you don't qunatify these things then how on earth is that information of any value.
1) If it is resting heart rate we are talking about as in upon waking then surely we will not see that heart rate again after exercise until the next day and if it was a very hard session or you have a had a couple of hard days exercise then resting heart rate may well be elevated in any case so given that
2) If the heart rate you are seeking to return to post exercise in order to measure the elapsed time so that you can measure your fitness ie how quickly you recover then presumably you must have some means of determining what the appropriate heart rate return value is therefore I was assuming it must be measured somehow before the exercise takes place and if it is isn't then what is the methodology?
Surely those that have metioned this in this thread can tell me how they actually do this as it is something that has totally cofused me for years and every time I have ever asked the same question no one has ever answered it.
I have a resting heart rate of between 38-42bpm and a maximum of 198bpm and LTHR of 178bpm. Normally on starting exercise I can expect my heart rate to be anywhere between 65bpm to 105bpm depending on how much faffing around I have done before I get out the door or on the trainer.0 -
RHR (at waking) is a neeb says a personal thing dependent in part on fitness, health status etc.
My understanding is that intervals with a heavy anaerobic content require a longer 'recovery ' period (both between intervalls and between sessions) due in part to high lactate levels. Your pulse doesn't fall back to 'just ticking over' level as quickly.
If you exercise aerobically there is little lactate to deal with and your pulse can go down quickly. Obviously you can train your body's response to these different aspects to a certain extent and the faster your heart rate gets back to 'tick over' the fitter you are - though the actual heart rate is personal.
What a lot of waffle ! Sorry - hope it helps!0 -
Just to throw a spanner in the works, I have a low heart rate but also a low max heart rate 36-180, what does this say about me???? F*ck knows!!!!!!
I breathe out my @rse at 155 where others are happily spinning along chatting at that heart rate. My FTP is 160 where another guy same age, weight and fitness his FTP is 175. Best to look at genetice make up IMO.........0 -
The measurement of recovery can be taken from any point really. You could measure your pulse rate before starting a workout and see how long it takes to get back to that or you could exercise at (say) 65% of your max HR and then go up to (say) 85% then on completing the 85% workout time how long it takes to get back to 65%.
The key with any HR based exercise routine is knowing your max HR though and not many people accurately know that. Also, the above may give you a good idea of whether you have a better recovery time (fitness) than your mate doing the same percentages but it's pretty irrelevant and people are better off using HR to monitor improvements in their own fitness rather than trying to show they're fitter than their mates.0 -
+1The measurement of recovery can be taken from any point really. You could measure your pulse rate before starting a workout and see how long it takes to get back to that or you could exercise at (say) 65% of your max HR and then go up to (say) 85% then on completing the 85% workout time how long it takes to get back to 65%.
The key with any HR based exercise routine is knowing your max HR though and not many people accurately know that. Also, the above may give you a good idea of whether you have a better recovery time (fitness) than your mate doing the same percentages but it's pretty irrelevant and people are better off using HR to monitor improvements in their own fitness rather than trying to show they're fitter than their mates.
The few actual quantifications of this I have seen have mostly mentioned time to go from maximum HR to a certain percentage that is well above RHR, e.g. 60 or 70%. (Or from, e.g., 85% to 60% or whatever). I guess this is for two reasons - firstly, the lower your HR is the more it is influenced by other factors that don't have much to do with fitness, and secondly, as most people have observed, it actually takes quite a long time for your HR to return to actual RHR or something very near it after an intense work out.
Time taken to go from near maximum HR to 70% of max is a good predictor of heart health in general I think, for people of all fitnesses. I'm guessing that time to go from. say, 60% to RHR is less predictive and more problematic to measure, although I could be wrong about that.0 -
I think the important thing to rememeber is that we're all different in how we're built, trained etc. Comparing HR levels is like comparing amount sweated.... pretty pointlesss. What matters is how much power you can press out in any given situation, how long you can hold for, yoru position on the bike, reading a race or pacing yourself over a sportive. HR is really just a highly personal method of tracking changes in cardiovascular fitness and when used against speed/power it can homefully show you you're doing more work for the same or less effort etc.0
-
+1 i've stopped training my athletes with HRM, it's pointless until the training load gets high enough to cause over-training to set in.
Was chatting to a former pro who runs a cycling club now, he showed me some really interesting stuff to do with the relative strengths of the para- and sym- nervous systems with regards to recovery, fitness and overtraining.0 -
DV1 wrote:Does a lower resting heart rate indicate a fitter althlete ? the reason i ask is i have a resting heart rate of 50 i am a fairly good rider but nothing special !! on the other hand my friend is an Elite level rider with a resting rate of 65 who can happily kick my ars* when ever he sees fit , i suppose i have answered my question , but why is there this miss conception !!
It's a guide but not written in stone. Some riders will have resting heart rates that aren't particularly impressive and it doesn't always mean anything. But generally yes, a lower number does usually indicate fitness levels.0 -
nmcgann wrote:I think there is a significant genetic component to RHR - mine has always been low even when I was unfit and overweight.
We can start the "mine's lower than yours thread" now
That's very true. A friend of mine who occasionally rides but isn't anything special has a 38 resting HR. It's just something he's had all his life.0 -
Pross wrote:The key with any HR based exercise routine is knowing your max HR though and not many people accurately know that. Also, the above may give you a good idea of whether you have a better recovery time (fitness) than your mate doing the same percentages but it's pretty irrelevant and people are better off using HR to monitor improvements in their own fitness rather than trying to show they're fitter than their mates.
Is it?
I'd be interested to know how many people using HR train at percentages of their max HR and how many work off their lactate threshold HR. I would have thought that for anyone riding or training at higher intensities, that's more relevant to the levels they train at. I.e training at 85% of max HR may be over threshold for one person and below threshold for another. The result is that the training effect would be markedly different for each person wouldn't it? Your mate could be still riding along aerobically whilst you are anaerobic, even though you are both at the same % of MHR, depending what % of MHR your LTHR is.0
