Resting Heart rate
Comments
-
neeb wrote: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?)
One of the most sensible posts on here...;-)0 -
Mines just dropped to zero reading this thread.
0 -
Had a RHR of 45 in October. Currently on 60-65. Broadly equal testing conditions. I'm less fit right now then I was then. You might not notice it though since I'm also lighter on climbs
[155 lbs/204 max hr]
From a cycling perspective I'm more concerned about the HR I get when cycling along at speed. The British Empire never died, it just moved to the Velodrome0 -
fastercyclist wrote:Had a RHR of 45 in October. Currently on 60-65. Broadly equal testing conditions. I'm less fit right now then I was then. You might not notice it though since I'm also lighter on climbs [155 lbs/204 max hr]
From a cycling perspective I'm more concerned about the HR I get when cycling along at speed.
I would be more concerned about a 20 bpm rise in 4 months, thats a lot
Generally if monitoring rhr in morning and it is about 10bpm higher indicates something not right such as cold, virus etc so no training. Th raise 20bpm just from not riding seems a bit high.
I had 4 months of doing nothing after a crash and mine only rose aboput 5 -10 at most.
Maybe you ate too much at christmas
By the way, the human heart has a definitive number of beats per lifetime so the lower your rate and the faster your recovery rate the longer it will last .0 -
Which is why training levels based on either HRmax or HR at threshold* are usually defined as a range, not a specific %.Slow1972 wrote: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.
* which is itself not one number but a range, since when riding at threshold, HR drifts somewhat.
If someone was riding above their threshold (or hard enough for some anaerobic metabolic contribition), fact is they couldn't sustain it for all that long and would be forced to slow down, so it's a moot point.0 -
my resting heart rate is around 40 bpm but it dont make me anything special on a bike yeah i can do say an 80 mile ride at maybe 18 mph ave on a good day but so can loads of cyclists and for a 10 mile tt ive never done better than 28 minutes so well off the pace in a club tt, to be a real top rider theres a lot more factors involved so just having a low resting HR doesnt tell you that much about how good a rider might be.0
-
Yes, I see your point. Not the best example there.
I could have said "Your mate could be still riding along comfortably aerobically whilst you are riding right on your threshold, even though you are both at the same % of MHR, depending what % of MHR your LTHR is"
The point was, do you really need to know your MHR or for training purposes using HR does LTHR give you enough?0 -
Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
Which is why training levels based on either HRmax or HR at threshold* are usually defined as a range, not a specific %.Slow1972 wrote: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.
* which is itself not one number but a range, since when riding at threshold, HR drifts somewhat.
If someone was riding above their threshold (or hard enough for some anaerobic metabolic contribition), fact is they couldn't sustain it for all that long and would be forced to slow down, so it's a moot point.
Alex, is it common for people to have a low heart rate threshold?? When doing TT effort on the turbo I am at low 150's and then drifts up to high 150's. Also never seen higher than 178 in a race.
What I'm basically asking is my heart rate too low at max (if this makes sense).0 -
Slow1972 wrote:The point was, do you really need to know your MHR or for training purposes using HR does LTHR give you enough?
Basing your ranges off a threshold rather than max is extremely sensible, it's much easier to test - and continue to test your LTHR HR is determined correctly than it is to test your max HR.
max HR is also harder to test accurately - All sorts of >30minute constant activities will leave your HR around the LTHR, so long as they are constant, whereas to hit max HR is more complicated to get right - an inappropriate protocol can have you failing to elicit it. And it's also not something you're going to want to do very often. long intervals at threshold are very good training though, so well worth doing often.
Assuming you have a logging HR device like a garmin, all you need to do is look at your HR from "all out" steady efforts, and you'll soon determine your threshold, even if you have to brake for the occasional roundabout etc. A graph will show you the steady value pretty easily.Jibbering Sports Stuff: http://jibbering.com/sports/0 -
I don't know what I should consider my max HR as, I was on the turbo one night, and I seen the finish line in sight, and I set off sprinting to it, I went too early though, but I got my HR to 202, I was shaking all over like could hardly stand up when I got off the bike, on the road the absolute max I have ever had it to is 197.0
-
freehub wrote:I don't know what I should consider my max HR as, I was on the turbo one night, and I seen the finish line in sight, and I set off sprinting to it, I went too early though, but I got my HR to 202, I was shaking all over like could hardly stand up when I got off the bike, on the road the absolute max I have ever had it to is 197.
Conditions on a turbo are completely different to being out on the bike though, and it's highly likely you'll get a different reading. For one, it's far easier to get hot on the turbo, especially if you don't have a fan or ventilation. Some people get a higher reading on the road and vice versa, but unless you're creating exactly the same conditions each time there are too many variables to take the maximum HR too seriously.
I just wish I had a power monitor...far more accurate.
Heart rate can sometimes lie but power never does.0 -
oldwelshman wrote:fastercyclist wrote:Had a RHR of 45 in October. Currently on 60-65. Broadly equal testing conditions. I'm less fit right now then I was then. You might not notice it though since I'm also lighter on climbs [155 lbs/204 max hr]
From a cycling perspective I'm more concerned about the HR I get when cycling along at speed.
I would be more concerned about a 20 bpm rise in 4 months, thats a lot
Generally if monitoring rhr in morning and it is about 10bpm higher indicates something not right such as cold, virus etc so no training. Th raise 20bpm just from not riding seems a bit high.
I had 4 months of doing nothing after a crash and mine only rose aboput 5 -10 at most.
Maybe you ate too much at christmas
By the way, the human heart has a definitive number of beats per lifetime so the lower your rate and the faster your recovery rate the longer it will last .
Well I went from 60-65 to 45 in the space of 6 weeks then didn't cycle for 2 months so you can see how it could easily of yo-yo'd about. Just one of those people who gain and lose fitness fast I guess.
I'm not sure I like your last sentence. Did 1 1/2 hours at 180BPM average earlier
Will keep an eye on any potential overtraining problems though
Since we're on topic I'm wondering whether it's normal to struggle to reach average heart rates (when cycling) that I get when unfit, whilst fit ? Is this just a mental toughness issue or is something at play? 180 average would of killed me when I was fitter at the end of last year.The British Empire never died, it just moved to the Velodrome0 -
sampras38 wrote:freehub wrote:I don't know what I should consider my max HR as, I was on the turbo one night, and I seen the finish line in sight, and I set off sprinting to it, I went too early though, but I got my HR to 202, I was shaking all over like could hardly stand up when I got off the bike, on the road the absolute max I have ever had it to is 197.
Conditions on a turbo are completely different to being out on the bike though, and it's highly likely you'll get a different reading. For one, it's far easier to get hot on the turbo, especially if you don't have a fan or ventilation. Some people get a higher reading on the road and vice versa, but unless you're creating exactly the same conditions each time there are too many variables to take the maximum HR too seriously.
I just wish I had a power monitor...far more accurate.
Heart rate can sometimes lie but power never does.
That's why I don't use my turbo, I don't have fans, the one I go on has about 6 fans in front of it, I have my eyes glued to the power now though, if I had that on my bike I'd never look at my speed. 0 -
That's just an old wives/fisherman's tale. But being fitter will help general health and likely promote longer life.oldwelshman wrote:By the way, the human heart has a definitive number of beats per lifetime so the lower your rate and the faster your recovery rate the longer it will last .0 -
You can use either. They provide indicative ranges for training levels, not precise percentages. There must be about a dozen different heart rate zones calculators out there.Slow1972 wrote:Yes, I see your point. Not the best example there.
I could have said "Your mate could be still riding along comfortably aerobically whilst you are riding right on your threshold, even though you are both at the same % of MHR, depending what % of MHR your LTHR is"
The point was, do you really need to know your MHR or for training purposes using HR does LTHR give you enough?
We have a simple one* based on HR max but you could also use HR from a longer TT effort as the "anchor point".
One should also use their perceived exertion rating with HR (and when using power).
*
http://www.cyclecoach.com/index.php?opt ... Itemid=1450 -
Your max and threshold heart rates are what they are. Within reason*, there is no too high or too low.slunker wrote:Alex, is it common for people to have a low heart rate threshold?? When doing TT effort on the turbo I am at low 150's and then drifts up to high 150's. Also never seen higher than 178 in a race.
What I'm basically asking is my heart rate too low at max (if this makes sense).
*unless it's a medical condition - and for that one should consult a medical professional.
A TT HR going from low 150s to high 150s is not out of line for someone with a max of 178. others may see theirs perhaps more up towards low to mid 160s with such a max. depends on the length of TT, the type of terrain and how you ride/pace it.0 -
The thing which has always amused me about this that is if it WAS true, how many people would actually die because their heart had run out of beats? If you are run over by a bus, does it beat thousands of times a second in your last few minutes of life? Even if you live to a ripe old age and are eventually killed by kidney failure, pneumonia or whatever, is that because your body "knows" that the heart has only got a few beats left and everything else starts to fail? And if you happen to be a fit, healthy 80 year old with a rapid heart rate, do you just suddenly keel over one day because the counter has reached zero?By the way, the human heart has a definitive number of beats per lifetime
It's true that species with faster metabolisms (generally smaller ones) tend not to live so long on average, and they tend to have faster heart rates.0 -
The quote is true, just it's different for everyone 0
-
And the magic number is hidden in your training stats if you can just learn to crack the code...The quote is true, just it's different for everyone Laughing
The interesting thing about this however is that if you do the maths, it would just about be possible to end up with a net gain in beats per week from serious over training than you would save from having a lower HR. But assuming that you lose 15 beats per minute, every minute when you are not exercising as a result of having a lower overall HR because you are fit, you would need to put in a serious number of hours per week at near threshold to end up with a net gain in beats overall. But it would be quite possible. It's tempting to believe that minimizing your overall beats-per-week by getting the balance right (i.e. getting the cardiovascular benefits of exercising without overdoing it) might be good for longevity.0 -
Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
That's just an old wives/fisherman's tale. But being fitter will help general health and likely promote longer life.oldwelshman wrote:By the way, the human heart has a definitive number of beats per lifetime so the lower your rate and the faster your recovery rate the longer it will last .
Or maybe an old welshmans tale
It is a theory that has been talked about for years and still nothing proven but some cardiologist will tell you this.
Probably on a par with most efficient cadance 0 -
neeb wrote:
The thing which has always amused me about this that is if it WAS true, how many people would actually die because their heart had run out of beats? If you are run over by a bus, does it beat thousands of times a second in your last few minutes of life? Even if you live to a ripe old age and are eventually killed by kidney failure, pneumonia or whatever, is that because your body "knows" that the heart has only got a few beats left and everything else starts to fail? And if you happen to be a fit, healthy 80 year old with a rapid heart rate, do you just suddenly keel over one day because the counter has reached zero?By the way, the human heart has a definitive number of beats per lifetime
It's true that species with faster metabolisms (generally smaller ones) tend not to live so long on average, and they tend to have faster heart rates.
Very good
Well I think that what is meant is that for some one with a higher heart rate has a higher chance of it stopping at earlier age, not on an exact number of beats
There are a lot of people who die every year because their heart stops unfortunately.
Also I think that smokers in general have hiher heart rates, about 10 to 20 bpm more than if they don't smoke.
If you look at some one with hr of 50 and compare with some one with 75, thats roughtly 13 million beats a year less. So over 50 years thats 657 million less so suspect it may be better to have the lower rate, same as car miles
I have lost count of my beats now so I dont know how long I have left :roll:0 -
Maybe we should all have a "mileometer" - an HRM surgically embedded at birth with a little LCD on the chest...So over 50 years thats 657 million less so suspect it may be better to have the lower rate, same as car miles Laughing
I have lost count of my beats now so I dont know how long I have left Rolling Eyes 0 -
John.T wrote:
That is how we all go. Not many dead people have beating hearts.There are a lot of people who die every year because their heart stops unfortunately.
Hmm, right, very good John I meant heart stopping by giving up for no oter reason, not stopping for other ilnesses causing death, but think you knew what I meant
I am giving up on this thread now 0
