resting heartrate

le_boss

read a really interesting article yesterday about andy schleck and in it it said his resting heartrate at the end of this years tour was 51bpm. article didnt say what his resting heartrate was before the tour started, so my question is does anyone know what the pros resting heartrates are likely to be before big events?

i remember that indurain had a resting heartrate of 34 during his peak.

keef66

It means nothing. You could be morbidly obese and still have a RHR of 50.

cougie

Everyone is different.

le_boss

keef66 wrote:

It means nothing. You could be morbidly obese and still have a RHR of 50.

are you serious??
from what i have just been reading the lower the heartrate the fitter you are and the more efficient your heart is. (unless you have a medical condition)

have just read on the 100% accurate wikipedia that indurains resting heartrate was 28, not 34.

Monty Dog

Generally, a RHR below 60 is considered healthy, below 50 very fit and below 40 isn't uncommon in elite sportspeople. Looking at RHR in isolation isn't the whole picture, as it also depends on the 'range' between RHR and MaxHR and the physiological response of the individual. Generally, a low RHR is an indication of efficiency as each 'beat' of the heart is able to push a higher volume in comparison to someone less fit.

Ginjafro

Monty Dog wrote:

Generally, a RHR below 60 is considered healthy, below 50 very fit and below 40 isn't uncommon in elite sportspeople. Looking at RHR in isolation isn't the whole picture, as it also depends on the 'range' between RHR and MaxHR and the physiological response of the individual. Generally, a low RHR is an indication of efficiency as each 'beat' of the heart is able to push a higher volume in comparison to someone less fit.

Can't really say much better than that. If you think of the difference between resting and max, the bigger the better, means you have potentially a lot in reserve. My own personal experience has been that my resting heart rate has dramatically improved, from 70 to 50, when I started to get seriously fit a few years ago and when racing my rate is less, ie when I first raced I regularly topped 175 but now I tend to buzz a long quicker and faster but only at about 165, so I seem to be more efficient, cool.

Paul E

Mine is generally under 50 and it has topped out at just over 200 which is good I would say for my age.

The GP has always said my heart and blood pressure are in a good zone and even with my asthma he said keep the cycling up as it's helping keep my lung capacity up very high too

Peddle Up!

As I increased exercise mine fell from 70'ish to just over 50. I'm 59. I don't know what my maximum is as I'm scared of "blowing up the boiler".

DavidJB

RHR is different for everyone. Mines 48-50, but I wouldn't say I was fit

airbusboy

RHR is completely different person to person.

My resting HR seems to be below 50, normally around 48 (first thing in the morning) and i'd say i'm fairly fit; rode La Marmotte, and currently upto 4400 miles cycled this year.... On the other hand is my old man, resting heart rate 47 and rarely does any exercise (except gardening), probably 1.5-2stone over weight and 30yrs+ older, fitness though i'd win hands down, although i don't like competing with the old boy

danowat

Just another HR myth :roll:

johnmiosh

As a kid i joined a cycling club and became fairly fit, but nothing exceptional.

After leaving school i discovered that there were several other things in life, including drinking and smoking, and so let the cycling slip for a few years.

When I was 23, after a moderate night out, I was unable to sleep and realised that the rhythmic pounding noise in my ear was the sound of my pulse. Using the alarm clock I counted the beats over a minute and was shocked to discover a RHR of 90. So shocked that I gave up drinking and smoking on the spot and went back to my parents at the weekend to pick up my old bike.

After about a year, I was fitter than I had ever been and had a RHR of 48. So definately low RHR corresponds to a high level of fitness.

However a high max is just individual biology and is not affected by training or fitness and will naturally reduce as you get older.

danowat

johnmiosh wrote:

So definitely low RHR corresponds to a high level of fitness.

No it doesn't, a low RHR means you have a high stroke volume, a low RHR, without a history means nothing in relation to fitness.

Now a REDUCTION in RHR, thats a different kettle of fish.......endurance training increases the stroke volume of your heart, therefore your RHR reduces as your heart doesn't have to beat as fast.

Take two riders, one with a 45 RHR, and one with a 60 RHR, on the face of it, you'd say the 45 RHR would be fitter, but you can make that assumption without further information.

keef66

+1 to wot he said

RHR in isolation means nothing. You can reduce RHR by increasing fitness, but the starting / finishing numbers are unique to the individual

So for an individual you can say that lowering RHR probably equates to increased fitness, but comparing the RHR of 2 different people is a pointless exercise.

johnmiosh

Good point Danowat,

In my example, the 90 reduced to mid 70s as soon as the alcohol, nicotine, stress etc. was out of my system, but the significant reduction did occur due to extended period of aerobic training. Also I have no idea of what my RHR was prior to starting cycling and imagine that as a pre teen it would have no relevance anyway. So my individual experience contains too many unknown variables to provide any kind of proof.


OTH, stroke volume is basically determined by heart size, and though there may be significant genetic differences between individuals, wouldn't aerobic fitness would have a greater effect on heart size and stroke volume than nature and therefore a greater effect on RHR?

danowat

johnmiosh wrote:

OTH, stroke volume is basically determined by heart size, and though there may be significant genetic differences between individuals, wouldn't aerobic fitness would have a greater effect on heart size and stroke volume than nature and therefore a greater effect on RHR?

You'd think so, however......

I'd class myself as reasonably fit, and my RHR is around 55bpm, my missus is nowhere near as fit as I am, and her RHR is actually lower than mine.......

On a basic level, RHR reductions from exercise is a general indication of increased fitness, but I wouldn't get too hung up on the fact, also, there are a number of medical and hormonal conditions that can also lower RHR.

markos1963

So many things effect RHR as well, a poor nights sleep, heat/cold, medicines the list goes on. A lot of people take the measurement at the wrong time of day or vary the time they take it. A low HR gets the medics at my work excited as well, thinking I have bradycardia until I have to explain my sporting interest.

johnmiosh

Actually, I agree. RHR has potentiall to be used in a willy waving contest, and as it obviously can be affected by medication, illness or other non fitness related issues, direct comparisons between individuals cannot be made effectively.

Having said that, I do believe that in people not suffering an illness or taking medication there would be a general correlation.

SLX01

I am recovering from a heart attack 4 weeks ago mine was around 55/57 before and is roughly the same now and I have coronary heart disease so I would not class being below 60 as a sign of a healthy heart!!

Bozman

I was in the cardiac ward for a weekend due to AF and on my return trip for an MOT my RHR was initially measured in the late 30s, they were a little concerned and asked me if i took drugs(no), so they took my boots off ran the ECG again and it settled at 42.
Mr cardiac told me that i was near the top of the ladder and classed as athletic.
I'm fit but not that fit, i don't stick to to a healthy diet and i do tend to drink a lot.

Conclusion - I'm fitter than Shleck! My thighs are as skinny but thats where it ends, RHR is no guide to your level of fitness!