What is your heart rates?

Male: What is your heart rates? Number of heart beats per minute (bpm))

  • Male: < 30

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Male: 30-40

    Votes: 2 2.9%
  • Male: 40-50

    Votes: 11 16.2%
  • Male: 50-60

    Votes: 26 38.2%
  • Male: 60-70

    Votes: 17 25.0%
  • Male: 70-80

    Votes: 10 14.7%
  • Male: 80-90

    Votes: 1 1.5%
  • Male: 90-100

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Male: 100-110

    Votes: 1 1.5%
  • Male: >110

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    68

r2473

G.O.A.T.
I just tested mine at my desk with a stopwatch, just counting beats for 30 seconds and doubling. At this point in the day, I have had about 40 oz. of very strong black coffee.

I counted 20 beats, so 40 bpm.

I think my true waking heart rate would be a few beats lower.
 

Sentinel

Bionic Poster
What ? Waking ? After sex (hehe)?

The morning after a long run its really low like 30 or 32. On other mornings 34-36.
 

Fuji

Legend
My resting heart rate is at 72BMP as of right now, in my totally out of shapeness. :( :(

-Fuji
 

larry10s

Hall of Fame
I just tested mine at my desk with a stopwatch, just counting beats for 30 seconds and doubling. At this point in the day, I have had about 40 oz. of very strong black coffee.

I counted 20 beats, so 40 bpm.

I think my true waking heart rate would be a few beats lower.

try counting again
 

pvaudio

Legend
I've got genetic hypertension, so I have to take my BP all the time and thus I like to record my HR as well. I'm at 52 as of two minutes ago. Normally range between 50-55.
 

LeeD

Bionic Poster
Sitting here for 20 minutes, rested, 70 beats per minute.
About the same as 45 years ago.
 

pvaudio

Legend
You guys recording 40 or less BPM, do you honestly understand the significance of that? Let me give you two examples:

Miguel Indurain is one of the greatest cyclists of all time and won the Tour de France 5 times. He had a resting HR of ~30bpm. Here are just a few facts about the man's physiology to put it into perspective just how hard to believe that numerous people on here are claiming to have such low resting HR's:

1. A normal person takes in about 3-4 liters of O2 into their blood per minute. A professional cyclist will be able to get about 5.5. Indurain would consistently measure over 7 liters per minute.

2. A pro cyclist can pump about 25 liters of blood through their body per minute. Indurain could pump 50 liters through his.

3. His lung capacity is nearly 8 liters. Yours is probably about 5, with a strong athlete getting near 6.5.

4. Your VO2 max, the amount of oxygen your body can uptake in a given time is one of the best measures of cardiovascular fitness. Your average weight male will be in around 45, while an amateur competion cyclist will measure about 60. Indurain measured over 88.

Here's someone everyone is familiar with: 6-time TDF winner, Lance Armstrong

1. Armstrong, at his absolute peak, had a resting HR of 32-34bpm. During mountain stages, this corresponded to him sometimes reaching his max HR of over 200bpm. That's off the measured scale for professional athletes at 20 years of age. It decreases by about 5bpm every 5 years and Armstrong's prime was in his mid 30s. Less than 100 athletes in the entire world have ever tested even near this range.

2. Lance's VO2 max was highest after recovering from cancer, as was his muscle mass and efficiency. His oxygen capacity is over 40% greater than the average male athlete in his 20s. He was a decade older.

3. When you use your muscles strenuously, you produce stuff which I'm sure you know is called lactic acid. This hampers performance and creates incredible muscle fatigue. His body was so efficient that his muscles produce less than half of what a normal male does.

4. This is the most impressive in my opinion: as an endurance athlete, you need slow-twitch muscle fibers more than fast-twitch ones. If you don't know, fast twitch fibers are used for explosive movements and sports: plyometrics, boxing, etc. He wasn't originally one of the best at muscle efficiency, but because of the reasons above, he was able to convert his muscle fibers into about 80% slow-twitch fibers. A pro cyclist is able to pedal at about 75-80 RPM. He changed his musculature to allow him to pedal at 105 RPM.

Look up the stats for cyclists, cross-country skiiers, rowers, ultramarathoners, etc. While you might not consider tennis an endurance sport, at the pro level where you're given 20 seconds between huge rallies, it definitely is. That's the main reason why Djokovic used to struggle: his lungs aren't efficient enough to keep his body going at the level he needs to in grand slams.
 

Jaewonnie

Professional
Hmmm....84 sitting down doing nothing.
I remember doing physically repetitive activities back when I was 12 and getting past 200bpm...
:( and I'm 15, not a good sign
 
You guys recording 40 or less BPM, do you honestly understand the significance of that? Let me give you two examples:

Miguel Indurain is one of the greatest cyclists of all time and won the Tour de France 5 times. He had a resting HR of ~30bpm. Here are just a few facts about the man's physiology to put it into perspective just how hard to believe that numerous people on here are claiming to have such low resting HR's:

1. A normal person takes in about 3-4 liters of O2 into their blood per minute. A professional cyclist will be able to get about 5.5. Indurain would consistently measure over 7 liters per minute.

2. A pro cyclist can pump about 25 liters of blood through their body per minute. Indurain could pump 50 liters through his.

3. His lung capacity is nearly 8 liters. Yours is probably about 5, with a strong athlete getting near 6.5.

4. Your VO2 max, the amount of oxygen your body can uptake in a given time is one of the best measures of cardiovascular fitness. Your average weight male will be in around 45, while an amateur competion cyclist will measure about 60. Indurain measured over 88.

Here's someone everyone is familiar with: 6-time TDF winner, Lance Armstrong

1. Armstrong, at his absolute peak, had a resting HR of 32-34bpm. During mountain stages, this corresponded to him sometimes reaching his max HR of over 200bpm. That's off the measured scale for professional athletes at 20 years of age. It decreases by about 5bpm every 5 years and Armstrong's prime was in his mid 30s. Less than 100 athletes in the entire world have ever tested even near this range.

2. Lance's VO2 max was highest after recovering from cancer, as was his muscle mass and efficiency. His oxygen capacity is over 40% greater than the average male athlete in his 20s. He was a decade older.

3. When you use your muscles strenuously, you produce stuff which I'm sure you know is called lactic acid. This hampers performance and creates incredible muscle fatigue. His body was so efficient that his muscles produce less than half of what a normal male does.

4. This is the most impressive in my opinion: as an endurance athlete, you need slow-twitch muscle fibers more than fast-twitch ones. If you don't know, fast twitch fibers are used for explosive movements and sports: plyometrics, boxing, etc. He wasn't originally one of the best at muscle efficiency, but because of the reasons above, he was able to convert his muscle fibers into about 80% slow-twitch fibers. A pro cyclist is able to pedal at about 75-80 RPM. He changed his musculature to allow him to pedal at 105 RPM.

Look up the stats for cyclists, cross-country skiiers, rowers, ultramarathoners, etc. While you might not consider tennis an endurance sport, at the pro level where you're given 20 seconds between huge rallies, it definitely is. That's the main reason why Djokovic used to struggle: his lungs aren't efficient enough to keep his body going at the level he needs to in grand slams.

I agree. 40 seems extremely low for a tennis player, let alone someone who's not playing professionally.

I would imagine that 65-70 would be around average.
 

pvaudio

Legend
Hmmm....84 sitting down doing nothing.
I remember doing physically repetitive activities back when I was 12 and getting past 200bpm...
:( and I'm 15, not a good sign
That is a very high RHR, and 200bpm is the max heart rate for a competition athlete. Max HR is what your heart is doing working at 100%. The only time you should be getting near that is during HIIT, or if you're Lance, exploit it to be able to push your body further than 99.9% of humans :)
 

Frankauc

Professional
about 72 bpm,

when waking i must be about 60...but i dont really know

below 40 is ridicoulous....
 
Last edited:

r2473

G.O.A.T.
try counting again

I've said this before on these forums. I used to register between 30 and 36 when I gave plasma in college on their machines. I saw the same numbers twice a week most weeks (whenever I needed beer money). I had to walk around the room and get it up above 50 before they would let me on the plasma machine.

I ran 50-75 miles / week for a number of years........most non-track miles were at 6-6:30 / mile pace (except for runs over 10 miles, which were usually closer to 7 / mile pace).

Would you feel better if I said my heart rate is 65 bpm? I suppose it can be whatever you are comfortable with.

OK, just tested again at the end of the day (probably not actually "resting", as I don't think I was sitting still quite long enough) and I registered 46.
 
Last edited:

Frankauc

Professional
wow that's impressive r2473! 70 miles per week of running is a lot!

how did you get to 250lbs? you were a high level runner! That's not common
 

r2473

G.O.A.T.
I'm almost 40 now. I was powerlifting and eating like a horse for the past 3 years or so (but I'm back down to about 205 by the way).

When I was running I was in my teens and 20's. Same height 6' 1" but I weighed between 145 and 160 lbs.

I certainly couldn't run that type of mileage or speed now. But I am pleasantly surprised that the resting heart rate is staying low. When I was fat, it was in the mid 60's to nearly 70. I've been running ~20-30 miles / week for the past 5 months or so and it has come right back down. Seems to be sticking around 38-46.

I get the same numbers using a wristwatch and just checking with my finger as I do from my heart rate monitor.

Anyway, it really doesn't matter. In reality, my heartrate is 75 bpm. I just like to sound like the internet fitness king.

Best of luck.
 

Andres

G.O.A.T.
At work, doing nothing, tried twice. Got 49 and then 52. Let's say 50 to average them both. But I'm still young (26) and in good shape. I'm sure in 20 years it'll get 20 bpm higher.
 

Sentinel

Bionic Poster
You guys recording 40 or less BPM, do you honestly understand the significance of that? Let me give you two examples:
Yes, we do.
I am Ethiopian, btw. I also run long distances.

btw, how familiar are you with the stuff you are quoting? Are you aware that even among top distance runners, there are wide variations in the Vo2 max.
 

Talker

Hall of Fame
Around 70 bpm now.

When I was in shape it was 38-40... awhile back. I had the company nurse check it.
My BP at that time was 115/72 which looking at it now would think it would be lower.
 

pvaudio

Legend
Yes, we do.
I am Ethiopian, btw. I also run long distances.

btw, how familiar are you with the stuff you are quoting? Are you aware that even among top distance runners, there are wide variations in the Vo2 max.
How familiar? Very. My father has been an amateur racing cyclist since I was born. I also used to have very bad asthma, so measuring my lung capacity became a weekly thing. I was extremely fat as a child, and also as I stated given the grace of high blood pressure, which resulted in an enlarged heart by the age of 16. I have to know my max heart rate plus what is normal to make sure my heart doesn't get overworked with...less than desirable results. Most importantly though, I also happen to be raised by two physicians, and not surprisingly, my father is a pulmonologist. So yes, I am familiar.
 

r2473

G.O.A.T.
btw, how familiar are you with the stuff you are quoting? Are you aware that even among top distance runners, there are wide variations in the Vo2 max.

How familiar? Very. My father has been an amateur racing cyclist since I was born. I also used to have very bad asthma, so measuring my lung capacity became a weekly thing. I was extremely fat as a child, and also as I stated given the grace of high blood pressure, which resulted in an enlarged heart by the age of 16. I have to know my max heart rate plus what is normal to make sure my heart doesn't get overworked with...less than desirable results. Most importantly though, I also happen to be raised by two physicians, and not surprisingly, my father is a pulmonologist. So yes, I am familiar.

Then why didn't you address his question?

But more to the point of our discussion:

Can You Change Your VO2 Max?

Research shows that although VO2 max has a genetic component it can also be increased through training. The two methods for increasing VO2 max include increases in both training volume and intensity. Research also indicates that the less fit an individual is, the more they can increase their VO2 max through training. In fact, novice exercisers have been able to increase VO2 max by 20 percent through proper training. Fit athletes have a harder time increasing their VO2 max, most likely because they are already so near their genetic potential.

The average young untrained male will have a VO2 max of approximately 3.5 litres/minute and 45 ml/kg/min. The average young untrained female will score a VO2 max of approximately 2.0 litres/minute and 38 ml/kg/min. These scores can improve with training and decrease with age, though the degree of trainability also varies very widely: conditioning may double VO2max in some individuals, and will never improve it at all in others.

Tim Noakes, a professor of exercise and sports science at the University of Cape Town, describes a number of variables that may affect VO2 max: age, gender, fitness and training, changes in altitude, and action of the ventilatory muscles. Noakes also asserts that VO2 max is a relatively poor predictor of performance in runners due to variations in running economy and fatigue resistance during prolonged exercise.


How is VO2 max related to resting heart rate?

Another estimate of VO2 max, based on maximum and resting heart rates, was created by a group of researchers from Denmark. It is given by:

VO2max =15*(HR-max / HR-rest)
 
Last edited:

Sentinel

Bionic Poster
How is VO2 max related to resting heart rate?

Another estimate of VO2 max, based on maximum and resting heart rates, was created by a group of researchers from Denmark. It is given by:

VO2max =15*(HR-max / HR-rest)
I was actually thinking about this when i read that long post of pvaudio.

PLEASE TELL ME WHERE MY LOGIC GOES WRONG...

It does make sense that the higher your V02, the less your heart has to work, hence the lower your heart rate. However ....
If you have a low V02 and you run long distances, your resting heart rate is going to come down a lot. From the 60;s or 70's, to 40's then 30's.
The same will happen for someone with a high Vo2. Two runners with a resting HR of 30 do not necessarily have similar or even close VO2's.

At the same time, a person with a high Vo2 who has never trained, MIGHT (I am guessing) have a high HR. e.g. VO2's of American distance runners (in the 1970's and 1980's) were quite low compared to African runners. Aouita was (iirc) 94. Most examples of top US distance runners i had read of were in high 60's or low 70's. There were one or two exceptions such as Steve Pre (poss 76 or so) and Don Kardong was somewhere in low 80's.

So if you are an East or North African (Moroccan) who has not trained, you can have a higher Vo2 max but high HR compared to someone else with a low Vo2 but who has trained.

So how does the equation figure there. Or is it just indicative ? Am i missing something here ? Thanks.
 

Sentinel

Bionic Poster
VO2max =15*(HR-max / HR-rest)

r2473, i am once again looking at this and i think it is too naive. Unless i do not understand HR-max. Is this during exercise ?

Very often we ran intervals and were supposed to get a HR of about 180 or 190. Assume an average HR-rest of 35 (taken in morning).
(180/35)* 15 gives 77 which is too high for an average competitive runner.

Could you give an actual example of using that equation.
 

r2473

G.O.A.T.
I do not know anything about the research that went into deriving the VO2 max equation.

I certainly wouldn't want to argue that it is perfectly predictive. But I do think that the logic makes sense. If you have the capacity for a high max heart rate and a low resting heart rate, keeping all else equal, you should have a higher VO2 max than a similar athlete with a lower max heart rate and higher resting heart rate.

The (very little) I know about this suggests (as you say) that there is a great deal of variability in VO2 max and heart rate levels people can achieve through training. Further, these things are not perfect predictors of performance. Only general predictors.

Keeping to the point of the thread, I'm fairly surprised that people find a resting heart rate of 40 bpm basically "impossible".
 

pvaudio

Legend
Wow. You guys are completely blowing everything I said into the wrong direction of the wind. My point was about a casual athlete having a resting heart rate is up there with the best professional athletes. I then gave examples of athletes with similar heart rates and their physiological capabilities.

No inferences or extrapolation were implied or intended, nor am I claiming that VO2 max and heart rate are even related to one another. So yes, I'm just citing people who are in such good shape that their HR is so low and to make the point of how incredible it is, just how amazing their physiology is. This discussion has nothing to do with VO2 max. I referenced it as a way to put into perspective said athletes' cardiovascular fitness.
 

pvaudio

Legend
On a more serious note, those with heart rates below 40bpm tend to have what is known as an athlete's heart. It's a legitimate cardiovascular condition whereby the left ventricle is larger than normal from repeated exercise. It differes from left ventricular hypertrophy as the latter is caused normally by hypertension.I know this because I have it. The point that I'm making is that even under an echo scan, the two are incredibly hard to tell apart and LVH is normally dismissed in the young and fit. I was young at the time that LVH came on, took medicine and measures to get the muscle back to normal size, but definitely not fit. My point is, if you have a very low resting HR and are NOT in extremely good shape, that does not mean that everything is peachy.
 

r2473

G.O.A.T.
My only point is, that based on my experience, resting heart rate can be lowered "relatively" quickly to certain "base levels" (but apparently only in some, but not all people).

So saying that because Lance Armstrong had a resting heart rate of 32 bpm(?), does not mean that fit amateur endurance athletes could not achieve similar resting heart rates. It also doesn't mean that, having achieved these heart rates, they are in any way the level of athlete Armstrong was.

It's not uncommon to find amateur athletes that can for example lift as much weight and are as big as professional football players. That certainly doesn't make them professional football players however.

Once you stop / reduce training, your heart rate will rise.....even dramatically. But, the heart is a muscle (muscular organ) that can be trained to perform more efficiently, similar to the way other muscles can be trained. The training "remains" and can be (partially) recovered when training is resumed.

Anyway, I was around endurance athletes when I was younger and know that these lower resting heart rates are not uncommon in that crowd.
 

pvaudio

Legend
My only point is, that based on my experience, resting heart rate can be lowered "relatively" quickly to certain "base levels" (but apparently only in some, but not all people).

So saying that because Lance Armstrong had a resting heart rate of 32 bpm(?), does not mean that fit amateur endurance athletes could not achieve similar resting heart rates. It also doesn't mean that, having achieved these heart rates, they are in any way the level of athlete Armstrong was.

It's not uncommon to find amateur athletes that can for example lift as much weight and are as big as professional football players. That certainly doesn't make them professional football players however.

Once you stop / reduce training, your heart rate will rise.....even dramatically. But, the heart is a muscle (muscular organ) that can be trained to perform more efficiently, similar to the way other muscles can be trained. The training "remains" and can be (partially) recovered when training is resumed.

Anyway, I was around endurance athletes when I was younger and know that these lower resting heart rates are not uncommon in that crowd.
As I said, I was implying nothing other than the fact that it's usually a sign of a very strong athlete. Nothing more. :)
 

kslick

Rookie
You guys recording 40 or less BPM, do you honestly understand the significance of that? Let me give you two examples:

Miguel Indurain is one of the greatest cyclists of all time and won the Tour de France 5 times. He had a resting HR of ~30bpm. Here are just a few facts about the man's physiology to put it into perspective just how hard to believe that numerous people on here are claiming to have such low resting HR's:

1. A normal person takes in about 3-4 liters of O2 into their blood per minute. A professional cyclist will be able to get about 5.5. Indurain would consistently measure over 7 liters per minute.

2. A pro cyclist can pump about 25 liters of blood through their body per minute. Indurain could pump 50 liters through his.

3. His lung capacity is nearly 8 liters. Yours is probably about 5, with a strong athlete getting near 6.5.

4. Your VO2 max, the amount of oxygen your body can uptake in a given time is one of the best measures of cardiovascular fitness. Your average weight male will be in around 45, while an amateur competion cyclist will measure about 60. Indurain measured over 88.

Here's someone everyone is familiar with: 6-time TDF winner, Lance Armstrong

1. Armstrong, at his absolute peak, had a resting HR of 32-34bpm. During mountain stages, this corresponded to him sometimes reaching his max HR of over 200bpm. That's off the measured scale for professional athletes at 20 years of age. It decreases by about 5bpm every 5 years and Armstrong's prime was in his mid 30s. Less than 100 athletes in the entire world have ever tested even near this range.

2. Lance's VO2 max was highest after recovering from cancer, as was his muscle mass and efficiency. His oxygen capacity is over 40% greater than the average male athlete in his 20s. He was a decade older.

3. When you use your muscles strenuously, you produce stuff which I'm sure you know is called lactic acid. This hampers performance and creates incredible muscle fatigue. His body was so efficient that his muscles produce less than half of what a normal male does.

4. This is the most impressive in my opinion: as an endurance athlete, you need slow-twitch muscle fibers more than fast-twitch ones. If you don't know, fast twitch fibers are used for explosive movements and sports: plyometrics, boxing, etc. He wasn't originally one of the best at muscle efficiency, but because of the reasons above, he was able to convert his muscle fibers into about 80% slow-twitch fibers. A pro cyclist is able to pedal at about 75-80 RPM. He changed his musculature to allow him to pedal at 105 RPM.

Look up the stats for cyclists, cross-country skiiers, rowers, ultramarathoners, etc. While you might not consider tennis an endurance sport, at the pro level where you're given 20 seconds between huge rallies, it definitely is. That's the main reason why Djokovic used to struggle: his lungs aren't efficient enough to keep his body going at the level he needs to in grand slams.

7-time TDF winner. ;)
 

dozu

Banned
in my 20s and 30s, I used to play more tennis, with more intensity (partly because of bad techniques lol), and it was consistently in the 35-38 bpm in the morning when I wake up.

nowadays - techniques are better (which feels like regular opponents are getting weaker)... at wake-up it's in the 45-48 range, during the day, about 55.
 
Resting HR goes down with endurance training. But, there is a huge variability in the population.

Maximum HR also varies. The formula 220-age is a good population approximation. It is completely worthless for individual estimates though. I know 40+year olds with mHRs above 220, and guys in their 20s with mHRs below 200.

A vast majority of the people on this board with HRs in the 40-50's will be there because they take b-blockers.

VO2max varies almost as much as HR in the population. It is a decent predictor of performance in sports where biomechanical efficiency is not a significant factor (i.e. a decent predictor in cycling time trialing, but not good for running).

The quote about Lance Armstong converting his muscle fibers is totally bunk. Humans can't do that. Some other mammals can, but we're stuck with the muscle fiber distribution we're born with.
 
I was actually thinking about this when i read that long post of pvaudio.

PLEASE TELL ME WHERE MY LOGIC GOES WRONG...

It does make sense that the higher your V02, the less your heart has to work, hence the lower your heart rate. However ....
If you have a low V02 and you run long distances, your resting heart rate is going to come down a lot. From the 60;s or 70's, to 40's then 30's.
The same will happen for someone with a high Vo2. Two runners with a resting HR of 30 do not necessarily have similar or even close VO2's.

At the same time, a person with a high Vo2 who has never trained, MIGHT (I am guessing) have a high HR. e.g. VO2's of American distance runners (in the 1970's and 1980's) were quite low compared to African runners. Aouita was (iirc) 94. Most examples of top US distance runners i had read of were in high 60's or low 70's. There were one or two exceptions such as Steve Pre (poss 76 or so) and Don Kardong was somewhere in low 80's.

So if you are an East or North African (Moroccan) who has not trained, you can have a higher Vo2 max but high HR compared to someone else with a low Vo2 but who has trained.

So how does the equation figure there. Or is it just indicative ? Am i missing something here ? Thanks.

HR is only one part of VO2max. Making extrapolations about HR with respect to VO2max doesn't work.

Running in particular is problematic. Biomechanical efficiency plays a huge role in running performance. That's why there is such variability in VO2max among elite runners. In general (and this is a big generalization), elite African runners tend to have higher efficiency than non-African runners. VO2max values are extemely variable, but are equally so for all populations.

It's also important to remember than VO2max is tremendously dependent on training level. You can be born with the potential to have an incredibly high VO2max, but if you're sedentary, your actual VO2max would be lower than an average recreational tennis player's.

EDIT: The 94 number is bogus btw.
 

Ronaldo

Bionic Poster
Resting HR goes down with endurance training. But, there is a huge variability in the population.

Maximum HR also varies. The formula 220-age is a good population approximation. It is completely worthless for individual estimates though. I know 40+year olds with mHRs above 220, and guys in their 20s with mHRs below 200.

A vast majority of the people on this board with HRs in the 40-50's will be there because they take b-blockers.

VO2max varies almost as much as HR in the population. It is a decent predictor of performance in sports where biomechanical efficiency is not a significant factor (i.e. a decent predictor in cycling time trialing, but not good for running).

The quote about Lance Armstong converting his muscle fibers is totally bunk. Humans can't do that. Some other mammals can, but we're stuck with the muscle fiber distribution we're born with.

Could not imagine normal, healthy players taking beta-blockers. Btw. I take a beta-blocker.
 

Sentinel

Bionic Poster
^ I was not talking about performance Vs Vo2 max. but resting HR and Vo2 max.

Second, on what basis do you say 94 is false. I believe i may have read this in Runner's World. Did not have internet waaaay back then, so it could have only been a book or RW.
 

Sentinel

Bionic Poster
Because it was done with a method that is no longer used because it was so inaccurate.

Others that were tested at the same time, on the same apparatus, subsequently were tested and found to have actual VO2maxs much lower.

The highest validated VO2max ever recorder was in a cross country skier (who as a group of athletes have the highest values) who tested at 90.
 

r2473

G.O.A.T.
Is it lower heart rate the better?

For TT Board e-honor yes, for fitness and general health, no.

Explain that please.

Do you simply mean that it is not an absolute indicator (there isn't a perfect relationship, there are genetic as well as other factors for lower heart rates, etc as has been covered above)? Or do you have something else in mind?
 
Last edited:
Explain that please.

Do you simply mean that it is not an absolute indicator (there isn't a perfect relationship, there are genetic as well as other factors for lower heart rates, etc as has been covered above)? Or do you have something else in mind?

It's not even a good relationship, let alone perfect.

If you're in good shape, your in good shape. It doesn't matter if your resting HR is 35 or 60. If you can run a 10k in 30 minutes, it doesn't matter if your mHR is 220 or 170.

One persons resting HR may drop from 65 to 35 as they go from sedentary to elite athlete fitness. Another may go from 65 to 50. There is absolutely no reason to think the person who's rHR dropped to 35 will be better then the other.
 

r2473

G.O.A.T.
OK, I understand. You simply wouldn't use heart rate (resting, max, or anything in between) as any indicator of general health / fitness or possible performance levels.

I would disagree somewhat. I think if you find an athlete with a low resting heart rate, it would suggest an elevated level of cardiovascular fitness. Probably the same would hold true if we looked at max heart rates.

However, I wouldn't claim that an athlete that doesn't have a "low" resting heart rate (or "high" max heart rate) is necessarily not cardiovascularly fit.

I would however agree with your assertion that "if you are in good shape, you are in good shape" and that running a 10K in 30 mins would mean more than heart rate numbers.
 

SlowButSure

New User
I would disagree somewhat. I think if you find an athlete with a low resting heart rate, it would suggest an elevated level of cardiovascular fitness. Probably the same would hold true if we looked at max heart rates.

Well, it depends on what you mean.

If you looked at 2 athletes and one had a rHR of 40 and the other 50, it would be incorrect to think the athlete with the lower HR is more fit.

If you were just looking at a single athlete and noted his rHR was 40, that does likely indicate good fitness, but the reverse is not true (i.e. if you found an athlete with a rHR of 55, it would be wrong to assume he does not have good fitness.)

mHR is not a predictor at all. mHR does respond to training, but only very slightly, and it can go up or down (i.e. in some people mHR drops slightly with training).
 

r2473

G.O.A.T.
I would disagree somewhat. I think if you find an athlete with a low resting heart rate, it would suggest an elevated level of cardiovascular fitness. Probably the same would hold true if we looked at max heart rates.

However, I wouldn't claim that an athlete that doesn't have a "low" resting heart rate (or "high" max heart rate) is necessarily not cardiovascularly fit.


If you were just looking at a single athlete and noted his rHR was 40, that does likely indicate good fitness, but the reverse is not true (i.e. if you found an athlete with a rHR of 55, it would be wrong to assume he does not have good fitness.)

Looks like agreement to me.
 

OldButGame

Hall of Fame
A resting HR of 55 is still pretty low, and correlates with a higher level of fitness. (than the societal norm). We are talking about generalities and correlations here,..in answer to Superduys question,..the lower HR SUGGESTS higher level of fitness, and that the training effect has produced a more efficient cardiopulmonary system.
 

SuperDuy

Hall of Fame
Ok thanks, because I heard that once you have done some activity and your heart rate is close to maximum for your age means thats good?
 
Top