The Resting Heart Rate Thread

[adarqui]

Bump.

Morning resting HR of 48 today 

nice!!

[adarqui]

glad you bumped.. this morning, my RHR was ~100+, so I decided to test manually: 42 .. then I click back to the HR monitor on my watch, and it said 40, then 37, etc. lol. so weird.

but ya, when it was ~100+ according to my watch, it was definitely in the low 40's. I checked a few times before saying, ok let me see for sure what it is based on a 60s test.

my watch based HRM hates me.

weird stuff.

also: a few weeks ago, after 21 miles:

[Joe]

glad you bumped.. this morning, my RHR was ~100+, so I decided to test manually: 42 .. then I click back to the HR monitor on my watch, and it said 40, then 37, etc. lol. so weird.

but ya, when it was ~100+ according to my watch, it was definitely in the low 40's. I checked a few times before saying, ok let me see for sure what it is based on a 60s test.

my watch based HRM hates me.

weird stuff.

also: a few weeks ago, after 21 miles:

Lol, basically the same thing happened to me this morning. My watch said RHR was like 100 and I thought that seemed like bs so took a manual reading and got 48. My watch seems to take a while to settle down, but has recently seemed to be pretty reliable when monitoring actual workouts, I think.

[Coges]

something I wrote to someone (cyclist) today:

12:53 <@irma> some research warns against 30's RHR ... but, I wonder if there's a difference in how it's achieved.. ie, achieving it by being very lean & light, with low/moderate cardio, versus: TONS AND TONS AND TONS OF CARDIO
12:54 <@irma> the former seems safer ... your heart just doesn't have to work as hard, not as much mass/tissue to pump blood to
12:54 <@irma> the latter is an adaptation to very high levels of cardiovascular work
12:56 <@irma> i mean you hear stories of some people requiring pace makers later on in life.. like alberto salazar
12:56 <@irma> but, i wonder if that's also partly due to drug use in addition to tons of mileage
12:57 <@irma> i don't want to need a pace maker later on in life, that's for sure

http://www.sciencefocus.com/qa/does-human-heart-have-finite-number-beats

Lower heart rate = longer living???

I do like the quote that "you don't die because you run out of heart beats, you run out of heart beats because you die".

[Coges]

Testing HR as I sit at work. It's varying from 55-58. Only one coffee down this morning though. It's 9.45 and I normally would have had 2 by now.

[adarqui]

glad you bumped.. this morning, my RHR was ~100+, so I decided to test manually: 42 .. then I click back to the HR monitor on my watch, and it said 40, then 37, etc. lol. so weird.

but ya, when it was ~100+ according to my watch, it was definitely in the low 40's. I checked a few times before saying, ok let me see for sure what it is based on a 60s test.

my watch based HRM hates me.

weird stuff.

also: a few weeks ago, after 21 miles:

Lol, basically the same thing happened to me this morning. My watch said RHR was like 100 and I thought that seemed like bs so took a manual reading and got 48. My watch seems to take a while to settle down, but has recently seemed to be pretty reliable when monitoring actual workouts, I think.

hah. coincidence++. that's funny.

ya i think mine is better during a workout than when i'm at rest, it's really odd though. My RHR was like 148 a few minutes ago.. but was more like 50ish manual testing. lmfao. nuts.

[adarqui]

something I wrote to someone (cyclist) today:

12:53 <@irma> some research warns against 30's RHR ... but, I wonder if there's a difference in how it's achieved.. ie, achieving it by being very lean & light, with low/moderate cardio, versus: TONS AND TONS AND TONS OF CARDIO
12:54 <@irma> the former seems safer ... your heart just doesn't have to work as hard, not as much mass/tissue to pump blood to
12:54 <@irma> the latter is an adaptation to very high levels of cardiovascular work
12:56 <@irma> i mean you hear stories of some people requiring pace makers later on in life.. like alberto salazar
12:56 <@irma> but, i wonder if that's also partly due to drug use in addition to tons of mileage
12:57 <@irma> i don't want to need a pace maker later on in life, that's for sure

http://www.sciencefocus.com/qa/does-human-heart-have-finite-number-beats

Lower heart rate = longer living???

I do like the quote that "you don't die because you run out of heart beats, you run out of heart beats because you die".

hah that's a nice quote. makes sense to me for sure: the idea of a certain number of heart beats has always sounded ridiculous to me. ie, by increasing the number of beats (via training), you will improve the quality of your heart, cardiovascular system, and health in general, thus giving you more beats.

however, you have to be careful with a chronically low resting HR IIRC .. apparently it can "permanently desensitize" tissue in the heart, people can end up needing pace makers and such. I posted some studies on it somewhere in this sub-forum. I think the key is to take planned periods of time off/detraining, even if it's just a week here and there, and a more extensive detraining period at the start of ones offseason, ie 3 weeks or so etc. Also, to make sure you're alternating easy/hard training, getting in a rest day per week.

dno though.. something to keep ones eye on. As for myself, when I take a several days off, my resting HR goes up a little bit, it seems. But then it comes back down pretty quick with training.

Testing HR as I sit at work. It's varying from 55-58. Only one coffee down this morning though. It's 9.45 and I normally would have had 2 by now.

nice! on the way to those sub50's hah.. another thing to "PR"

ya i've had some interesting results with caffeine -> very low HR's after caffeine usage. kinda odd (maybe?).

peace!

[adarqui]

my optical HR on my garmin has been so jacked up the last 2 days.

yesterday, my RHR was 120+ on my watch, but 40's manually. So I put my friend's apple watch (?) on my right wrist, and we looked at both:
- garmin 735xt: 120+ BPM
- friend's watch: ~45 BPM

teh fu*k?

[LBSS]

the garmin wrist HR monitor is useless. just ignore it.

[Joe]

the garmin wrist HR monitor is useless. just ignore it.

idk if in general they are so bad, some of DCRainmaker's reviews of the newer ones have them holding up pretty well compared to chest straps. Adarq's is clearly totally messed up, unfortunately; his HR on runs on strava also tend to look pretty nonsense.

[adarqui]

the garmin wrist HR monitor is useless. just ignore it.

idk if in general they are so bad, some of DCRainmaker's reviews of the newer ones have them holding up pretty well compared to chest straps. Adarq's is clearly totally messed up, unfortunately; his HR on runs on strava also tend to look pretty nonsense.

ya today it had me at like 175+ .. when i was probably like 130's. For my half marathon it had me at like 200's or something, lmao.

i need to contact garmin, maybe mine is just super jacked up.

[maxent]

something I wrote to someone (cyclist) today:

12:53 <@irma> some research warns against 30's RHR ... but, I wonder if there's a difference in how it's achieved.. ie, achieving it by being very lean & light, with low/moderate cardio, versus: TONS AND TONS AND TONS OF CARDIO
12:54 <@irma> the former seems safer ... your heart just doesn't have to work as hard, not as much mass/tissue to pump blood to
12:54 <@irma> the latter is an adaptation to very high levels of cardiovascular work
12:56 <@irma> i mean you hear stories of some people requiring pace makers later on in life.. like alberto salazar
12:56 <@irma> but, i wonder if that's also partly due to drug use in addition to tons of mileage
12:57 <@irma> i don't want to need a pace maker later on in life, that's for sure

there is a book you should read which addresses this issue. Haywire heart by Mandrola (and friends).