Heart rate - too low?

[markwill]

I understand that heart rate - in itself - is not a measure of fitness. However, I'm interested to know if there are any dangers or concerns with a heart rate that is too low. I am FAR from being near the excellent fitness of the regular passionate cyclist (42 years old, 5' 7" and 178lbs). My resting heart rate has declined from the low 50's a year or so back to under 40 now (around 38 or 39).

Anything I should worry about?

Mark

 

[ed073]

I understand that heart rate - in itself - is not a measure of fitness. However, I'm interested to know if there are any dangers or concerns with a heart rate that is too low. I am FAR from being near the excellent fitness of the regular passionate cyclist (42 years old, 5' 7" and 178lbs). My resting heart rate has declined from the low 50's a year or so back to under 40 now (around 38 or 39).

Anything I should worry about?

Mark

That's normal. If it's stressing you out, get a checkup.

 

[markwill]

That's normal. If it's stressing you out, get a checkup.

No - not stressing me out (perhaps my heart rate would be higher if it was )). Just curious - being below 40 just surprised me, especially since I guess it's a 20% drop in a year or so.

Mark

 

[Doctor Morbius]

I understand that heart rate - in itself - is not a measure of fitness. However, I'm interested to know if there are any dangers or concerns with a heart rate that is too low. I am FAR from being near the excellent fitness of the regular passionate cyclist (42 years old, 5' 7" and 178lbs). My resting heart rate has declined from the low 50's a year or so back to under 40 now (around 38 or 39).

Anything I should worry about?

Mark

Do you feel that you have the fitness levels and the training to substantiate a resting heart rate of under 40 BPM?

I don't want to rain on anyone's parade or scare anyone but a low resting heart rate can also be the result of a serious medical condition, such as Sinus Bradycardia or some other Arrhythmia. Unless one has the fitness levels and exercise background to justify a low resting HR they should consult a physician (preferably a cardiologist) to be sure that the ol' ticker is OK. People with low resting heart rates usually end up on atropine as a first course of therapy. If that doesn't do the trick, then patients are usually fitted with a pacemaker.

And yes it's true that a low resting heart rate is not an indicator of athletic performace. The ones that tend to get published are the extemely low ones such as Armstrong's and Indurain's.

 

[markwill]

Do you feel that you have the fitness levels and the training to substantiate a resting heart rate of under 40 BPM?

Well, therein lies my question - I don't really know whether I have such a fitness level. On the one hand, I have read many times that heart rate (or min or max) is NOT an indicator of fitness. Your message suggests otherwise.

To put some context on this, I am certainly not in the "extremely fit" category. I do work out (rowing, treadmill or cycle) at least 3 times a week and generally 4 or 5. I run 4 miles in 30 mins and row (Concept2) about 7500 meters in 30 mins. Cycling is a little less easy to measure (because routes vary so much) but my commute is around 12.5 miles each way (at least the direct route is!) and I can do that comfortably in about 50 mins, with a few hills here and there.

As I said earlier, I am 42, 5' 7" and 178 lbs, so certainly not "light".

I have no idea whether that puts me the right "fitness range" to suggest my low heart rate isn't a problem. I can say that the current "resting" rate (which has been measured only in an unscientific fashion, by looking at my Polar heart rate before I start working out) is lower than I have seen for a while but, then again, I've lost 8 lbs or so in the last couple of months.

Thanks again.

Mark

 

[Doctor Morbius]

Well, therein lies my question - I don't really know whether I have such a fitness level. On the one hand, I have read many times that heart rate (or min or max) is NOT an indicator of fitness. Your message suggests otherwise.

Does it? I thought I had stated that it was not an indicator of athletic performance, which you already know. It certainly can be an indicator of fitness. But it can also be an indicator of a heart condition.

To put some context on this, I am certainly not in the "extremely fit" category. I do work out (rowing, treadmill or cycle) at least 3 times a week and generally 4 or 5. I run 4 miles in 30 mins and row (Concept2) about 7500 meters in 30 mins. Cycling is a little less easy to measure (because routes vary so much) but my commute is around 12.5 miles each way (at least the direct route is!) and I can do that comfortably in about 50 mins, with a few hills here and there.

As I said earlier, I am 42, 5' 7" and 178 lbs, so certainly not "light".

I have no idea whether that puts me the right "fitness range" to suggest my low heart rate isn't a problem. I can say that the current "resting" rate (which has been measured only in an unscientific fashion, by looking at my Polar heart rate before I start working out) is lower than I have seen for a while but, then again, I've lost 8 lbs or so in the last couple of months.

The recent weight loss can be a factor for sure. I can't comment on the rowing but running 4 miles in 30 minute certainly is decent. That's 8 MPH or 7.5 minute miles. The cycling seems a tad slow, especially when compared to your running speed. But like you stated the terrain and route have an impact on that. And you stated that you're doing it comfortably, which means different things to different people.

Also you're taking your resting heart rate before going out to exercise. That sounds more like an ambient heart rate (taken sitting while at work or watching TV) than a resting heart rate. Resting heart rates are normally taken in the mornings upon waking and before going to the rest room.

I would be a little concerned about it if it were me. My father had an arrythmia so I'd err on the side of caution. In your case it could be the combined years of aerobic activity.