Resting Heart Rate..(just a question on it)



roger89

New Member
May 29, 2005
115
0
0
Hi all,

I want to know does resting heart rate means just simply finding the lowest heart rate that I can find in any situation of the day or so? As people say take it right after you wake up from bed, as during sleep our HR slows down remains same after waking up(not doing anything else)? For me I can find my lowest HR is when b4 I sleep. I counted using the clock is 53-55 per minute(I'm 16 though). I realise it slows down when I close my eyes and relax or think about something peaceful or nothing. I also took my RHR right after waking up, it's about 60+ per minute like that. Maybe because I walk from my bed to the table? So conclusion, is resting heart rate simply means finding the lowest heart rate I can find in any situation?

BTW, is 53-55bpm OK for me?

Thanks.
 
Im 17 and I have a resting heart rate of 42, but I very pysically active in track, xc, and biking. So depending how physically active you are and healthy, (Im going to assume that you are because of your heart rate). IMO, your resting heart rate is pretty good.
 
roger89 said:
Hi all,

I want to know does resting heart rate means just simply finding the lowest heart rate that I can find in any situation of the day or so? As people say take it right after you wake up from bed, as during sleep our HR slows down remains same after waking up(not doing anything else)? For me I can find my lowest HR is when b4 I sleep. I counted using the clock is 53-55 per minute(I'm 16 though). I realise it slows down when I close my eyes and relax or think about something peaceful or nothing. I also took my RHR right after waking up, it's about 60+ per minute like that. Maybe because I walk from my bed to the table? So conclusion, is resting heart rate simply means finding the lowest heart rate I can find in any situation?

BTW, is 53-55bpm OK for me?

Thanks.

Resting heart rates vary depending on the individual. You can generally bring it down through consistent training.
Make arrangements to check it when you first wake up in the morning but don't become obsessed with it.
 
roger89 said:
Hi all,

I want to know does resting heart rate means just simply finding the lowest heart rate that I can find in any situation of the day or so? As people say take it right after you wake up from bed, as during sleep our HR slows down remains same after waking up(not doing anything else)? For me I can find my lowest HR is when b4 I sleep. I counted using the clock is 53-55 per minute(I'm 16 though). I realise it slows down when I close my eyes and relax or think about something peaceful or nothing. I also took my RHR right after waking up, it's about 60+ per minute like that. Maybe because I walk from my bed to the table? So conclusion, is resting heart rate simply means finding the lowest heart rate I can find in any situation?

BTW, is 53-55bpm OK for me?

Thanks.
Resting heart rate is just that...resting or at rest...It is the point in a day where your energy requirements are the lowest and you are trying to see how hard your heart has to work to provide oxygen to muscles that are not working. I usually take my pulse after I have been sitting at my desk at work for a while and I am usually between 56 and 60. I look at my watch and take my pulse on my wrist to 15 seconds then multipy x4.
 
my resting heart rate is around 58-60ish, im told for someone in there twenties an average rate is around 70.

ive also been told a low heart rate is nothing to worry about.
the world record is 28 or somthing from some pyscho cyclist in spain.

a high heart rate is quite a different matter however.

either way i dont think you have anything to worry about..

not that im a doctor or anything. :)
 
I've worn my Heart rate monitor while sleeping and I dip into the low 40's(43 is the lowest I've seen on the print out) and the 'average' is normally 50 even. As mentioned resting heart rate varies person to person, but fitness level does play a role.
 
I'm a grad student in exercise physiology and also conduct testing. Resting heart heart rate is collected in the lab by having the subject lie down on a table where you lay motionless with your head on a pillow. It's essentially what the name implies - you're resting and non-weight-bearing. Almost sleeping.

Generally speaking, the lower your resting heart rate, the stronger your heart (or myocardium) is. It's a muscle and the two components of cardiac output (Q) is Heart rate (HR) and Stroke Volume. Q = HR x SV. So you can see it's compensatory - if you have a large SV - which is saying you have a very strong heart-pump - you require less beats of the heart to circulate the blood in your body (and vice-versa - you see the higher heart rates in people with congestive heart failure and coronary disease).

60-100 is considered "normal"
> 100 is considered "tachycardia" where the heart rate is abnormally high
< 60 is considered "bradycardia" where the heart rate is abnormally low - but obviously there are athletes and other people who have bradycardia which is perfectly fine - in fact it can be beneficial (less work of the heart).
 
Just for information...I'm 50 years old, and the last time I measured my resting rate, it was 36.

I think this may be a legacy of my younger days, when I played every sport going with my friends.
 
segamartinez said:
Generally speaking, the lower your resting heart rate, the stronger your heart (or myocardium) is. It's a muscle and the two components of cardiac output (Q) is Heart rate (HR) and Stroke Volume. Q = HR x SV. So you can see it's compensatory - if you have a large SV - which is saying you have a very strong heart-pump - you require less beats of the heart to circulate the blood in your body (and vice-versa - you see the higher heart rates in people with congestive heart failure and coronary disease).

Thanks, Segamartinez. That's good info, and interesting. But, there's one variable that I wonder if you've left out, namely the individual's resting metabolic energy requirements. If one's body is more efficient at energy utilization, or perhaps requires less energy from, say, having lower body mass, etc., then the blood flow requirements (ie, Q) might be less, and so that person might have a lower RHR even though they might have the same SV as a different person. Also, if red blood cell count is higher, or if iron content or other factors affecting the blood's capacity to deliver oxygen varies, it seems that this could affect the heart rate.

Other factors might be atmospheric pressure (ie, ambient oxygen density) and blood viscosity (which can be affected by things like aspirin and altitude).

Oh, and fwiw -- I'm 40, with rhr of about 43 bpm. I cycle like a maniac, eat healthy (veg), but don't get enough damned sleep. ;-)

-Lane
 
segamartinez said:
I'm a grad student in exercise physiology and also conduct testing. Resting heart heart rate is collected in the lab by having the subject lie down on a table where you lay motionless with your head on a pillow. It's essentially what the name implies - you're resting and non-weight-bearing. Almost sleeping.

Generally speaking, the lower your resting heart rate, the stronger your heart (or myocardium) is. It's a muscle and the two components of cardiac output (Q) is Heart rate (HR) and Stroke Volume. Q = HR x SV. So you can see it's compensatory - if you have a large SV - which is saying you have a very strong heart-pump - you require less beats of the heart to circulate the blood in your body (and vice-versa - you see the higher heart rates in people with congestive heart failure and coronary disease).

60-100 is considered "normal"
> 100 is considered "tachycardia" where the heart rate is abnormally high
< 60 is considered "bradycardia" where the heart rate is abnormally low - but obviously there are athletes and other people who have bradycardia which is perfectly fine - in fact it can be beneficial (less work of the heart).
Congrats on your degree choice. I graduated in Ex Phy form NAU in 92. Great field. Now I'm a paramedic with the City Fire Department, but still love all of the physiology.
 
I'm 33 and my resting heartrate is usually between 45-50, I don't eat that healthily which is something I'm going to change, I used to do a lot of sport including between 250-300miles a week on the bike, just starting cycling again about a month ago after about a nine year break so am pretty happy with my resting pulse.

Went into hospital last year and they were concerned my heartbeat was low, always aroung 50 until I told them that was normal for me.

Dave
 
bikelane said:
Thanks, Segamartinez. That's good info, and interesting. But, there's one variable that I wonder if you've left out, namely the individual's resting metabolic energy requirements. If one's body is more efficient at energy utilization, or perhaps requires less energy from, say, having lower body mass, etc., then the blood flow requirements (ie, Q) might be less, and so that person might have a lower RHR even though they might have the same SV as a different person. Also, if red blood cell count is higher, or if iron content or other factors affecting the blood's capacity to deliver oxygen varies, it seems that this could affect the heart rate.

Other factors might be atmospheric pressure (ie, ambient oxygen density) and blood viscosity (which can be affected by things like aspirin and altitude).

Oh, and fwiw -- I'm 40, with rhr of about 43 bpm. I cycle like a maniac, eat healthy (veg), but don't get enough damned sleep. ;-)

-Lane

Good points. I know in '03 LA had his RBC's close to 50% - and they deliver the oxygen so that would make sense - less total blood volume would need to be delivered, thus creating a lower Q or cardiac output. Training, sleeping in oxygen tents, training at altitude and good genes can probably boost the percentage.

The lower body mass does come into play, but when you study individuals and take body mass out of the equation by measuring in ml/kg of bodyweight, you find them to be very close.

I was definitely generalizing and speaking for the masses, but you will get outliers and people who do utilize oxygen/metabolism more efficently, etc. When you're talking about the cyclists in the TdF, etc. we're talking about many of the outliers and genetic "freaks."

It's like how in the former Soviet Union they used to test children with VO2 max and other performance tests and put many of them on the olympic training teams early - to much success.
 
Changes need to be made! When I in my early twenties and in a cycle touring club, my resting rate was about 50-55 bpm. Now, I'm 29 in September, I smoke 15 to 20 a day, married with a two year old daughter and don't get out half as often as I used to. It's 80 bpm. Not to mention, a few weeks ago, I was put on blood pressure tablets by my doc. Add to that, I've been diabetic since I was 4 years old. I'm heading towards a very early grave. Changes definately need to be made.

Bill.
 
shannons dad said:
Changes need to be made! When I in my early twenties and in a cycle touring club, my resting rate was about 50-55 bpm. Now, I'm 29 in September, I smoke 15 to 20 a day, married with a two year old daughter and don't get out half as often as I used to. It's 80 bpm. Not to mention, a few weeks ago, I was put on blood pressure tablets by my doc. Add to that, I've been diabetic since I was 4 years old. I'm heading towards a very early grave. Changes definately need to be made.

Bill.
I know you already know this, but I'll say it anyway. Diabetes and smoking are a very bad combo! And in your high BP and you are looking at a stroke in your future. Do it for your daughter. :)
 
Concerning the one comment on body mass influencing blood flow, I am not in the biological sciences, but I don't think the impact would be as great as one would intuitively expect. At least if the extra weight is body fat.

It is my understanding that there is not that much blood flow in fatty tissue, and what is there is capillary, which is very low volume.

At the weight of 315 pounds and BMI over 40, last year a few weeks after I rode a metric century I had a resting heart rate of 49. It is closer to 60 now since I am not riding as much, although I am finally getting back to my former activities...
 
just wanna ask everyone. Since most non-atheletic people have average HRH 70. I tested my parents and sis RHR and I got both my parents bout 65 and my sis 60. They ain't sports kind but have kindda low RHR. Does this means anything or is this anything to do with anything?
 
my understanding is that if you're asymptomatic theres nothing inherently dangerous about having a really low resting heart rate.


that IF being really important, obviously: if you get dizzy or lightheaded often, or are known to black out, then you might wanna tell your doc.

of course i'm NOT am MD, jsut repeating what i was told when i asked my MD if i should be concerned about my low resting HR
 
roger89 said:
just wanna ask everyone. Since most non-atheletic people have average HRH 70. I tested my parents and sis RHR and I got both my parents bout 65 and my sis 60. They ain't sports kind but have kindda low RHR. Does this means anything or is this anything to do with anything?
I think it's different for everyone regardless of how fit you are. To the best of my limited knowledge, just eating the right food and staying reasonably stress free can keep your heart rate low.

Bill.
 
roger89 said:
just wanna ask everyone. Since most non-atheletic people have average HRH 70. I tested my parents and sis RHR and I got both my parents bout 65 and my sis 60. They ain't sports kind but have kindda low RHR. Does this means anything or is this anything to do with anything?
RHR is basically a genetically determined, but can be influenced with training. Do your p's use any High Blood pressure meds? Beta blockers have a tendency to lower HR.