resting heart rate



My readings vary a lot. I'll sit by a clock and time the beats for 15 seconds and then multiply by 4. Sometimes I get almost one beat per second. Also, I can actually take a pulse by watching the throb on my wrist as it's very visible.
52 was the best I ever got but normal is just under 60 or maybe 58.
I'm getting hung up on it to the point I'm forcing my pulse up on steep uphill intervals to try and improve my reading.
Of course, there are other factors such as heart size and lung capacity. But I may buy myself either cardio unit or a power meter, one of the two. I want to get that pulse down lower to be honest.


Doctor Morbius said:
I would imagine that after a hard ride your pulse is more likely to stay high as your metabolism has been jacked up a notch - thermogenic effects and all that rot.

I'm just starting my 3rd year of cycing and my resting pulse hasn't really dropped much after the initial 6 months so I'm in the same boat. Kind of discouraging isn't it? From what some of the other posters have told me, it just takes years. 52 sounds pretty good to me. I'm stuck around 58 BPM!
 
Carrera said:
My readings vary a lot. I'll sit by a clock and time the beats for 15 seconds and then multiply by 4. Sometimes I get almost one beat per second. Also, I can actually take a pulse by watching the throb on my wrist as it's very visible.
52 was the best I ever got but normal is just under 60 or maybe 58.
I'm getting hung up on it to the point I'm forcing my pulse up on steep uphill intervals to try and improve my reading.
Of course, there are other factors such as heart size and lung capacity. But I may buy myself either cardio unit or a power meter, one of the two. I want to get that pulse down lower to be honest.
I'd sure like to get a power meter but am not willing to plunk down the long green. They cost more than any of my bikes! They'll drop further in price in a few years though. Until then I can make due with an HRM.

I'm supprised you don't already have an HRM. We can get those items pretty cheap here in the States. It's much better to take your RHR with an HRM than by counting. I'll start my HRM and let it run for a couple of minutes before stopping it. Then I'll use the average as my RHR. There are just too many fluxuations for a 15 second count to be accurate. Oddly enough, I tend to get my lowest readings at night rather than in the mornings upon waking as most suggest.

Much of the time I prefer to use Ambient HR as my gauge as I tend to get restless trying to lie still long enough to take a RHR measurement. It's much easier for me to take an Ambient measurement while putzing around on the computer and watching the TV which is right next to the monitor.

Yes, I'd like to get my resting HR lower as well. Other than a medical condition, such as the one I referenced above, a lower RHR indicates greater stroke volume. Translation - improved fitness and greater cardio efficiency.
 
mitosis said:
Just type resting heart rate into a search engine. Every site will note the correlation between resting pulse and aerobic fitness. ;)
OK, found several sites pushing HRM training that talk about a reduction in RHR as a measure of aerobic fitness. But, believe this only applies to individuals who are new to aerobic exercise, or losing weight. After several years of aerobic exercise, I don't believe RHR is a reliable indicator of progress.

Here's one by a cardiologist from Runner's World that may be of interest: http://www.runnersworld.co.uk/news/article.asp?UAN=1539
 
dhk said:
OK, found several sites pushing HRM training that talk about a reduction in RHR as a measure of aerobic fitness. But, believe this only applies to individuals who are new to aerobic exercise, or losing weight. After several years of aerobic exercise, I don't believe RHR is a reliable indicator of progress.

Here's one by a cardiologist from Runner's World that may be of interest: http://www.runnersworld.co.uk/news/article.asp?UAN=1539

Good article. There are many like it floating around the ether.

You are right about RHR not continuing to decrease. There are other measures of improvement you can then turn to such as increase in VO2 max.

If you train over the same course regularly you will see a measurable improvement in performance if you keep all other variables (wind, tyre pressures, time of day, clothing, bike weight, wheels etc) as controlled as possible.

If you have money a power meter will allow you to gauge increase in performance by looking at power output increases for a given heart rate.

Again, there's lots of good free advice available if you are any good at searches. :)
 
mitosis said:
Good article. There are many like it floating around the ether.

You are right about RHR not continuing to decrease. There are other measures of improvement you can then turn to such as increase in VO2 max.
Or better yet, lactate threshold & tolerance. Here's an article that discusses adapations to VO2 Max and how quickly they plateau whereas LT will improve for several years. It's a quick 1 pager.

http://home.hia.no/~stephens/timecors.htm

From article:
Now, the important thing to know is this. While VO2max plateaus quite rapidly, lactate threshold does not. If Bjorn continues to train, and increase his intensity appropriately, his lactate threshold will continue to improve slowly for a longer period. Of course, improvements in lactate threshold also plateau, otherwise elite athletes that have been training for 15 years would have LT's of 100% of VO2 max! But, the time course of adaptation is slower, so the plateau occurs after a longer period of intense training, probably several years

If you train over the same course regularly you will see a measurable improvement in performance if you keep all other variables (wind, tyre pressures, time of day, clothing, bike weight, wheels etc) as controlled as possible.
Or do a periodic TT effort or similar test on the same bike on the same trainer as that will rule out wind, traffic and other non-controllable outdoor factors. Anything to keep all the extraneous variables held constant works well.
 
I have been thinking about getting an HRM but I guess I could also get a cheap power unit. I only paid about 8 dollars for my bike computer as things stand - Chinese imports, of course, but does the job O.K.
Yesterday I had a run-in with a serious rider who I noticed was connected to his HRM. Just came past me on the flat so I was stunned as my own speed hadn't exactly been slow.
The thing with me is I have bags of power but my fitness simply isn't quite there. I sprinted past this guy and stayed in front for about 15 minutes but I could really feel myself fading by the time I turned off, and he also went his own way. I sometimes wonder whether I should get into power training and sprint-training a bit more. I can shoot past these smaller, super fit riders for a given time and I'm a tough cookie to catch at such times. But after about 15 minutes of such accelerated pace, I begin to slow and may wind up being burned.
I think my pulse rate indicates the truth. I'm very average with regard to fitness and this is the aspect of cycling that's my weak link.

Doctor Morbius said:
I'd sure like to get a power meter but am not willing to plunk down the long green. They cost more than any of my bikes! They'll drop further in price in a few years though. Until then I can make due with an HRM.

I'm supprised you don't already have an HRM. We can get those items pretty cheap here in the States. It's much better to take your RHR with an HRM than by counting. I'll start my HRM and let it run for a couple of minutes before stopping it. Then I'll use the average as my RHR. There are just too many fluxuations for a 15 second count to be accurate. Oddly enough, I tend to get my lowest readings at night rather than in the mornings upon waking as most suggest.

Much of the time I prefer to use Ambient HR as my gauge as I tend to get restless trying to lie still long enough to take a RHR measurement. It's much easier for me to take an Ambient measurement while putzing around on the computer and watching the TV which is right next to the monitor.

Yes, I'd like to get my resting HR lower as well. Other than a medical condition, such as the one I referenced above, a lower RHR indicates greater stroke volume. Translation - improved fitness and greater cardio efficiency.
 
Doc: Thanks for the link. Does a great job of explaining the how and why of plateau's, particularly for us masters-age guys.

Hey, just read the related page: http://home.hia.no/~stephens/traprin.htm
Excellent stuff on the basic psychology and concepts of individual training.
 
My resting heart rate is neither less nor more than 45 so I can't participate in the poll.

I've been riding off and on for about 2 years now. I started a triathlon training program about 4 1/2 months ago and I've been riding at least 3 times per week and averaging about 375 miles per month. I don't know what my resting HR was before I started training but I recently bought a Polar HR monitor and it measure my resting HR at 45 bpm. What I would like to know is... How much longer do I have to train before I see my resting HR begin to decrease?
 
David_Zen said:
My resting heart rate is neither less nor more than 45 so I can't participate in the poll.

I've been riding off and on for about 2 years now. I started a triathlon training program about 4 1/2 months ago and I've been riding at least 3 times per week and averaging about 375 miles per month. I don't know what my resting HR was before I started training but I recently bought a Polar HR monitor and it measure my resting HR at 45 bpm. What I would like to know is... How much longer do I have to train before I see my resting HR begin to decrease?

If you are running, swimming and cycling 3 times a week (you said you were in a tri training program), and have been for some time it is probable that you have pretty good aerobic fitness already. Your RHR has probably come down already and if you are fit you won't see much improvement now.