So in one of my fitness classes I’m taking for my exercise science major I had to fill out a 5-day baseline resting heart rate log. Anyhow, besides having trouble finding a time where I have a fully rested heart rate (I take a 1 credit jogging course for my major T Th @ 8 AM) ; my teacher commented that my heart rate was kind of high.
My five day average was 61.4 BPM. When I threw it into the “target heart rate training zone” I chose the “Active and well-trained.” When my target range came between 171 and 178 my teacher wrote that those numbers are too high, and my RHR doesn’t really match up with using an 80-85% training level.
My take on this is that my heart rate is generally high fairly often due to just lifting hard, rugby practice, and physical activity. I’m a rugby player and my training is ~7+ hours a week, in addition to some moderate activity walking to class, my jogging class, and whatever else. I’m one of the top 5 fittest athletes on a D1 ranked rugby team (I don’t play on the top 15 though) so I have to be doing something right.
Second, I don’t do steady state “cardio” (torture) or endurance (punishment) as part of my training.
61 is not very high but for an alleged “top 5 fittest” it is. You would probably benefit from some steady state training. It can have a lot of positive impact.
Heart rate is affected by blood volume and the strength of your beating heart. Usually only people who do looooong steady state training will have low heart rates, but as a measure of “fitness” it means nothing, it’s just an outdated test carried on b/c the information in most college kinesiology classes contains ideas and teachings from decades ago, from an aerobically-inclined system.
Average for most people is between 50 and 100 bpm a day. You are in the lower end, not doing too bad. I was at 52bpm when I was doing 20+ hours a week of training (martial arts/running).
The harder you work out, the lower your resting heart rate should become. Your heart is a muscle, and as you train it more and more it should become more effective. Your resting heart rate is considered a fitness check because it shows how efficient your heart is at pumping blood. If your rate is 50 bpm and some other guy’s is 100bpm your heart is working twice as well as his, in other words, your heart has to work half as much to accomplish what his does.
[quote]HK24719 wrote:
RHR can be influenced by training, but like everything else it’s largely genetic, so I wouldn’t worry about it.[/quote]
That’s like saying muscle mass is largely genetic. Yes, there is a genetic component to it, but anybody can get their heart rate to the high 50s with training.
There is also huge benefits to athletes of almost any sport who put in the work to improve their cardiac output. Your heart is the engine that bumps blood, which carries oxygen, which drives recovery. I personally was on the “teh steady state is evil” bandwagon for a long time, but I can attest that as my aerobic power and capacity has increased, so has my performance and, most importantly, my recovery.
Doing 40-50 minutes of low-impact cardio (rowing machine, jumping rope, etc.) at a heart rate of between 130-150 twice a week is not a huge sacrifice when you consider the myriad benefits, both in health and performance.
Resting heart rate is a pretty decent indication of aerobic function. In a 400m sprint (which many people think is one of the best tests of overall power and conditioning) almost 50% of the total energy production comes from the aerobic system. This means that, yes, slow aerobics is not the answer (since just over 50% comes from the anerobic system also), but it also means that neglecting the aerobic system entirely is just as foolish as doing nothing but aerobic work.
[quote]HK24719 wrote:
RHR can be influenced by training, but like everything else it’s largely genetic, so I wouldn’t worry about it.[/quote]
That’s like saying muscle mass is largely genetic. Yes, there is a genetic component to it, but anybody can get their heart rate to the high 50s with training.[/quote]
That’s simply not true.
Most people can lower their RHR with regular training, and likely get into the 50s or below, but “most” is not “all.”
I’ve worked with many well conditioned athletes and the RHR between them vary a great deal. Most seem to be in the 50s, but some have been into the low 40s, while others could not drop below the 60s.
First the genetic component. I have worked with a guy (Former NHL MVP) who is incredibly…, lets say poor work ethic. He has a RHR in the 50s and his HR drops from >150BPM to 70BPM in 30 seconds AND it gets to resting in under a minute.
He does not work very hard so… Genetics are an amazing thing eh?
But seriously, you do not “need” steady state cardio but 2-3 workouts a week for 20-30 min isn’t going to kill your muscle building goals AND it will improve overall health, quality of life, improve performance, and help keep you nice and lean.
Take it from a guy who has squatted 700lbs and went the complete anaerobic conditioning thing for a while. Steady state isn’t evil. In fact it is quite the opposite, it is good. I always “feel” healthier when I do steady state work a few times a week and am always leaner too as opposed to when I only used anaerobic conditioning and intervals for conditioning.
Also note that The guidelines JT and I presented will not turn you into a marathoner, they are just a little bit of extra work.
Yes, I think Joel has a lot of great ideas. There is nothing magical about it, but I think he presents a good system for analyzing strengths and weaknesses and implementing a plan to improve what needs improvement. I also like that he’s very accessible and is pretty active on his discussion boards. I highly recommend his book.
My first question would be, when are you measuring your resting heart rate? When I actually paid attention to it, I would measure it first thing in the morning before getting out of bed. I started with a resting rate in the low 60s and eventually measured it at 38 or 39 bpm after about a year of riding road bikes. But, that was with lots of 4-6 hour steady state rides in addition to shorter intervals and races.
But, as someone said before, I don’t think resting heart rate is that great of measure of fitness. It might probably useful to track for signs that you might be getting sick (if you notice it spiking over several days), but I would just try and to measure and improve measured actual performance. If you can run faster during an interval, and recover faster for the next one, do you really care what your resting heart rate is?
[quote]gt8006b wrote:
But, as someone said before, I don’t think resting heart rate is that great of measure of fitness. It might probably useful to track for signs that you might be getting sick (if you notice it spiking over several days), but I would just try and to measure and improve measured actual performance. If you can run faster during an interval, and recover faster for the next one, do you really care what your resting heart rate is?[/quote]
I’ve seen too many people training for the sake of lowering RHR when they should be training to improve performance in their respective sport. Lowing RHR, if it occurs, should be a by-product of whatever training one is doing and not the objective itself since depending on stroke volume and other factors some people will never see their RHR drop much.
Well, what it really comes down to is knowing specifically, the energy system demand of your sport. Conditioning is extremely relative. Good shape for football is not necassarily good shape for wrestling, hockey, rugby etc…
For a good majority of sports though, there is a signifigant contribution from the aerobic system and it makes sense to devote training to this. However, training the aerobic system is alot more complex than just training the stroke volume aspect.
From my personal experience, I have had times where I did alot of aerobic work, and then a few years where i got sucked into the HIIT/anti aerobic work mentality. My performance is light years better with aerobic training.
I do agree with the by product of sport training approach to lowering resting heart rate. It really comes down to periodizing training however. When I am in a volume phase of aerobic training, I dont really run for an hour, I do my skills training in the 130-150 hr range. Similarly, playing sports, basketball, football, etc, can be done for longer duration lower intensity to get this same effect.
I found interval training when swimming to reduce my heart rate the most. It’s at the moment 55, but it has been as low as 48. As it has got lower from a high of 80 last year my recovery has definetly improved