# What's your resting heart rate?



## Riverman (9 Jan 2010)

Mine varies abit. If I sit on my exercise bike really still I can get it down to 48-53. 

But really it's probably more like 55-60

I have a BMI over 27 and am 29, so I think that's not too bad.


Oh and lastly, how high do you allow your heart rate to go? On an exercise bike I haven't gone above 190. Seems like abit of a danger zone although I imagine I go over 190bpm all the time on the road as there is a lot more grinding involved.


----------



## Globalti (9 Jan 2010)

Was 52 for years when I was just an MTB rider; now I'm road riding it's dropped to 50.


----------



## Garz (9 Jan 2010)

As with riverman sitting down it's 55-60.


----------



## Riverman (9 Jan 2010)

Cool.

This whole heart rate monitoring milarky is interesting. My heart rate is struggling to go below 80 after exercise, would be interesting to see what my recovery heart rate is and how it improves as I try and lose another two stone.

I'm worried I'm going to overdo things on an exercise bike. There's this tendency to spin like crazy and go over 100rpm.



> For death, it has been hypothesized* that a delayed fall in the heart rate after exercise might be an important prognostic marker. Less than 30 bpm reduction at one minute after stopping hard exercise was a predictor of heart attack. More than 50 bpm reduction showed reduced risk of heart attack



That first bit is slightly worrying. I'm really enjoying this whole exercise bike thing, work up a massive sweat and seem to spin a lot more than I do on the road.

I'm even using my laptop at the same time lol, and was playing guitar yesterday! lol


----------



## PpPete (9 Jan 2010)

Riverman said:


> Mine varies abit. If I sit on my exercise bike really still I can get it down to 48-53.
> 
> .



Isn't resting heart rate supposed to be taken lying down in bed, first thing in morning, before 1st cup of tea/coffee/cigarette/stimulant of your choice?


----------



## Riverman (9 Jan 2010)

hmmm would be abit scary if it was lower!


----------



## ColinJ (9 Jan 2010)

When I was slimmer and fitter, my RHR was about 34 bpm but it has probably gone up to about 50 bpm now that I'm overweight and not getting out on my bikes so often.

I think I'll add "Get RHR back down to mid-30s" as one of my targets for 2010. I need to get new batteries for my pulse rate monitor

If I get back down to a low RHR, I must remember to get one of those medical dog tags to make a note of it somewhere obvious. I don't want some paramedic sticking paddles on my chest and zapping my heart if I fall off my bike and knock myself out! 

There's not a lot of point in comparing figures from one person to another but I think monitoring your own RHR is a good way of keeping track of your health and fitness. When mine is 34 bpm I'm slim, fit and healthy. If it rises up from that over a period of days, I'm either tired or getting ill. Similarly, when I'm not so slim, not so fit, but still healthy, it would be about 50 bpm but would rise towards 60 bpm if I was overtrained or getting ill.

As for maximum pulse rate... That decreases steadily with age. I last measured mine when I was about 40 and it was just shy of 200 bpm. I hit that riding up the steep hill shown below. I refused to get off and walk, even though my lack of fitness and low gearing probably suggested that I should!







It might be down to about 180-185 bpm now. I'll check it when I have the pulse rate monitor working again.


----------



## yenrod (9 Jan 2010)

I'm getting a new HRM...


..these are crap:

http://www.wiggle.co.uk/p/cycle/7/X-Train_V3_20_Function_Heart_Rate_Monitor/5360024608/






But, getting a Polar soon...

So i should be more intricate in the bumpety bump dept ! 

- It used to be about 55-60...


----------



## Stephen-D (9 Jan 2010)

Silly question but is there any other way for me to measure heart rate apart from buying a HRM?? just wondering as i dont have one at the moment?


----------



## Garz (9 Jan 2010)

Hold wrist, count beats over 15 seconds then multiply it by four to get rough bpm.


----------



## Fiona N (9 Jan 2010)

Are we related ColinJ? 
I only ask because I come from Huddersfield and you've described pretty accurately my HR at the moment (overweight, not fully fit) and when fully fit. HR max is pretty similar - 192 is the most I've seen this summer (on Kirkstone on a road bike) since the last 'proper' measurement (i.e. ramp test Spring 2007 when it was 198). 

I'd only add that I was told, when I was in my mid 20's and my RHR was not much higher (28), that RHR increases with age, possibly because you can't get to the same level of cardio-fitness as you get older.


----------



## Fiona N (9 Jan 2010)

Stephen-D
If you're measuring RHR, counting for a minute is usually better if your RHR is low, as an error of 1 bpm in 15 secs means an error of +/- 4 which is a lot if your RHR is in the 30-40 range.


----------



## numbnuts (9 Jan 2010)

58 year old fart sat at the computer...52 bpm


----------



## Stephen-D (9 Jan 2010)

Ok cool, i dont this sitting at work and i got a resting heart rate of 64 which seems not to bad! i think getting better measuring devices like a HRM might be a good idea, that one that your getting Yenrod looks like the a pretty decent one with a good price, im sure it was reviewed in a cycling magazine.


----------



## ColinJ (9 Jan 2010)

*PS* I measured my RHR lying very still in bed. If I was sat upright and moving at all it would be about 5-10 bpm higher


----------



## ColinJ (9 Jan 2010)

Fiona N said:


> Are we related ColinJ?
> I only ask because I come from Huddersfield and you've described pretty accurately my HR at the moment (overweight, not fully fit) and when fully fit. HR max is pretty similar - 192 is the most I've seen this summer (on Kirkstone on a road bike) since the last 'proper' measurement (i.e. ramp test Spring 2007 when it was 198).
> 
> I'd only add that I was told, when I was in my mid 20's and my RHR was not much higher (28), that RHR increases with age, possibly because you can't get to the same level of cardio-fitness as you get older.


Not that I know of, but if you go back far enough then most humans are related, assuming that we all come from a few tribes!

I'd never thought about RHR naturally rising with age. Perhaps you are right. It is possible to remain very fit to a very old age, but even the fittest OAP is never going to be as fit as they were when they 20, unless of course they weren't fit then!

I'll be interested to see just how low I can get my RHR again.


----------



## lukesdad (9 Jan 2010)

porkypete said:


> Isn't resting heart rate supposed to be taken lying down in bed, first thing in morning, before 1st cup of tea/coffee/cigarette/stimulant of your choice?



Dont confuse resting H/R with waking H/R they indicate 2 different things.


----------



## Stephen-D (9 Jan 2010)

Fiona N said:


> Stephen-D
> If you're measuring RHR, counting for a minute is usually better if your RHR is low, as an error of 1 bpm in 15 secs means an error of +/- 4 which is a lot if your RHR is in the 30-40 range.



This is really good, i done it a few times and got all the people in my team to do it and if we do it for 15 seconds ad times it by 4 it can give varying results so doing it over 60 seconds is probably best like you said!


----------



## Garz (9 Jan 2010)

The 15 second method was a rough indicator steve (quick and only have to waste a short time), if you want to be accurate then use a proper instrument, of course 60 seconds is more accurate as its beats per minute.


----------



## davidg (9 Jan 2010)

or you could time it over 10 mins and divide by 10 to get the beats per minute...


----------



## Riverman (10 Jan 2010)

measured it this morning on the exercise bike and it's 55. It freaked me out yesterday because after doing a load of exercise in the day I was struggling to get it under 75 a couple of hours later.


----------



## Garz (10 Jan 2010)

Yes I had the same experience riverman. This morning even when resting on the bed wouldn't drop below 53, just confirmed that I have a man cold though so will carry on testing.


----------



## spandex (10 Jan 2010)

When I was riding for a living it was at 37bpm with a BMI of 28.7 now it 41bpm with a BMI of 31.2 I dont think that is to bad?


----------



## Riverman (10 Jan 2010)

HR is very low but your BMI is quite high mate. Are you quite muscular?


----------



## spandex (10 Jan 2010)

Riverman said:


> HR is very low but your BMI is quite high mate. Are you quite muscular?



I think the word is quite and I do not think you will find any one on here to say other wise but I am very well built!!!


----------



## The Jogger (10 Jan 2010)

I took mine this morning using my garmin, it was 51 and so am I. It is usually about 48 when I'm training but haven't trained for quite some time and have just started back. Also recovering from an ankle injury and a bad, long, cough and cold. My recovery rate wasn't as good as it use to be but I've also put on weight. Time to change all that.


----------



## jimheaney57 (11 Jan 2010)

Well this thread prompted me to get out my Polar HRM that I've had for some time and never taken out of the box.

Sitting her at the PC my RHR is at 48. Quite happy with that as this seems fairly low for a man of my age, 53.

I must remember to check it first thing in the morning before I get the first mug of caffeine in me.


----------



## Sam Kennedy (11 Jan 2010)

I've noticed my RHR is higher than normal, maybe to do with recent (very slight) depression and (not very much) stress.


----------



## yenrod (11 Jan 2010)

45bpm...


----------



## montage (12 Jan 2010)

well, been off for 9ish months with crap knees, so up to 62 :S... rubbish!
Should have done more cross training/swimming. Didn't expect to lose that much fitness in that time, ah well.


----------



## doyler78 (12 Jan 2010)

38-42bpm is a normal range for me.


----------



## Rob3rt (13 Jan 2010)

56-58bpm. Taken manually (counting pulse on right wrist not using HRM) 1st thing in morning when waking up in bed.


----------



## slunker (13 Jan 2010)

40 rhr 180 mhr


----------



## marinyork (13 Jan 2010)

A very unfit 52 for me . It seems to be going up thesedays.


----------



## Zippy (13 Jan 2010)

40-44bpm. Yoga helps.


----------



## lukesdad (15 Jan 2010)

Rob3rt said:


> 56-58bpm. Taken manually (counting pulse on right wrist not using HRM) 1st thing in morning when waking up in bed.



Thats waking HR.


----------



## Bill Gates (18 Jan 2010)

lukesdad said:


> Dont confuse resting H/R with waking H/R they indicate 2 different things.





lukesdad said:


> Thats waking HR.



What's the difference?


----------



## Bill Gates (18 Jan 2010)

lukesdad said:


> Dont confuse resting H/R with waking H/R they indicate 2 different things.





lukesdad said:


> Thats waking HR.



What's the difference?


----------



## Garz (18 Jan 2010)

For me I done a proper vegetative state lying in bed and got it down to 44bpm, when pootling around the house its around 60-70. Im taking this is what LD is referring to as they are clearly different readings.


----------



## Garz (18 Jan 2010)

For me I done a proper vegetative state lying in bed and got it down to 44bpm, when pootling around the house its around 60-70. Im taking this is what LD is referring to as they are clearly different readings.


----------



## youngoldbloke (18 Jan 2010)

Quote:
Originally Posted by *lukesdad* 

 
_Dont confuse resting H/R with waking H/R they indicate 2 different things._



Bill Gates said:


> What's the difference?



Anyone got a definitive answer to this? Here are 3 results taken almost at random from a search for 'resting heart rate': 

_Its important to remember that the best time to take this test is first thing in the morning, when you awake, as simply getting up and walking around your bedroom will cause your heart rate to rise, with other factors such as smoking or caffeine, also causing an increase._
_(Netfit)_

_This is a person's heart rate at rest. The best time to find out your resting heart rate is in the morning, after a good night's sleep, and before you get out of bed. (American Heart Association)_

_To determine your resting heart rate (RHR) is very easy. Find somewhere nice and quiet, lie down and relax. Position a watch or clock where you can clearly see it whilst lying down. After 20 minutes determine your resting pulse rate (beats/min). Use this value as your RHR. (BrianMac Sports Coach)_


- and so on .... 

(Garz - it is certainly NOT your pootling around the house measurement)


----------



## lukesdad (18 Jan 2010)

Bill Gates said:


> What's the difference?



The difference is simple rhr is when you rest after any activity and should be taken as you indicate 2o mins etc. Whr is when you wake up before you partake in any activity, I thought it was quite obvious.

The first indicates your fitness level the second indicates impending problems you may have during the day due to the night or day before I.e bad nights sleep or some activity eating etc. Or impending illness.


----------



## doyler78 (18 Jan 2010)

lukesdad said:


> The difference is simple rhr is when you rest after any activity and should be taken as you indicate 2o mins etc. Whr is when you wake up before you partake in any activity, I thought it was quite obvious.
> 
> The first indicates your fitness level the second indicates impending problems you may have during the day due to the night or day before I.e bad nights sleep or some activity eating etc. Or impending illness.



I would have to disagree with your contention. My "waking heart rate" rises and falls with my level of fitness and I have many years of heart rate data which confirms that. For instance a few years ago when I was unable to ride for several months because of physical injury (hip, knee & ankle problems and not a cardio/respiratory/viral illness as I presume you mean when you say illness) my "waking heart rate" went from 39bpm to 54bpm (or thereabouts). It took months of training before I got my resting heart rate down to that level again. Have you any such data yourself which shows that after a period of detraining that your "waking heart rate" did not rise and did not fall back as you regained fitness?

I find the slapdown for not understanding the difference between waking & resting heart rate interesting because it just seems to me that I cannot think of a time when I am more likely to be in a more rested non sleep state than when I have just woken up.

I haven't a clue why anyone would want to conduct a test in those circumstances myself. I can understand why they would want to know recovery rate ie resting heart rate at normal activity levels so that you can see how well you recover from physical exertion and that is certainly another measure of fitness however it doesn't replace or negate the usefulness of "waking heart rate" or as I more commonly know it as "morning resting heart rate".

Just what my use of heart rate training has taught me, however incorrect that may be. I now use power, much less ambiguity but I still measure my mrhr as it does warn me sometimes that illness may be coming. I use power data now to assess training stress so not so bothered about trying to predict overtraining from mrhr these days either although an elevated mrhr can indicate overtraining too.

Much more useful a number than maxHR in my opinion.


----------



## lukesdad (18 Jan 2010)

Of course your waking hr will increase during a lay off as will your rhr it is only to be expected. Waking hr is only usefull if you take it every day. I would only check my Rhr once amonth.


----------



## doyler78 (18 Jan 2010)

lukesdad said:


> Of course your waking hr will increase during a lay off as will your rhr it is only to be expected. Waking hr is only usefull if you take it every day. I would only check my Rhr once amonth.



So waking heart rate can be used to track changes in fitness because that's not what you said in the post I was responding to or at least that is the impression that you gave as you went to pains to point out the differences between the two methods.

Why does it have to be done everyday in order to be useful and if it does how is your system any better? Surely it is subject to the same issues of general heart rate variability due to external issues such as stress, illness, heat, etc.

I know that if I haven't slept well the night before I know my heart rate as I'm walking up to the gym floor is probably going to be higher than it normally is when I am well rested equally that is reflected in my waking heart rate however I know if I have had a bad nights sleep so I can filter the data I get for that.

To use it to predict illness/overtraining would certainly require frequent testing however fitness less so for the very reason you gave above ie fitness doesn't increase or decline in a day (or not in a manner that we can appreciate).


----------



## youngoldbloke (19 Jan 2010)

RHR is a baseline measurement and a quick search will give the advice that it is best measured on waking, as any activity, and the intake of food, tea or coffee etc will effect it. Measuring HR after resting after activity will not produce a useful baseline result for calculating HR zones.
(But as Doyler states, may be useful in measuring recovery).


----------



## Bill Gates (19 Jan 2010)

lukesdad said:


> The difference is simple rhr is when you rest after any activity and should be taken as you indicate 2o mins etc. Whr is when you wake up before you partake in any activity, *I thought it was quite obvious.*
> 
> The first indicates your fitness level the second indicates impending problems you may have during the day due to the night or day before I.e bad nights sleep or some activity eating etc. Or impending illness.



I must be thick then because I've never heard the term "waking heart rate" used before. As far as I'm concerned my RHR is when I wake up and take it first thing in the morning. The rest of the time my HR is subject to what activity I've done or am doing that day and will vary accordingly.


----------



## youngoldbloke (19 Jan 2010)

Bill Gates said:


> I must be thick then because I've never heard the term "waking heart rate" used before. As far as I'm concerned my RHR is when I wake up and take it first thing in the morning. The rest of the time my HR is subject to what activity I've done or am doing that day and will vary accordingly.



+1 

- this from the Polar website:

_*"How to determine resting heart rate*
Resting heart rate can be measured either with a heart rate monitor or by palpating. Using a heart rate monitor is more feasible and gives a more accurate measurement. The measurement should be performed in supine position in the morning immediately after awakening. Take the measurements on five consecutive days and calculate the average resting heart rate. In addition to fitness, resting heart rate is affected by several factors such as recovery from the previous exercise, the quality of sleep, and mental stress level, so perform the measurement only when you are healthy and feeling well.



When measured with a heart rate monitor, put it on after waking up and start measuring.


When measured by palpation, you can find your pulse at the base of your thumb at your wrist, or at your neck just to the side of your windpipe. Use your index and middle fingers to find your pulse, and count the beats in 15 seconds. Count the first beat you feel as zero. Multiply the number of beats you feel in 15 seconds by 4 to arrive at your heart rate per minute."
_- they should know shouldn't they?


----------



## Fiona N (19 Jan 2010)

If you've got a HRM which stores a HR file for download, it's really quite informative to wear it overnight and record your HR during sleep. 
I did it for about 20 nights during a period when I was very fit (resting HR on waking 31-33 over the same period) and found there was quite a variation in HR during sleep. In particular, there was a gradual decrease for 4 or 5 hours after going to bed/sleep (not necessarily the same thing for many people), then there are regular cycles about 2-2.5 hours long which I believe correspond to the REM/non-REM sleep intervals where you can see the difference between these sleep types in terms of effect on HR (5+ bpm higher in REM sleep for my case). There were numerous irregular spikes of 10-15 bpm above the base which again I believe correspond to movement in bed, turning over etc. Also the baseline started to rise from about 1 hour before I woke up (possibly in response to light - it was about dawn). Furthermore the minimum HR recorded (excluding 'blips') was usually at least 4 or 5 bpm lower than the resting HR measured on waking. I found this minimum HR was a good indicator of health as a virus (just a normal cold) at the end of the period resulted in a more than 10bpm rise in the minimum but only a roughly 2 bpm rise in the resting HR on waking.

Try it and see what you discover about yourself


----------



## Fiona N (19 Jan 2010)

P.S. I forgot to add - I'm a scientist and I think resting heart rate measured randomly during the day is basically just a random number influenced by what exercise you've taken already that day or are recovering from previously, caffeine intake, period since last meal, stress level etc. etc. etc. Resting HR on waking isn't fool-proof but at least you've controlled some of the variables and from day to day should see some sort of overall trends. How you interpret the trends is, of course, a whole other can of worms.


----------



## lukesdad (19 Jan 2010)

We re starting to get there. When you are taking these readings they have got to be spot on when you take them and as suggeted all variables must be controlled. This is why I only take my rhr once a month whr time diet and effort are taken into account and replicated I take it 25 mins after an exact turbo session.

The importance of taking your whr every day is to collate the rest of your days information from your training. If you dont know what condition your in when you start the day, how do you gauge that days results. Or is it I had a bad/good/ indifferent/same as yesterday day type thing.....er sort of.

Never heard whr before. Let me help. Chris Charmichael or NASA ring any bells.


----------



## Bill Gates (19 Jan 2010)

lukesdad said:


> We re starting to get there. When you are taking these readings they have got to be spot on when you take them and as suggeted all variables must be controlled. This is why I only take my rhr once a month whr time diet and effort are taken into account and replicated I take it 25 mins after an exact turbo session.
> 
> The importance of taking your whr every day is to collate the rest of your days information from your training. If you dont know what condition your in when you start the day, how do you gauge that days results. Or is it I had a bad/good/ indifferent/same as yesterday day type thing.....er sort of.
> 
> Never heard whr before. Let me help. Chris Charmichael or NASA ring any bells.



Speaking of bells who's the ding-a-ling? 

Let's get this straight you take your whr every day because if you don't then you can't judge that day's results. 

BUT 

Your definition of whr is the what the rest of the world and his dog including the companies who manufacture HRM's, (except you, Chris Carmichael and NASA) actually call RHR i.e. taken on waking first thing in the morning. 

RHR is RHR. Any other HR reading taken after whatever you've eaten be it a hamburger, banana or bag of crisps or 25 minutes after a turbo is not RHR.

What I need to know for training purposes is if I'm recovered enough from the previous day or well enough to train hard that day or should I take it easy. Taking my RHR (mine and everyone else's definition) first thing in the morning in bed is a pretty good indicator. The rest is of academic interest to see if my fitness is improving re recovery, but those readings are *NOT* RHR.


----------



## lukesdad (19 Jan 2010)

Bill Gates said:


> Speaking of bells who's the ding-a-ling?
> 
> Let's get this straight you take your whr every day because if you don't then you can't judge that day's results.
> 
> ...



Better go and tell your GP that then Bill, because mine agrees with me he s a pretty serious cyclist too.


----------



## youngoldbloke (19 Jan 2010)

Fiona N said:


> P.S. I forgot to add - I'm a scientist and I think resting heart rate measured randomly during the day is basically just a random number influenced by what exercise you've taken already that day or are recovering from previously, caffeine intake, period since last meal, stress level etc. etc. etc. Resting HR on waking isn't fool-proof but at least you've controlled some of the variables and from day to day should see some sort of overall trends. How you interpret the trends is, of course, a whole other can of worms.



I think this sums it up pretty well. Until I see more convincing evidence I will continue to follow the advice of Polar regarding the measurement of Resting Heart Rate on waking. It is _possible_ for a GP to be mistaken, by the way.


----------



## Bill Gates (19 Jan 2010)

lukesdad said:


> Better go and tell your GP that then Bill, because mine agrees with me he s a pretty serious cyclist too.



My GP is a tosser and so is yours by the sound of it.


----------



## zacklaws (19 Jan 2010)

I find it very difficult to get a RHR in a morning, by the time I have faffed about finding my HR monitor and fitting the strap or just looking for my watch my HR can be in the 60+'s, last night night when I went to bed I had a nice slow beat, which I never bothered checking, probably high 40's, low 50's.

As a rule now when I wake up, and providing I remember, I listen to my clock ticking and if I'm lucky and can hear my pulse beating on the pillow or can feel it, then I count the beats and ifs it slower than the seconds ticking on the clock then I'm happy.


----------



## lukesdad (19 Jan 2010)

There is nothing random about my test. It has to start with the same WHR after 9 hrs uninterupted sleep on a sunny day.( No stress levels) the same light b/fast 2hrs reading the exact turbo session 5 min shower 20mins lying down no variables.Whats random about that! Why bother with all that. Well firstly I only do it once a month. Its an accurate test of my fitness 12 times a year.

A WHR test cannot do this because you cannot control the variables. It is important for other reasons as previously stated.

As for HRM manfacturers there is a reason they advocate their test. Once you appreciate that your WHR will be considerably lower than the 20 min test mentioned (and advocated by most performance coaches) and applied to the formula to determine your training zones you will see that the BPM values are considerably lower......mmm I wonder why. It will also make your training zone values lower. Therefore incorrect.

No one is ever going to be 100% right or wrong but sometimes you have to think outside the box and not run with the herd.


----------



## Bill Gates (19 Jan 2010)

lukesdad said:


> *There is nothing random about my test. It has to start with the same WHR after 9 hrs uninterupted sleep on a sunny day*.( No stress levels) the same light b/fast 2hrs reading the exact turbo session 5 min shower 20mins lying down no variables.Whats random about that! Why bother with all that. Well firstly I only do it once a month. Its an accurate test of my fitness 12 times a year.
> 
> A WHR test cannot do this because you cannot control the variables. It is important for other reasons as previously stated.
> 
> ...




I don't even know where to start on this one. Now the whr has to be the same. Same as what exactly? and it's taken after 9 hours uninterrupted sleep on a sunny day. 

So what if you take it in the winter like now? It doesn't get light until 7.30 so if you have to get up for work before 7.30 then you're stuffed until the weekend. and if it's cloudy at the weekend you're stuffed again. And if you wake up after 8 hours and not 9 hours then you're stuffed again.

It's all utter nonsense of course!


----------



## doyler78 (19 Jan 2010)

lukesdad said:


> There is nothing random about my test. It has to start with the same WHR after 9 hrs uninterupted sleep on a sunny day.( No stress levels) the same light b/fast 2hrs reading the exact turbo session 5 min shower 20mins lying down no variables.Whats random about that! Why bother with all that. Well firstly I only do it once a month. Its an accurate test of my fitness 12 times a year.
> 
> A WHR test cannot do this because you cannot control the variables. It is important for other reasons as previously stated.
> 
> ...



Performance Coaches would strongly advise you to get a power meter.

Dr Andrew Coogan PhD uses Lactate Threshold Heart Rate to determine trianing intensities

Joe Friel uses the same measure to ascribe training intensities as Dr Coogan (though they differ in what way they assign the intensities)

British Cycling uses MaxHR to set trianing intensities

RST - Richard Stern Training - use MaxHr to set training intensities and finally

The CTS (Carmichael Training System) field test:

http://www.mastertheshift.com/masters/carmichael/workouts/downloads/chris-cts-test.pdf

Nothing at all about anything you have described so it seems Chris Carmichael does not do as you suggest he does when ascribing training intensities. So exactly what does he use it for?


----------



## lukesdad (19 Jan 2010)

doyler78 said:


> Performance Coaches would strongly advise you to get a power meter.
> 
> Dr Andrew Coogan PhD uses Lactate Threshold Heart Rate to determine trianing intensities
> 
> ...



I didnt say he did. You and Mr gates need to practice your reading skills, and stop trying to make my words fit your agenda.


----------



## lukesdad (19 Jan 2010)

Bill Gates said:


> I don't even know where to start on this one. Now the whr has to be the same. Same as what exactly? and it's taken after 9 hours uninterrupted sleep on a sunny day.
> 
> So what if you take it in the winter like now? It doesn't get light until 7.30 so if you have to get up for work before 7.30 then you're stuffed until the weekend. and if it's cloudy at the weekend you're stuffed again. And if you wake up after 8 hours and not 9 hours then you're stuffed again.
> 
> It's all utter nonsense of course!



Its more accurate than anything you can come up with ,if thats anything other than insults.


----------



## doyler78 (19 Jan 2010)

lukesdad said:


> I didnt say he did. You and Mr gates need to practice your reading skills, and stop trying to make my words fit your agenda.



Try re-reading the bit about why heart rate monitor companies don't suggest your methodology. You specifically said "It will also make your training zone values lower. Therefore incorrect."

That says to me that you believe that your system can determine heart rate zones more precisley by using your methodology I presume a la Karvonen method where resting heart rate and maximum heart rate are used to define a working heart rate range to which training intensity can be ascribed.

I merely pointed how most of the most highly regarded coaches do not even consider resting heart rate however it is determined.

If that's not what you intended to say then I think you be better not to mix unrelated information into a debate about a specific point as otherwise it cannot be seen as anything other than being connected to it.


----------



## lukesdad (19 Jan 2010)

I was reffering to the earlier point about the term WHR and how Chris Charmichael and coined it.


----------



## Bill Gates (19 Jan 2010)

lukesdad said:


> Its more accurate than anything you can come up with ,if thats anything other than insults.



If what you say is accurate then there should be something to refer to somewhere on the internet that will back it up. There is tons of stuff to support what the rest of us are saying. 

I can't find anything that supports your theory. Please enlighten us.


----------



## doyler78 (19 Jan 2010)

lukesdad said:


> I was reffering to the earlier point about the term WHR and how Chris Charmichael and coined it.



Right I've done a bit of searching and Chris Carmichael does indeed use the term waking heart rate, I presume because he feel it more precisley describes what it is. Can't argue with that however I think you are reading too much into because resting heart rate and waking heart rate mean exactly the same thing to Chris Carmichael.

See here:
http://outside.away.com/outside/bodywork/carmichael-20080124.html

If he believed there was difference he would have defined his terms - he didn't and indeed the numbers he provides clearly indicate he is taking about heart rate upon waking.


----------



## lukesdad (19 Jan 2010)

Right this is dragging on. The test Ive described is my general fitness test 12 times a year. (the last one done on Sunday Morning by the way.) It is the most accurate way I have found If you know different tell me and I will try it.

I can t see why CCh would use two different terms to mean the same thing as I read it. He uses one as a tool for general RhR the other for immeadiate if you like WHR.


----------



## youngoldbloke (19 Jan 2010)

lukesdad said:


> There is nothing random about my test. It has to start with the *same WHR* after 9 hrs uninterupted sleep on a sunny day.( No stress levels) the same light b/fast 2hrs reading the exact turbo session 5 min shower 20mins lying down no variables.Whats random about that! Why bother with all that. Well firstly I only do it once a month. Its an accurate test of my fitness 12 times a year.



I appreciate your explanation. But perhaps this thread might not have dragged on for so long if you had enlightened us all earlier - given the paucity of online information regarding WHR as opposed to RHR. However, I am puzzled as to how you can replicate the same WHR - are you saying yours remains constant month on month?


----------



## Garz (19 Jan 2010)

doyler78 said:


> Performance Coaches would strongly advise you to get a power meter.



They can shove that up their arse as far as im concerned. Its bad enough buying a HRM and other cycling gear than extra tools costing a fortune to give me another reading that top end athletes marginally benefit from.


----------



## lukesdad (19 Jan 2010)

As I see it from what you are saying. If you are taking your RHR as you wake then this I am supposing will vary so unless you are taking an average which again can vary week to week you dont have difinitive RHR am I wrong? With my test at least I do once a month.


----------



## doyler78 (19 Jan 2010)

Garz said:


> They can shove that up their arse as far as im concerned. Its bad enough buying a HRM and other cycling gear than extra tools costing a fortune to give me another reading that top end athletes marginally benefit from.



Mine's a powertap so the wheel might get in the road


----------



## Garz (19 Jan 2010)

I couldn't agree more with the poster whom said its a faff to get the gear on without actually raising the levels to make the test rather pointless.

From what I have read however it seems the consensus is that you take an average over the week of all your resting/waking/justgotupfromsleeping whatever you catagorise it and use that figure as the accurate RHR.

Not worth falling out over it on the forums however..


----------



## lukesdad (19 Jan 2010)

youngoldbloke said:


> I appreciate your explanation. But perhaps this thread might not have dragged on for so long if you had enlightened us all earlier - given the paucity of online information regarding WHR as opposed to RHR. However, I am puzzled as to how you can replicate the same WHR - are you saying yours remains constant month on month?



Your quite right. I have to pick the right day. Luckily I am a creature of habit and have 14 free days where I dont have to work. But I get one in a month.And I did try to enlighten earlier untill I got side swiped.


----------



## Bill Gates (20 Jan 2010)

youngoldbloke said:


> I appreciate your explanation. But perhaps this thread might not have dragged on for so long if you had enlightened us all earlier - given the paucity of online information regarding WHR as opposed to RHR. *However, I am puzzled as to how you can replicate the same WHR - are you saying yours remains constant month on month*?





lukesdad said:


> *Your quite right. I have to pick the right day. Luckily I am a creature of habit and have 14 free days where I dont have to work. *But I get one in a month.And I did try to enlighten earlier untill I got side swiped.




OK I'll bite.

1) How do you know that your WHR is going to be the same as last time unless you take it before taking it? 

2) If it is going to be the same then what is the point of taking it anyway?

3) This 14 free days. Is this your annual leave? or shift days off in a month or what?

4) Where is the internet reference that confirms your methods?


----------



## lukesdad (20 Jan 2010)

1. I dont know before hand so I cant predict the day I take it on but my WHR is vary rarely outside a 4 bpm band. 
2. So you have a fixed starting point to conduct the test.
3. My job does not entail me to work on a fri sat sun or when the house is unoccupied.
4. Why do I need an internet ref. Its a simple test.


----------



## Bill Gates (20 Jan 2010)

lukesdad said:


> 1. I dont know before hand so I cant predict the day I take it on but my WHR is vary rarely outside a 4 bpm band.
> 2. So you have a fixed starting point to conduct the test.
> 3. My job does not entail me to work on a fri sat sun or when the house is unoccupied.
> 4. Why do I need an internet ref. Its a simple test.




Ask silly questions and.............


----------



## Fiona N (20 Jan 2010)

lukesdad said:


> Right this is dragging on. The test Ive described is my general fitness test 12 times a year. (the last one done on Sunday Morning by the way.) It is the most accurate way I have found If you know different tell me and I will try it.



Yes - you've described a general fitness test - what's that got to do with what the original thread was about - i.e. resting heart rate? A resting heart rate on waking is something to be monitored on a regular - preferably daily - basis not a once a month fitness test. The rationale for daily monitoring is to develop an understanding of your specific trends - e.g. some women find rhr varies slightly during the month, others don't. But you can't get anything about this from a once a month measurement not matter how 'scientific'. 

BTW if you're going to go to all this rigmarole, why not do a full ramp test and have done with it? That's generally reckoned to give the best overall assessment of developing/evolving fitness. When I used to train seriously, a ramp test to failure on calibrated equipment was an extremely good way to measure the benefits of different types of training - it was easy to see improvement in specific areas (e.g. efficiency at low HR%, variation in anaerobic threshold a la Conconi etc.) given that at the time we didn't have access to power meters on bikes on the road so lab testing was gold standard.


----------



## Bill Gates (21 Jan 2010)

Fiona N said:


> Yes - you've described a general fitness test - what's that got to do with what the original thread was about - i.e. resting heart rate? A resting heart rate on waking is something to be monitored on a regular - preferably daily - basis not a once a month fitness test. The rationale for daily monitoring is to develop an understanding of your specific trends - e.g. some women find rhr varies slightly during the month, others don't. But you can't get anything about this from a once a month measurement not matter how 'scientific'.
> 
> BTW if you're going to go to all this rigmarole, why not do a full ramp test and have done with it? That's generally reckoned to give the best overall assessment of developing/evolving fitness. When I used to train seriously, a ramp test to failure on calibrated equipment was an extremely good way to measure the benefits of different types of training - it was easy to see improvement in specific areas (e.g. efficiency at low HR%, variation in anaerobic threshold a la Conconi etc.) given that at the time we didn't have access to power meters on bikes on the road so lab testing was gold standard.




I can't see the point of testing to see if your training is going well. If you're going to race then why would you want to interrupt your training schedule to find out something that a race is going to tell you anyway. 

If you use races to hone fitness, which will happen automatically then provided you do the right things in training then your recovery and RHR will show if you're on the right track.


----------



## Globalti (21 Jan 2010)

My RHR shoots up when I go on Wiggle and look at the young Bosnian woman who models for dhb clothing.....


----------



## Garz (21 Jan 2010)

Finally some humor injected into this thread! B)


----------



## Tynan (21 Jan 2010)

thanks to some postural something or other involving a weak heart chamber my resting heartbeat was measured by a nurse at 38 once

that's not a good thing I suspect


----------



## Garz (22 Jan 2010)

Not far off clinically dead!


----------



## Browser (22 Jan 2010)

61bpm, and considering I'm 38 and it _was_ as low as 48 bpm last year, I'm not happy. I am sat in front of a PC at work wearing heat-retaining flame-retardent overalls, and I feel overwarm, so that may be doing it (it's worth a try as an excuse anyway!). I haven't been on a bike since before Xmas due to wifey having been is hospital for an op and needing a lot of aftercare, so no cycle commutes for a while.


----------



## BrumJim (26 Jan 2010)

64. I'm sitting at my PC, having had a coffee about an hour ago. Feeling like I am at a good level of fitness, certainly amongst the best I have been.

Which explains why I can't get below 27 minutes for my 7 mile commute, and 50 miles still seems like a very, very long way on a bike.

An hour later, and down to 60.


----------



## kewb (27 Jan 2010)

58 stting at pc ,had two coffees within an hour .


----------



## jacklad (30 Jan 2010)

just took mine, 48 bpm. 50 years old and 95 kilo's approx 14st 12 lbs.


----------



## Garz (30 Jan 2010)

I must remember not to drink tea/coffee before i do this.


----------

