# Would this be classed as resting heart rate?



## Sam Kennedy (16 Dec 2009)

I wore my heart rate monitor over night, and in the morning, the lowest reading at some point during the night was 40, so would that be my resting heart rate, or does it only count if 40 was what my heart rate was at in the morning? (My alarm clock wakes me up so I don't get an accurate reading, that's why I wore it overnight)


----------



## Bill Gates (16 Dec 2009)

Sam Kennedy said:


> I wore my heart rate monitor over night, and in the morning, the lowest reading at some point during the night was 40, so would that be my resting heart rate, or does it only count if 40 was what my heart rate was at in the morning? (My alarm clock wakes me up so I don't get an accurate reading, that's why I wore it overnight)



The RHR reading should be taken when you are awake and have been inactive for about 15 minutes or so. I usually do mine when I'm watching the telly and got my feet up. It's OK to take it in bed before you get up but not when you're asleep.

The purpose of taking it in the first place is not to get the lowest reading you can, although a lower HR compared to your previous readings will indicate an improvement in aerobic fitness; but to determine a higher than normal reading from overtraining or illness of some sort and then to slacken off with the training.

So at the end of the day it doesn't really matter what it is so much as is it higher than normal. A low HR as such is not an indicator of ability.


----------



## ColinJ (16 Dec 2009)

I would say that Resting Heart Rate is the lowest rate you ever see when you are relaxed and resting. I found quite a few beats difference between sitting upright and lying down. I also found that by making an effort to relax and watching the HRM, I could lower the rate by a few more beats.

Incidentally, when I was fit, I used to think that my RHR was 40 bpm because that was always what my HRM displayed when I was lying in bed. After a while, I discovered that my HRM couldn't display a lower rate. When I bought a new HRM, I found that my RHR was actually about 33-34 bpm.


----------



## Bill Gates (16 Dec 2009)

ColinJ said:


> I would say that Resting Heart Rate is the lowest rate you ever see when you are relaxed and resting. I found quite a few beats difference between sitting upright and lying down. *I also found that by making an effort to relax and watching the HRM, I could lower the rate by a few more beats.*
> 
> Incidentally, when I was fit, I used to think that my RHR was 40 bpm because that was always what my HRM displayed when I was lying in bed. After a while, I discovered that my HRM couldn't display a lower rate. When I bought a new HRM, I found that my RHR was actually about 33-34 bpm.



Making it go lower by concentrating takes away from the purpose of why you are taking the rate in the first place as is taking it while you're asleep. In the context of training these readings are meaningless, and as I said having a low rate in itself is no indicator of ability.

More important is stroke volume with a low RHR


----------



## ColinJ (16 Dec 2009)

Bill Gates said:


> Making it go lower by concentrating takes away from the purpose of why you are taking the rate in the first place as is taking it while you're asleep.


I had a very stressful job, I was looking at my HRM and it was showing 37 bpm. I then started thinking about work and was alarmed to see the reading shoot up to 40-50-60-80-100-120...140 bpm! I was shocked to see how much difference my state of mind made. I put work out of my mind and watched the rate fall back down to 37 bpm. I just thought it would be interesting to see if I could go the other way, and sure enough, I got it down to 34 bpm. I'm not saying that it means anything or that it is useful. Just interesting.



Bill Gates said:


> In the context of training these readings are meaningless, and as I said having a low rate in itself is no indicator of ability.


I've agreed with you over on the other heart rate thread.

I know that if I become unfit my RHR rises, as it does when I get ill or tired. If I see it going up over a period of days and I'm fit and not tired, I can be pretty sure that I'm getting ill. Similarly, if I haven't been tired or ill recently and my RHR drops over a period of weeks, it is a pretty good sign for me that I am getting fitter.


----------



## Garz (16 Dec 2009)

Taking the measurement from sleeping would not be your resting heart rate and not good for comparison for improved fitness.

Im quite shocked to see such low RHR though, I used my cheap one paired to a watch and I could only get it down to 60 while watching telly. Maybe its a rubbish monitor or I have some concerns.

Anyway, once again BG applies the reality of it. The best way to measure fitness improvement would be to see how long it takes in recovery time to return after a controlled regime. Why on earth you would wear it all the time to see if you were ill is another thing..


----------



## ColinJ (16 Dec 2009)

Garz said:


> Why on earth you would wear it all the time to see if you were ill is another thing..


It was the other way round. I'd read that getting ill elevates the RHR. Some time later, I got ill and stuck the HRM on. Sure enough, my RHR was up by about 20 bpm.


----------



## Will1985 (16 Dec 2009)

I did that a couple of weeks ago with my Garmin - the average over roughly 8 hours was 45. It was quite interesting to see how it fluctuated during sleep - there are patches in the graph where it hovers around 42 for up to 10 minutes and then other areas where it's at 65+ for a similar length of time.


----------



## Globalti (17 Dec 2009)

They're the bits when you're dreaming about some luscious blonde.....


----------



## Bill Gates (17 Dec 2009)

ColinJ said:


> I had a very stressful job, I was looking at my HRM and it was showing 37 bpm. I then started thinking about work and was alarmed to see the reading shoot up to 40-50-60-80-100-120...140 bpm! I was shocked to see how much difference my state of mind made. I put work out of my mind and watched the rate fall back down to 37 bpm. I just thought it would be interesting to see if I could go the other way, and sure enough, I got it down to 34 bpm. I'm not saying that it means anything or that it is useful. Just interesting.



It would also have been interesting to have taken your Blood Pressure as this would also have been elevated. And I agree that by focusing on lowering your HR you are calming down.

I took my BP whilst watching Spurs on the telly last night and it was high. Turned to another channel and it went down again. Being a football supporter can be unhealthy.


----------



## Globalti (17 Dec 2009)

I can make my heart rate rocket by just thinking back to the time when we had violent drug dealers who moved in next door.


----------



## Garz (17 Dec 2009)

Maybe I was watching football on the telly too but I still thought 60+ was high, perhaps Il retry the test when snooker/golf is on thats guarantee to bore the pants off me!


----------



## WimbledonCyclist (17 Dec 2009)

Bill Gates said:


> Making it go lower by concentrating takes away from the purpose of why you are taking the rate in the first place as is taking it while you're asleep. In the context of training these readings are meaningless, and as I said having a low rate in itself is no indicator of ability.



Surely they must have meaning? The key point is that you take the measurement under the same conditions. If you consisently take the measurement as the lowest point while sleeping, then you should get just as much info as when you take it at another reference point (e.g. in bed immediately upon waking up, or after sitting down for 15 minutes). The clincher is that that the key info you get (is RHR not elevated through overtraining or illness) will be available through all three reading methods(lowest HR during sleep, RHR upon waking, RHR after 15 mins sitting down).

For the purposes of finding out whether you're overtraining or not, all three will do, as long as you are consistent. Getting the nighttime/lowest HR during sleep reading seems to come with some hassle: you have to a HRM all night. So for general ease, stick with either RHR upon waking up in the morning or after sitting down for 15 minutes, I'd say.


----------



## jimboalee (17 Dec 2009)

The secret of good research is consistancy of test procedure.

Formulate a routine and stick to it.

One method...
Sit and relax for 20 minutes with the cuff on. 
Start the Sphyg at 20 minutes and return your body and mind to relaxation mode. Don't fall asleep.
Repeat twice and average the three readings.


----------



## Bill Gates (17 Dec 2009)

WimbledonCyclist said:


> Surely they must have meaning? The key point is that you take the measurement under the same conditions. If you consisently take the measurement as the lowest point while sleeping, then you should get just as much info as when you take it at another reference point (e.g. in bed immediately upon waking up, or after sitting down for 15 minutes). The clincher is that that the key info you get (is RHR not elevated through overtraining or illness) will be available through all three reading methods(lowest HR during sleep, RHR upon waking, RHR after 15 mins sitting down).
> 
> For the purposes of finding out whether you're overtraining or not, all three will do, as long as you are consistent. Getting the nighttime/lowest HR during sleep reading seems to come with some hassle: you have to a HRM all night. So for general ease, stick with either RHR upon waking up in the morning or after sitting down for 15 minutes, I'd say.



If that's what you believe then use your whenever you're asleep are whatever HR after yoga or passing wind as far as I'm concerned. But whatever these numbers are they won't be your RHR and if you are using that reading or readings in calculating training zones or whatever they will be inaccurate but hey don't take my word for it.


----------



## WimbledonCyclist (17 Dec 2009)

Bill Gates said:


> The purpose of taking it in the first place is ... to determine a higher than normal reading from overtraining or illness of some sort and then to slacken off with the training.



Setting training zones by heart rate is not an exact science, although the use of formulae of varying complexity can lend an aura of such exactness.

Ignoring training zone calculations: if we go back to key info you want to glean from a resting heart rate as you articulated in your first post as quoted above, then I would even venture a guess that the lowest heart rate at night during sleep has an edge over the "measure after sitting down calmly for 15 minutes"-approach.

Why? Because it takes a reading at the point of deepest physical relaxation. It is not influenced to the same extent by the time of day or activities immediately prior to the reading. It is a that point that any variation is driven primarily by the body's state of recovery and health. The only other main variables that potentially kick in are such things as time to bed, volume of alcohol drunk, general nutritional state and, of course, how vigorous one's love life was immediately before falling asleep .

I've never taken a night-time HR reading, and probably never will because sleeping with a strap on (note the absence of a hyphen) seems uncomfortable, but I'm starting to get intrigued now ...

It also seems that there's some variation in advice here. Sitting down and taking a RHR is one way of going about things. But Runner's World editor and "running writer" Amby Burfoot for example recommends taking the RHR in the morning while still in bed, just after waking up. That's what I do, it comes with minimum hassle, and it tells me what I need to know, right at the start of the day. What more can one ask for?


----------



## yashicamat (17 Dec 2009)

This thread is a bit worrying - I'm reasonably fit and my resting heart rate usually is around 60-70bpm! Gets up to about 200ish at most when I'm really going for it. I'm 24 years old, but still, the resting heart rate is a bit perplexing.


----------



## Bill Gates (17 Dec 2009)

WimbledonCyclist said:


> if we go back to key info you want to glean from a resting heart rate as you articulated in your first post as quoted above, then I would even venture a guess *that the lowest heart rate at night during sleep* has an edge over the "measure after sitting down calmly for 15 minutes"-approach. Why? Because it takes a reading at the point of deepest physical relaxation. It is not influenced to the same extent by the time of day or activities immediately prior to the reading. It is a that point that any variation is driven primarily by the body's state of recovery and health



All maybe entirely true but it's *not* RHR.



WimbledonCyclist said:


> It also seems that there's some variation in advice here. Sitting down and taking a RHR is one way of going about things. *But Runner's World editor and "running writer" Amby Burfoot for example recommends taking the RHR in the morning while still in bed, just after waking up. That's what I do, it comes with minimum hassle, and it tells me what I need to know, right at the start of the day. *




That's what I said



Bill Gates said:


> The RHR reading should be taken when you are awake and have been inactive for about 15 minutes or so. I usually do mine when I'm watching the telly and got my feet up. *It's OK to take it in bed before you get up but not when you're asleep.*
> 
> The purpose of taking it in the first place is not to get the lowest reading you can, although a lower HR compared to your previous readings will indicate an improvement in aerobic fitness; but to determine a higher than normal reading from overtraining or illness of some sort and then to slacken off with the training.
> 
> So at the end of the day it doesn't really matter what it is so much as is it higher than normal. A low HR as such is not an indicator of ability.





WimbledonCyclist said:


> *What more can one ask for?*



Exactly.

It is what it is - RHR is taken in the morning in bed or after resting up.

Finally!


----------



## Garz (17 Dec 2009)

yashicamat said:


> This thread is a bit worrying - I'm reasonably fit and my resting heart rate usually is around 60-70bpm! Gets up to about 200ish at most when I'm really going for it. I'm 24 years old, but still, the resting heart rate is a bit perplexing.



Like I said yashi, when I tested out a cheapish watch I revived from yesteryear via a new battery I was perplexed that my seemingly normal RHR of about 62 watching telly (in this case football) is way higher than some on here.

If I can remember to, I shall try it before bed or in morning and see if its anywhere as low as some of these figures.


----------



## zacklaws (18 Dec 2009)

I'm totally confused with my heart rates since I bought a new bike. On my road bike with a double chainset, I can easily get my heart rate into the 190's when pushing up steep hills, now on my new road bike with a triple chainset, I rarely get over 180, and just seem to sit around 171-178 when pushing as hard as I can, with about 165 the normal. Maybe I've just become a slack B!!!!* on my triple yet I have chopped all my times for hill climbing by just under 50% so maybe there could be more in me. Perhaps its time I got out and tested it again.

And incredibly I finally got my first experience of Lactate about a month ago, yet I only had a heartbeat of 171 but for over a year I had been pushing that big double far harder and for just as long a period but never experienced it.

As for my resting heart rate it always hovers around 55bpm first thing in a morning.


----------



## Bill Gates (18 Dec 2009)

Mine was 40 bpm this morning at 6.00am, taken in bed, before getting up, and wide awake.


----------

