PDA

View Full Version : Interesting Heart Health Question...



Pedaling Fool
05-20-2016, 07:30
What is the ideal Resting Heart Rate (RHR)?

Many sources cite the common, but wide spread number of 60-100 BPM, see here: http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/Conditions/More/MyHeartandStrokeNews/All-About-Heart-Rate-Pulse_UCM_438850_Article.jsp#.Vz40Y_krKM9


Your resting heart rate is the heart pumping the lowest amount of blood you need because you’re not exercising. If you’re sitting or lying and you’re calm, relaxed and aren’t ill, your heart rate is normally between 60 (beats per minute) and 100 (beats per minute).

However, I tend to agree with the below statement, notice here they (webmd) say the 60-100 BPM number is a myth http://www.webmd.com/heart-disease/features/5-heart-rate-myths-debunked


Myth: A normal heart rate is 60-100 beats per minute.

That's the old standard. Many doctors think it should be lower. About 50-70 beats per minute is ideal, says Suzanne Steinbaum, MD, director of women's heart health (http://www.webmd.com/heart/default.htm) at Lenox Hill Hospital.

Recent studies suggest a heart rate higher than 76 beats per minute when you're resting may be linked to a higher risk of heart attack (http://www.webmd.com/heart-disease/guide/heart-disease-heart-attacks).

The better shape you're in, the slower your heart rate will be when you're not moving around. "It might be OK to have a resting heart rate of 80, but it doesn't mean you're healthy," Steinbaum says.

Webmd says the 60-100 BPM number is a myth, but most of the other sources I've looked at are still citing this number of 60-100, so what gives?

However, this statement is somewhat of a contradiction: "That's the old standard. Many doctors think it should be lower."; talk about a confused statement...the old standard, but docs think it should be lower...:confused:

Personally, I agree with the Webmd site, even though their statement is kind of funky:D I think the current RHR standard (60-100) is flawed, simply because I think we used a bunch of couch potatoes to determine that standard.

nsherry61
05-20-2016, 08:16
Well, since you're asking the experts . . .:rolleyes:

When pretending I'm an athlete in training my resting pulse (that taken when I wake up in the morning before I move or sit up) is often in the 30's and rarely above the low 40's.
Being the fat lazy slob that I have been these last few weeks with a bum knee and not really training, but just hiking and bike riding fairly regularly in the weeks previously, right now it is probably in the 50's. If my waking pulse is above 60, ever, there is something really wrong.

Now, if I take my "resting pulse" as lounging on the couch in the afternoon, my lounging pulse will be in the 40's-50's when I'm fit, and right now is probably in the 50's to low 70's. I'd be worried if I was in the 70's frequently or ever in the high 70's.

I'm also 6'4" tall and 220 lbs. Being in good shape I'd be 185-195 lbs. I think bigger (not fatter) is often a slower pulse, all other things being similar.

CalebJ
05-20-2016, 08:48
I don't think there's ever been a time in my life (outside infancy) where my resting heart rate was above 60, and I've been pretty severely out of shape at times.

RockDoc
05-20-2016, 11:28
Today, "normal" means overweight or obese non-exercisers with borderline metabolic syndrome.

Healthy people have lower heart rates, like 35-50 bpm. Endurance athletes have the lowest.

OCDave
05-20-2016, 11:36
Semantics: Normal vs ideal. That they don't align should not be a surprise.

tiptoe
05-20-2016, 11:38
For what it's worth, resting heart rate (when I check, which isn't often) tends to be 58-60). When I was younger, it was in the low 50s, if memory serves. Heredity and fitness probably have more to do with this than size, I'd guess. My dad, who among other things was a college basketball player, had a resting heart rate in the 40s for most of his life.

Shutterbug
05-20-2016, 11:54
Lower is good, until it gets "too low." My pulse rate drops into the 20's when I sleep. When I wake up, it increases into the 30's. So far, I have no undesirable side effects, but if it drops lower, I will get a pacemaker.

Pedaling Fool
05-21-2016, 08:20
Semantics: Normal vs ideal. That they don't align should not be a surprise.


For what it's worth, resting heart rate (when I check, which isn't often) tends to be 58-60). When I was younger, it was in the low 50s, if memory serves. Heredity and fitness probably have more to do with this than size, I'd guess. My dad, who among other things was a college basketball player, had a resting heart rate in the 40s for most of his life.

I agree, there can be some semantics thrown in here, but I try and not get too wound up in all that; I think most know that the focus should be on heart health, regardless of which adjective used, i.e. optimal, normal, ideal...

I also agree that heredity plays a major factor in this, so in a sense any normal RHR should be taken with a grain of salt. My only point was that if one believes that just because their RHR is, say, 80bpm and they consider themselves heart healthy, because that's well within the current “standards”, well they are potentially very mistaken. I'm also NOT saying that RHR is the end-all-be-all in heart health, but it is one important thing to know.

More on the heredity issue. This article shows just how much one has to NOT go just off standards alone; it's one of the best, eye-opening articles I've read on heart health and it also shows how haphazardly some of these “standards” come about.

What's funny is when people tout these standards as "science":D


http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/24/health/maximum-heart-rate-theory-is-challenged.html?pagewanted=all

Key Excerpts (Very Good Article):


Just getting the heart to its actual maximum rate is an immense effort and holding it there for even a minute is so painful that it is all but inconceivable for anyone who is not supremely motivated, Dr. Kirkendall said. But this rower confounded the predictions.''His pulse rate hit 200 at 90 seconds into the test,'' Dr. Kirkendall said. ''And he held it there for the rest of the test.'' A local cardiologist was looking on in astonishment and told Dr. Kirkendall, ''You know, there's not a textbook in the world that says a person could have done that.''

But maybe, some physiologists and cardiologists are saying, the textbooks are wrong.



''The more information we have, the more we realize that that formula is just a very rough consideration,'' said Dr. Jack H. Wilmore, an exercise physiologist at Texas A&M.And while Dr. Seals is now proposing a new formula to use as a general guide, he and others say it is simplistic to rely on a single formula to predict the maximum heart rates of individuals.

The common formula was devised in 1970 by Dr. William Haskell, then a young physician in the federal Public Health Service and his mentor, Dr. Samuel Fox, who led the service's program on heart disease. They were trying to determine how strenuously heart disease patients could exercise.

In preparation for a medical meeting , Dr. Haskell culled data from about 10 published studies in which people of different ages had been tested to find their maximum heart rates.

The subjects were never meant to be a representative sample of the population, said Dr. Haskell, who is now a professor of medicine at Stanford. Most were under 55 and some were smokers or had heart disease.

On an airplane traveling to the meeting, Dr. Haskell pulled out his data and showed them to Dr. Fox. ''We drew a line through the points and I said, 'Gee, if you extrapolate that out it looks like at age 20, the heart rate maximum is 200 and at age 40 it's 180 and at age 60 it's 160,'' Dr. Haskell said.

At that point, Dr. Fox suggested a formula: maximum heart rate equals 220 minus age.

But, exercise physiologists said, these data, like virtually all exercise data, had limitations. They relied on volunteers who most likely were not representative of the general population. ''It's whoever came in the door,'' Dr. Kirkendall said.

In addition, he and others said, gauging maximum heart rates for people who are not used to exercising is often difficult because many prematurely stop the test.

As the treadmill hills get steeper, people who are not used to exercise will notice that their calves are aching. ''They will say they can't go any further,'' Dr. Kirkendall said.

In addition, Dr. Wilmore, the exercise physiologist, said it was clear from the scattered data points that maximum heart rates could vary widely from the formula. ''If it says 150, it could be 180 and it could be 120,'' Dr. Wilmore said.

But the formula quickly entered the medical literature. Even though it was almost always presented as an average maximum rate, the absolute numbers took on an air of received wisdom in part, medical scientists said, because the time was right.

Doctors urging heart patients to exercise wanted a way to gauge exercise intensity. At the same time, exercise gurus, promoting aerobic exercise to the public, were asking how hard people should push themselves to improve their cardiovascular fitness. Suddenly, there was a desire for a simple formula to estimate maximum heart rates.

''You tell people to exercise at a moderate intensity,'' Dr. Haskell said. ''Well, what's a moderate intensity?''

Soon, there was a worldwide heart-rate monitor industry, led by Polar Electro Inc, of Oulu, Finland, selling more than 750,000 monitors a year in the United States and citing the ''220 minus your age'' formula as a guide for training.

The formula became increasingly entrenched, used to make graphs that are posted on the walls of health clubs and in cardiology treadmill rooms, prescribed in information for heart patients and inscribed in textbooks. But some experts never believed it.



Some people get blood to their muscles by pushing out large amounts every time their hearts contract, he said. Others accomplish the same thing by contracting their hearts at fast rates. As a result, Dr. Hagerman said, he has seen Olympic rowers in their 20's with maximum heart rates of 220. And he has seen others on the same team and with the same ability, but who get blood to their tissues by pumping hard, with maximum rates of just 160.

Traveler
05-21-2016, 08:37
Much like BP itself, the variable in the numbers depends on the individual an what their doctor feels is best for them. My MD says a resting rate for me of about 63 is good. That works for me, though it can range as low as 57 and as high as 68.

Spirit Walker
05-21-2016, 13:17
There's also a difference between men and women, with women generally having a higher heart rate.

Re: the article: I had a stress test many years ago on a TM. Like the rower mentioned in the study, my HR shot up immediately to near maximum and I was asked if I wanted to stop. I said, no, and continued for another 10 minutes or so. I was quite happy despite the high HR. I've tried to do HR training while running and it still tends to rise quickly at minimum exertion then stay pretty level even while I exert more.

Pedaling Fool
05-21-2016, 14:37
There's also a difference between men and women, with women generally having a higher heart rate.

Re: the article: I had a stress test many years ago on a TM. Like the rower mentioned in the study, my HR shot up immediately to near maximum and I was asked if I wanted to stop. I said, no, and continued for another 10 minutes or so. I was quite happy despite the high HR. I've tried to do HR training while running and it still tends to rise quickly at minimum exertion then stay pretty level even while I exert more.Curious...

How high can you get your HR? In other words, when you go all out, such as say in a running sprint, how much higher does your HR get -- you know, the point where you exertion is really hurting, but hurting good :D?

But I don't know maybe you've never checked it, it is something that is not easy to check and most people stop before getting to that point because something usually starts hurting, like the article above said:


But, exercise physiologists said, these data, like virtually all exercise data, had limitations. They relied on volunteers who most likely were not representative of the general population. ''It's whoever came in the door,'' Dr. Kirkendall said.

In addition, he and others said, gauging maximum heart rates for people who are not used to exercising is often difficult because many prematurely stop the test.

As the treadmill hills get steeper, people who are not used to exercise will notice that their calves are aching. ''They will say they can't go any further,'' Dr. Kirkendall said.



When I first attempted it, I had to practice a few times before I got to my real Max HR-- It isn't something you want to do until you developed a little bit of conditioning.

And just like RHR, if one isn't in good shape whatever your Max HR is, it will change as you increase you conditioning, by doing more anaerobic (not aerobic) workouts, simple aerobic exercises won't work.




.

OCDave
05-21-2016, 21:40
I agree, there can be some semantics thrown in here, but I try and not get too wound up in all that; I think most know that the focus should be on heart health, regardless of which adjective used, i.e. optimal, normal, ideal...

Pedaling Fool,

With all due respect, words have meaning and by trying to "not get too wound up in all that" you are allowing yourself to baffled by a poorly written article. NORMAL= the range of including Average of the entire population plus and minus 2 standard deviations. Meaning most of the population will have a resting heart rate between 60 and 100 bpm. IDEAL means something completely different. An IDEAL resting heart rate is the range associated with and IDEAL outcome, typically a measure of morbidity and mortality. While MDs might feel the IDEAL resting heart rate should be lower say 50-70, there will still be Half the population with a resting heart rate on the upper side of NORMAL. Kara Mayer Robinson chose her words for effect rather than to convey accuracy. No source, no evidence, no credibility.

So, while it is known that cardiovascular training increases fitness and will produce a lower resting heart rate that still leaves the question unanswered. Just as there are medications available that have demonstrated a morbidity and mortality benefit by lowering LDL cholesterol, there are medications available to block adrenergic Beta receptors on cardiac muscles producing a decreased resting heart rate. While Beta-blockers have a proven benefit in individuals with cardiovascular disease, will individuals without Cardiovascular disease experience a comparable benefit to a medicinally lowered resting heart rate to those with a resting heart rate lowered as a result of physical training. Is it the Resting Heart rate or the training?

Be very critical of Health News Headlines. You get just the one body so be very exacting with how you treat it.

Pedaling Fool
05-22-2016, 06:41
Pedaling Fool,

With all due respect, words have meaning and by trying to "not get too wound up in all that" you are allowing yourself to baffled by a poorly written article. NORMAL= the range of including Average of the entire population plus and minus 2 standard deviations. Meaning most of the population will have a resting heart rate between 60 and 100 bpm. IDEAL means something completely different. An IDEAL resting heart rate is the range associated with and IDEAL outcome, typically a measure of morbidity and mortality. While MDs might feel the IDEAL resting heart rate should be lower say 50-70, there will still be Half the population with a resting heart rate on the upper side of NORMAL. Kara Mayer Robinson chose her words for effect rather than to convey accuracy. No source, no evidence, no credibility.

So, while it is known that cardiovascular training increases fitness and will produce a lower resting heart rate that still leaves the question unanswered. Just as there are medications available that have demonstrated a morbidity and mortality benefit by lowering LDL cholesterol, there are medications available to block adrenergic Beta receptors on cardiac muscles producing a decreased resting heart rate. While Beta-blockers have a proven benefit in individuals with cardiovascular disease, will individuals without Cardiovascular disease experience a comparable benefit to a medicinally lowered resting heart rate to those with a resting heart rate lowered as a result of physical training. Is it the Resting Heart rate or the training?

Be very critical of Health News Headlines. You get just the one body so be very exacting with how you treat it.
Yes, words do matter, especially in reading various articles and such...

However, I wasn't sure what you were referring to and thought you may have been referring to something I wrote, but after looking back, this is what I believe you were referring to: http://www.webmd.com/heart-disease/features/5-heart-rate-myths-debunked


(Bold and underline is mine)

Myth: A normal heart rate is 60-100 beats per minute.

That's the old standard. Many doctors think it should be lower. About 50-70 beats per minute is ideal, says Suzanne Steinbaum, MD, director of women's heart health (http://www.webmd.com/heart/default.htm) at Lenox Hill Hospital.

Recent studies suggest a heart rate higher than 76 beats per minute when you're resting may be linked to a higher risk of heart attack (http://www.webmd.com/heart-disease/guide/heart-disease-heart-attacks).

The better shape you're in, the slower your heart rate will be when you're not moving around. "It might be OK to have a resting heart rate of 80, but it doesn't mean you're healthy," Steinbaum says.


I think what they are saying is that the standard of normal HR of 60-100 should be lowered to 50-70, which would be the ideal new normal; it's not meant to mean ideal, as in perfect on its own.

They are going off recent studies that suggest RHR of higher than 76 may be linked to higher risks heart attacks.








.

Jake2c
05-22-2016, 10:50
I have to smile at these things. Genetics will determine what is best for you at any particular "in shape" level. Heart rate is like weight, thinner is not always better or even a solid predictor of health but we still have "ideal" weight/height targets.

Carbo
05-22-2016, 11:34
Resting heart rate is generally higher if in a recovery phase. For instance, following a six day hike of about 15 mi per day, my resting rate will be in the low 60s and after a couple days will drop back to the low 50s, which is the norm for me. I use it as a general indicator of whether I have fully recovered from an intense workout.