Curiosity - resting heart rate

YellowD0gs

Male, 56
RHR 57 (Not an elite athlete, just a heart attack survivor.)
BMI 26.4 and steadily dropping.

vkrenz

Female, 55
BMI 36
12/26/19, when I got my fitbit- RHR was 65 average
lost 34 pounds since then
RHR 61 average now
I walk everyday at a very brisk to very, very brisk pace and always get at least 15,000 steps to 20,000
I do body weight exercises every evening

I feel ALOT fitter and stronger since the beginning of the year.

I am wondering what is better? I know for cardio heart health a low resting rate is better. What other opinions do folks have? My goal is losing more weight. I have 46 pounds to go at least

lgfrie

AnnPT77 wrote: »

Lillymoo01 wrote: »

I must admit that I am surprised by many people here having RHR's that have them at elite athlete kind of level (under 60).

Me:
48 yo female
BMI 19
RHR according to Fitbit 64-67

I agree with what @sijomial said about selection bias in this thread, i.e., that those with "better" RHR may be more likely to report in.

I also think the idea that only elites have RHR under 60 is a little overblown.

Most community stats (i.e. general population research) seem likely to include only a small number of dedicated recreational athletes who do reasonably-large volume cardiovascular workouts regularly, let alone formal training (that targets things like improved CV response quite specifically).

Even at the doctor's office (where I've usually dashed in after running late, and they check my HR immediately 🙄), they often read me at 60, and it passes completely without comment or discussion. When I set off the bradycardia alarms at the outpatient surgery center (HR < 50), the staff were unperturbed (except by the need to keep responding to the beeping monitor when it happened again), so I suspect it happens with moderate frequency among people who don't have "problem" bradycardia.

HR range is also IMU quite genetics influenced (though consistent activity can lower RHR, of course). Those genetically on the low end, who work out or even train, might well hit 40s/50s at quite sub-elite levels. (<= speculation, not facts).

Personally, I reported earlier at high 40s/low 50s. I'm being less active in this isolation period, and am running RHR mid 50s, sometimes even high 50s some days. (I'm still around BMI 22 now, 131.4 at 5'5" so BMI 29.1 this morning, and age 64.)

Like @PAV8888, my RHR trends up in periods of over-maintenance eating, and in my case a bit higher after meaningful alcohol consumption, like a couple of glasses of wine the night before; then it comes back down into whatever my then-baseline rates are once my routine returns to normal.

Self-selection bias may be one of the keys, but I think the other is exercise. My RHR on day 1 of my diet was 84 but that was the absolute minimum and it wasn't unusual for my HR to be over 100 or even 120 with any involvement of stress, alcohol, caffeine, or light, normal physical activity, like carrying groceries or going up a few stairs. It's a main reason I got started in the first place - couldn't stand being so out of shape and felt exhausted from the simplest physical tasks.

My RHR plummeted from 84 to around 70 within a few weeks of starting cardio, even when I was still well over 300 lbs. So it wasn't particularly weight related; I'd lost maybe 5 or 6 lbs when my RHR initially plummeted. More interestingly, perhaps, in January this year due to travel and then illness I had 2-3 weeks when I couldn't work out & my RHR, now in the mid 50's climbed back up to mid 60's. Within days of starting cardio again, it settled back down in the mid 50's. So apparently, at least with my body, RHR is highly contingent on regular exercise and adapts quickly to whether I'm doing it or not - 1 or 2 weeks.

So, I'm as sure as everyone else that losing weight brings RHR gains, but I think consistent cardio is where the huge upside is for RHR improvement, at least in my case.

It has been interesting to see all the people here whose RHR is below 60, in fact well below 60. When I first took my pulse at night and saw numbers like 52, 54, etc., it scared the s***t out of me - bradycardia, as any website would tell you. But of course, as anyone can see in this thread, losing weight and regularly exercising make 60 a meaningless metric. I don't know where some cutoff would be where it's time to check in with the doctor, but if you're dieting and working out, probably 40 ish I imagine.

AnnPT77

lgfrie wrote: »

Self-selection bias may be one of the keys, but I think the other is exercise.

(snip)

So, I'm as sure as everyone else that losing weight brings RHR gains, but I think consistent cardio is where the huge upside is for RHR improvement, at least in my case.

(snip)

Oh, absolutely. I didn't think that was even a question.

Training (exercise) works. Lowering heart rate is an accepted, standard example of a training effect, both lower RHR, and lower rate for any given exercise intensity.

My RHR was already low when I was obese, because I was very active. I didn't start paying attention at the beginning of becoming routinely active (in my mid-40s), but I was still improving fitness when I did start paying attention (using first-thing-in-AM readings from an old Polar HRM, at first), and definitely saw a gradual drop as fitness increased, without any weight loss happening at all. It was a meaningful indicator for me, at times when I was actually training (not just being active, but doing a periodized training program). I stayed obese for a decade while very active, and often saw AM RHR in mid-40s to low-50s at a class 1 obese BMI.

My RHR didn't drop more, at least not appreciably more, from weight loss.

My point was that you can see improvements (from weight loss, exercise or both), down below 60 even, without being elite - that <60 being an indicator of elite fitness is kind of unrealistic. Those numbers are achievable at much less than elite fitness levels. At the same time, if someone's HR range genetically happens to run high, they might be quite fit, but with RHR over 60. Changes in RHR with fitness increase are probably more meaningful, in that way, than absolute RHR.

Lillymoo01

AnnPT77 wrote: »

lgfrie wrote: »

Self-selection bias may be one of the keys, but I think the other is exercise.

(snip)

So, I'm as sure as everyone else that losing weight brings RHR gains, but I think consistent cardio is where the huge upside is for RHR improvement, at least in my case.

(snip)

Oh, absolutely. I didn't think that was even a question.

Training (exercise) works. Lowering heart rate is an accepted, standard example of a training effect, both lower RHR, and lower rate for any given exercise intensity.

My RHR was already low when I was obese, because I was very active. I didn't start paying attention at the beginning of becoming routinely active (in my mid-40s), but I was still improving fitness when I did start paying attention (using first-thing-in-AM readings from an old Polar HRM, at first), and definitely saw a gradual drop as fitness increased, without any weight loss happening at all. It was a meaningful indicator for me, at times when I was actually training (not just being active, but doing a periodized training program). I stayed obese for a decade while very active, and often saw AM RHR in mid-40s to low-50s at a class 1 obese BMI.

My RHR didn't drop more, at least not appreciably more, from weight loss.

My point was that you can see improvements (from weight loss, exercise or both), down below 60 even, without being elite - that <60 being an indicator of elite fitness is kind of unrealistic. Those numbers are achievable at much less than elite fitness levels. At the same time, if someone's HR range genetically happens to run high, they might be quite fit, but with RHR over 60. Changes in RHR with fitness increase are probably more meaningful, in that way, than absolute RHR.

Is there where I should add that I am a high cardio person, like average over 20,000 steps a day level of exercise and still my RHR according to my Fitbit is higher than 60? Shrugs. I know I am fit and healthy and that is more important anyway.

whoami67

Mine is in the mid 80's per my fitbit. From actually taking my pulse without the fitbit, I think it is closer to the high 70's to 80bpm.

Back when my thyroid disease was untreated, it was in the 40s.

swirlybee

It's funny because I always thought that my RHR was normally high. Before the advent of activity trackers, I never really paid attention to my RHR. It was something that I would maybe check randomly and just rely on whatever it was during my annual physicals or regular doctor visits.

So, I had my quarterly doctor visit yesterday. Pulse was 72 which has always been in that range whenever I see the doctor. Incidentally, my blood pressure was unusually low.

lilac12321

BMI 21ish
RHR 50
I’m an athletic 26 year old girl.

thecleanerleon

M/33/188cm/90kg/BMI 25.4

Average resting HR 54, drops to 40's at times, recorded with a polar chest hrm.

Currently also trying to establish my heart rate variability (HRV) with EliteHRV and the polar hrm, need to build a baseline, and then it can help inform when to rest. Early tests have me at around 60 HRV score.

My goal is to be back down to around 80kg where I should see all vitals improve

NovusDies

Lillymoo01 wrote: »

AnnPT77 wrote: »

lgfrie wrote: »

Self-selection bias may be one of the keys, but I think the other is exercise.

(snip)

So, I'm as sure as everyone else that losing weight brings RHR gains, but I think consistent cardio is where the huge upside is for RHR improvement, at least in my case.

(snip)

Oh, absolutely. I didn't think that was even a question.

Training (exercise) works. Lowering heart rate is an accepted, standard example of a training effect, both lower RHR, and lower rate for any given exercise intensity.

My RHR was already low when I was obese, because I was very active. I didn't start paying attention at the beginning of becoming routinely active (in my mid-40s), but I was still improving fitness when I did start paying attention (using first-thing-in-AM readings from an old Polar HRM, at first), and definitely saw a gradual drop as fitness increased, without any weight loss happening at all. It was a meaningful indicator for me, at times when I was actually training (not just being active, but doing a periodized training program). I stayed obese for a decade while very active, and often saw AM RHR in mid-40s to low-50s at a class 1 obese BMI.

My RHR didn't drop more, at least not appreciably more, from weight loss.

My point was that you can see improvements (from weight loss, exercise or both), down below 60 even, without being elite - that <60 being an indicator of elite fitness is kind of unrealistic. Those numbers are achievable at much less than elite fitness levels. At the same time, if someone's HR range genetically happens to run high, they might be quite fit, but with RHR over 60. Changes in RHR with fitness increase are probably more meaningful, in that way, than absolute RHR.

Is there where I should add that I am a high cardio person, like average over 20,000 steps a day level of exercise and still my RHR according to my Fitbit is higher than 60? Shrugs. I know I am fit and healthy and that is more important anyway.

I do not know that much about this stuff. I assume that mine being 47 is only a good sign because it was 55 before significant weight loss and activity improvement. I would think the same thing if it was 75 and now 67.