Good pulse rate?

damo

Hi - whats a good pulse rate for a 22 year old male - 6ft 154lb?

Im reasonably fit do alot of walking and run 2-3 times per week also some cycling and a small amount of weights.

I have a resting pulse rate of 80 per min - good or bad?

Clive

Seems a bit high for someone who describes themselves as "reasonably fit", but it's a perfectly "normal" rate.

rubadub

70 is usually the norm, mine is about 65. Best time to take it is in the morning just after waking up, probably best on a lazy sunday with no stress of having to get ready for work.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

robinph

I've just started running again in the last few months and am seeing that my HR in the mornings is down around 42. But I've always had a very low heart rate and as the 70 is only an average number so there are of course people for which they will naturally have a rate a bit higher or lower than that.

chubba1984

I wouldn't consider myself incredibly fit, train for gaelic football three times a week but my normal heart rate (i've measured it a few times in the last week at various times of the day) is usually between 48 and 54 bpm.

tunney

Resting heart rate means shag all in terms of gauging fitness. It really means nothing.

What resting heart rate *is* good for is gauging how your body is coping with training loads. If you know you're resting heart rate and you check it regularly - if its evalated then you are either sick or could do with a rest day.

Vo2max is a good indicator of cardovascular fitness - it really needs to be lab tested but you can get approximations using the Cooper test (http://www.brianmac.demon.co.uk/gentest.htm)

damo

Just tested it again and its 69 bpm....i actually know why it was at 80 last night lets just say it was something i ate

Also just to clarify when i say im 'reasonably fit' i dont mean i run marathons or triathalons but i could get up now and run 4 miles without too much hassle - most people i know couldnt, which probably makes me 'reasonably' fit!

robinph

tunney wrote:

Vo2max is a good indicator of cardovascular fitness - it really needs to be lab tested but you can get approximations using the Cooper test (http://www.brianmac.demon.co.uk/gentest.htm)

The Polar monitors have a guestimate test which they claim figures out your potential Vo2max just based on your resting heart rate. At least you just have to sit down and do nothing for the couple of minutes whilst it does the test and does not require any running round a track.

copacetic

tunney wrote:

Resting heart rate means shag all in terms of gauging fitness. It really means nothing.

What resting heart rate *is* good for is gauging how your body is coping with training loads. If you know you're resting heart rate and you check it regularly - if its evalated then you are either sick or could do with a rest day.

Vo2max is a good indicator of cardovascular fitness - it really needs to be lab tested but you can get approximations using the Cooper test (http://www.brianmac.demon.co.uk/gentest.htm)

have to disagree here, vo2max is a bettter indicator but a low resting heart rate is a decent enough one. As noted above practically all top aerobic athletes have very low resting heart rates..

tunney

What is fitness?

A few years back I was lab tested and came back with a vo2max figure substantially higher than my training partner at the time, my RHR was lower and my MHR was higher. My lactacte threshold was higher too. Yet he got alot further in the test because of a better running economy.

Who was fitter?

quozl

I feel running economy can be thought of as similar to skill level basically. It has nothing to do with fitness at all as it effects nothing outside of running. It affects running performance for sure but that's not fitness by any stretch of the imagination.

copacetic

tunney wrote:

What is fitness?

A few years back I was lab tested and came back with a vo2max figure substantially higher than my training partner at the time, my RHR was lower and my MHR was higher. My lactacte threshold was higher too. Yet he got alot further in the test because of a better running economy.

Who was fitter?

ah well i'd say you were prob fitter but he had much more potential? Maybe a better way of looking at it is as a training tool relative to current levels, I'm sure you'd at least agree that your RHR has come down as you got fitter?