Can Rhr Be Taken From Sleep

[old] hmayes · Post by **[old] hmayes** » December 30th, 2004, 11:49 pm

I have been reading about using the Resting Heart Rate to determine the level to exercise for warm-up. The training manual indicates that warm-up should be twice RHR. When I tried to check my RHR first thing in the morning I registered about 70 bpm. That seemed high so I decided to use the heart rate monitor to check my rate during sleep. It appeared to average around 55 bpm. Is it legitimate to use my rate from sleep or should I use the number I get when I am awake and laying down? For reference, I am 54 and routinely exercise.

[old] GeorgeD · Post by **[old] GeorgeD** » December 31st, 2004, 1:11 am

I have my monitor next to me in the morning (if I want to check) - so when I wake I can take a trip to relieve some pressure and get a drink then slip the monitor on and get back into bed. After a few minutes i fire it up and take an average over about 5 - 10 minutes and this is what I use regd George

[old] hmayes · Post by **[old] hmayes** » January 1st, 2005, 6:23 pm

Thanks George for your response. Please let me pose a slightly different question. If your heart rate is 60 when you first wake up in the morning and are lying in bed and if that is higher than your base heart rate of 54 while you are sleeping, which heart rate should you use for your RHR? I use a Polar S810i heart rate monitor that lets me download my pulse to the computer so I can see the base line for my heart rate while I was sleeping. The reference that you use for RHR has an impact on all the numbers that you utilize for training with heart rate levels. Howard

[old] GeorgeD · Post by **[old] GeorgeD** » January 1st, 2005, 6:42 pm

Personally I would use the one when I wake up in the morning and I like the fact that I have been up then relaxed again before taking it - personal preference but for me this works on a logical level to (in otherwords I am happy with it) I would think if I lay down in the middle of the day or evening my HR would get close to this figure again. I also think that we can get to hung up on 'exact' numbers (I do), and that percieved exertion and pace have to be factored into our work effort. regds George

[old] starboardrigged1seat · Post by **[old] starboardrigged1seat** » January 1st, 2005, 6:51 pm

After a really good session on my yoga mat, I'll wrap it up with a 5 minute "Corpse" pose -- laying flat on your back, with your arms and legs slightly spread for comfort, as you closely monitor your breathing and systematically tense and release each joint in your body. I've found that I've been able to get much, much lower readings while still in this pose (low 40's -- 42 was the lowest I've gotten it), but my heart rate upon rising in the mornings has never been below 49. I think this is a combination of the relaxation effect (as described by Harvard physiologist Herbert Benson) after meditating, and a really annoying alarm clock ring. It would be interesting to see my base heart rate during the night.

[old] drkcgoh · Post by **[old] drkcgoh** » January 4th, 2005, 4:25 am

Polar recommends using the waking HR before you even get up to go to the bathroom as the Resting Heart Rate. The Heart Rate can be artificially slowed down by stimulating the parasympatheic nervous system. The Valsalva maneuver is one, where you breathe in against a closed epiglottis, and pressing down on the eyeballs is another. Yogis have also developed this ability to slow down the pulse rate at will. Taking the HR while sleeping might get by this artificial slowing down of the HR. But the practical difficulty is that sometimes the belt contact gets loose, especially in the old T31 stiff belt or the old coded belt that the S810 comes with. I have managed to get a good 15 min tracing while lying down, but most tracings for the whole night get broken off by no readings for whole stretches. The coded belt I used came with the Accurex Plus model, and it gave a consistent 41 for the resting Heart Rate. The new Wearlink textile molded belt seems to give a better continuous tracing throught the night. That comes with the S625x, and the M61, 62 & M31, 32 Polar watches. It can also be bought by itself. Its best not to get too hung up on numbers, and use these HRs as a guide in your training & racing. KC63

[old] funnyfidel · Post by **[old] funnyfidel** » January 4th, 2005, 9:40 am

Circadian heart rate has been used to determine mental health ie heart rates from patients suffering from symptoms as mild as anxiety to severe depression show significant variability in their nocturnal heart rate rythms compared to those observed from control patients.

[old] Lippy · Post by **[old] Lippy** » January 4th, 2005, 1:00 pm

I had reason to have a 24 hour "halter" monitor fitted which has four electrodes placed in order to ensure good contact. My sleeping heart rate sometimes went as low as 38bpm whereas my resting heart rate when awake rarely falls below 45. Don't know if that helps you with your decision but, sleeping, apart from periods of stimulation through dreams, is the longest you'll rest in any given day, so I'd have thought that'd be your "main" resting heart rate.

[old] drkcgoh · Post by **[old] drkcgoh** » January 4th, 2005, 8:33 pm

The Heart Rate Monitor should be seen from its perspective as a piece of Sports, and not Medical equipment. It has no comparison to a Holter monitor, and does not have any place in the Physician's bag. But it does carry some respectability in the Exercise lab, where it is used to monitor heart rates during exercise, such as in VO2max testing. After using it for almost 10 years in training for running ultramarathons, monitoring cardiac rehab patients and conducting research on VO2max testing in the lab, I have found its uses and limitations, and seldom row with it nowadays. There is a tremendous amount of research archived in the Polar reference sites on work done using the Heart Rate Monitor, but some of it, especially the heart rate variablilty and VO2 max testing at rest has not found acceptance in the scientific community as yet. Using the heart Rate as an aid to training is good initially. But to rigidly follow calculated training bands is to limit your training and your own capability. There are too many inaccuracies in the equipment, such as the belt contact, or the stability of the microchip analyzing the heart rate, or the state of the batteries in the belt or the watch, or even the software used for downloading that is undergoing continuous development. The basis of the calculated training bands is the Predicted Maximum Heart Rate from the commonly used formula, 220-Age. At the last ACSM AGM in San Franciso in 2003, Dr. William Haskell gave one of the main lectures where he revealed that he was the person who came out with that formula. He stated that there had been no research to develop that formula, and it was just a rough ball park figure with a variability of 15 beats either way. He also stated that he was concerned that people everywhere were calculating their max HRs as if that formula were "engraved in stone", and cautioned against it. Coming back to the Resting HR, Polar has stated in its many manuals & booklets that this is to be taken" first thing in the morning on waking up, even before you walk to the bathroom". So we had better follow the manufacturer's instructions. KC63

[old] drkcgoh · Post by **[old] drkcgoh** » January 4th, 2005, 8:45 pm

Just to add the positive benefits of using the heart rate monitor. A friend had a routine stress test done, & was cleared. Then when he used the heart rate monitor, and detected abnormally high heart rates for minimal effort, he had an angiography done, & was found to have blockage of his coronary artieries. In this instance, he credits the heart rate monitor with saving his life. In another instance, a doctor wore a Holtor monitor for a whole day to investigate his abnormal heart rhythm, but was cleared. He was used to running 10K in under 40min at the age of 50. When we ran together, and both wore our heart rate monitors (coded belt for me), his heart rate went up abnormally high, but he disregarded it as some artifact, or faulty equipment. Later he went home to temperate climates, and was found unconscious while out jogging (without his heart rate monitor). He remained in coma for several years after being resuscitated from a heart attack. So the Heart Rate Monitor has its benefits, and sometimes it is the sheer laziness or familiarity with it that makes us take it for granted. KC63

[old] GeorgeD · Post by **[old] GeorgeD** » January 4th, 2005, 9:22 pm

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (drkcgoh @ Jan 5 2005, 01:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> Coming back to the Resting HR, Polar has stated in its many manuals & booklets that this is to be taken" first thing in the morning on waking up, even before you walk to the bathroom". So we had better follow the manufacturer's instructions. KC63  </td></tr></table> Tks for the perspective, it is interesting. I find the comment 'scientific community' interesting when we read so much from 'reputable' sources who quote the 'scientific community' in support of using a HR monitor, not to mention many top competitors who 'promote' the use as almost critical.... it makes it all fun. I think in all things common sense my prevail As to the comment about taking the rate before going to the bathroom, I have as I said read otherwise, and would concur on the basis that if you wake up and need to go - you definitiely need to go !! I know my heart rate would be elevated if I did not, and I also know that as long as I stay relaxed then when I go back to bed my HR will return to its resting rate in a few minutes after lying down calmly - and relieved - George

[old] drkcgoh · Post by **[old] drkcgoh** » January 5th, 2005, 11:32 am

[/QUOTE]I find the comment 'scientific community' interesting when we read so much from 'reputable' sources who quote the 'scientific community' in support of using a HR monitor, not to mention many top competitors who 'promote' the use as almost critical.... it makes it all fun. What qualifies you to question"scientific community"? Have you gone through the basic scientific training of an MD, or formal training in any of the Sciences to recognize who the reputable authorities are in each specialized field of Sports Medicine? Have you talked personally to these leaders in the field who hold responsible positions in their field of research, instead of just scanning the web? Have you communicated with the research teams & Director of research at Polar.fi itself? If you have then perhaps you could share your learned experience with us. I find it a waste of time to post threads & share useful experiences without having to explain at length the difference between "the scientific community" & common web based sources of knowledge. KC63

[old] GeorgeD · Post by **[old] GeorgeD** » January 5th, 2005, 3:57 pm

Not sure why your so 'touchy' on this, as I was in fact agreeing with you. I read as extensivly as I can from as diverse a range of sources as I can obtain, not just from the forums' but Journels, books, talking to people with more knowledge than me in both the sporting and non-sporting fields. I am no expert. My comment was that they most seem to quote 'the scientific community' as justification for thier position, and many of the positions are diverse enough to make you wonder and smile. Now if you are going to get techy because you want to take someones comment the wrong way and ..........QUOTE "I find it a waste of time to post threads & share useful experiences without having to explain at length the difference between "the scientific community" & common web based sources of knowledge. " .......... then I suggest you dont post, because I dont take anyones comments as gospel on face value, especially someone who I dont know. And if I have an opinion on a subject that may agree or disagree with yours I will post it, regardless of your reaction. I am sure you could find plenty of posts on here from people who have no idea that espouse views as being 'definitive, and scientifically based' but are clearly wrong based on common sense alone. So finally - I have no trouble apologising if my post upset you, it was not designed to and no offence was intended - however I do not apologise or see any need to retract my comments regd George

[old] neilb · Post by **[old] neilb** » January 5th, 2005, 4:42 pm

Hmayes, I would not worry about legitimacy or otherwise as the only person you could possibly be cheating is yourself. It is the correlation between the two that is important and the consistency of when readings are taken. So, if the manual says take it on first waking before doing anything else (with a special dispensation for George - this is probably nerves about what the Lions are going to do in NZ later this year) and use this to calculate the warm up rate then do so; to use a RHR that is measured simply by sitting down and relaxing for 5 minutes should give a higher reading and one that is perhaps too high as a base for the warm up session. I have never bothered to measure my HR on waking; normally because there is no resting state as I tend to leap out of bed either because of a slap in the face from one of my cats wanting to be let out or to follow George's path. (Sometimes a difficult choice arises). So, follow the manual but apply commonsense. Warm up at 140 bpm would seem a little high. The HR monitor does have an important role but I am sure that a number of the studies show that it can vary over given ranges and so is a good guide or indicator for a number of the reasons stated already rather than something to be adhered to to the exact number. (and the stress of that alone would probably distort the reading by 2/3 bpms - guess not scientific fact so no theard on HR deviation due to stress pleaseeee.)

[old] funnyfidel · Post by **[old] funnyfidel** » January 6th, 2005, 9:22 am

[QUOTE=drkcgoh,Jan 5 2005, 10:32 AM][/QUOTE]What qualifies you to question"scientific community"? Have you gone through the basic scientific training of an MD, or formal training in any of the Sciences to recognize who the reputable authorities are in each specialized field of Sports Medicine? Have you talked personally to these leaders in the field who hold responsible positions in their field of research, instead of just scanning the web? Have you communicated with the research teams & Director of research at Polar.fi itself? If you have then perhaps you could share your learned experience with us. I find it a waste of time to post threads & share useful experiences without having to explain at length the difference between "the scientific community" & common web based sources of knowledge. KC63[/QUOTE] Take a chill pill Doc.

Concept2 Forum

Can Rhr Be Taken From Sleep

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training