Low resting heart rate

[Rowan McSheen]

I underwent minor surgery under general anaesthetic several years ago. As I was lying on the table in theatre, my hr showed as 48. That was with a surgeon firing up his drill, an anaesthetist pointing needles at me, and some nice young ladies dressed up in nurse's uniforms (my favourite!) Normal resting hr for me is low 40s. And I am by no means a finely tuned athlete. Max hr is about the 220 minus age level (yes I know, I know ...). They did comment but I said I did lots of running and there were no more questions. So I guess if you're fit and well and feel okay then all is good, although if the medics query it no harm in undergoing the tests. Disclaimer: I am not a doctor and cannot give medical advice, I'm just a random bloke on the Internet.

[Ollie Russell]

Wow...some low resting heart rates. Im over weight although i consider myself reasonably fit, typically mine hovers around 50 to 60. On occasion if im in bed and very relaxed ive seen it in the 40's. Im also a smoker and caffeine addict so possibly that keeps my resting HR a tad higher. I went a bit crazy on the stairmaster/stair treadmill thing in the gym about 6 months ago and got my HR up to 192...something told me i was at my limits and it felt i was on the verge of a heart attack. Ive read comments about the 220 minus age being "not great"...seems to match up for me.

[jackarabit]

Not great because not useful because does not accurately predict max heart rate for large segments of the genpop. There are better “one size fits all” formulae but best is max observed during stepped intensity test to failure or during final 20’ of 60’ time trial-level effort.

Subtract observed resting HR (RHR) to determine the important number: heart rate reserve (HRR). If you choose to train at intensities or zones tied to your MaxHR, %Max typically means %HRR + RHR.

[Ollie Russell]

Not great because not useful because does not accurately predict max heart rate for large segments of the genpop. There are better “one size fits all” formulae but best is max observed during stepped intensity test to failure or during final 20’ of 60’ time trial-level effort.

Subtract observed resting HR (RHR) to determine the important number: heart rate reserve (HRR). If you choose to train at intensities or zones tied to your MaxHR, %Max typically means %HRR + RHR.

Maths never was my strong subject! Im probably wrong but i dont think there is a need to get too hung up on numbers regarding HR. Possibly for fine tuned athletes. Maybe im missing something but the percieved exercison scale seem adequete for 95% of gym rats! Although i wear a HR monitor im more concerned about my resting HR and tracking the quality of my sleep...what it does while im training is not important...for me and my purposes at least. Plus i only wear a fitbit which doesnt seem the best/consistent while im working out...today i rowed 15k@r18 1:58...apparently my HR was 86 lol

[Dangerscouse]

Maybe im missing something but the percieved exercison scale seem adequete for 95% of gym rats! Although i wear a HR monitor im more concerned about my resting HR and tracking the quality of my sleep...what it does while im training is not important...for me and my purposes at least.

I'm not a fan of perceived rate of exertion as it's too dependent on your emotions on a given day, and how your interpretation of a session will vary due to different reasons. Some days you paper over the cracks with excuses and other days you blast your targets out of the water, so your RPE, even with an identical session will vary.

I broadly accept that rowing by 'feel' can be useful e.g. when you want a hard, middle or easy session but anything more specific is never really reliable, or directly comparable, in my experience.

I only ever use a HR strap for HR capped steady state sessions. I really don't want to see what it gets to when I'm really pushing hard as it's an artificial limit that plays tricks with my mind. Distraction is far more important to alleviate the pain and discomfort

[jackarabit]

@ Ollie Russell: 220-age works out to be accurate in your experience but paying attention to any heart rate data with the exception of resting is a waste of time? Respect for one’s own opinions and experience provides an anchor in a sea of challenging and conflicting info. Questions remain about your choice of holding ground.

[Ollie Russell]

@ Ollie Russell: 220-age works out to be accurate in your experience but paying attention to any heart rate data with the exception of resting is a waste of time? Respect for one’s own opinions and experience provides an anchor in a sea of challenging and conflicting info. Questions remain about your choice of holding ground.

Jack, i didnt say it was a waste of time, its just not a big concern of mine to know what HR zone im in. I know enough about my body to know my limits and when to push and not to push, what i can hold for a period of time and what i can only hold for a brief time. When i need a recovery session and when im capable of a big effort. I may be new to rowing but i am not new to training...infact i have a varied training background. My point regarding 220 minus age being your max HR is that in my case it seems to be accurate...that is all im saying, why should that mean i must take notice of my HR in ALL instances? Sorry but i dont see your logic? My HR monitor was a gift, i pretty much only wear it for the silent alarm in the morning so i dont wake the girlfriend, and i have found my resting HR a good gauge of my recovery, stress levels and if im unwell. Other than that its an over engineered watch! I quite agree with stu, although i accept PRE is open to interpretation of your own feelings/mind games...hadnt quite thought of it like that but makes absolute sense. For me its an instinctive thing. I know when i leave the gym that i want to feel a winner, if i think i could of given more then i feel like ive failed...every session i give my all, although that varies depending on the goal of the day. And offcourse i have an easy session every now and then when i need to...thats the only "zone" i care about. Offcourse i see the merit of actually having that data and logging it and training to certain percentages...its just a little OCD/anal for my liking. Afterall im training to loose weight and bag some respectable times in the process...im not attempting to row for britain at the olympics.

[jackarabit]

Contrarian in fifty shades of gray. Gotta luvit!

[Ollie Russell]

Contrarian in fifty shades of gray. Gotta luvit!

Okay chum

[sekitori]

I'm not a fan of perceived rate of exertion as it's too dependent on your emotions on a given day, and how your interpretation of a session will vary due to different reasons. Some days you paper over the cracks with excuses and other days you blast your targets out of the water, so your RPE, even with an identical session will vary.

I broadly accept that rowing by 'feel' can be useful e.g. when you want a hard, middle or easy session but anything more specific is never really reliable, or directly comparable, in my experience

This "emotions" effect can also play a part in using a monitor to indicate heart rate. For example, suppose someone is rowing with enough energy to have quite a productive workout. Then they look at the monitor and it indicates that their pulse rate isn't as high as it theoretically should be. If that happens to me, I will use more energy to bring it up to the "proper" level. But on that particular day, it causes my workout to become too difficult and I have to ease up. To some people, not seeing the expected numbers on a screen could be perceived as ending in a subpar workout when in actuality it may have been quite good. In other words, their emotions have played a part in interpreting the workout.

The reason I don't use a monitor is that I don't want numbers I see to dictate my level of exertion. For most people, they don't but in my particular case, they certainly do. If the numbers on the screen at today's workout aren't as good as yesterday's, I will make be sure they will be better tomorrow--and even better the following day. In other words, I can end up "racing" with myself and that to me is a very good way to destroy a workout.

I use RPE because I can sense how hard or easy I'm working and I can increase or decrease that level by how I feel. I need nothing more specific than that. The strange thing is that at the end a workout, when I take my pulse, my estimated heart rate will very close to the number I expect to see on a monitor. The same situation holds true for measuring it at the 30 second, one minute, and two minute marks.

I realize I'm in a minority when this subject is mentioned but to quote a phrase that can be related to rowing, "Different strokes for different folks".

[jamesg]

The C2 ergometer (sic) shows rating and Watts.

Rating suffices, but seeing power in place of puddles can offer more accurate control.

[jackarabit]

The C2 ergometer (sic) shows rating and Watts.

Rating suffices, but seeing power in place of puddles can offer more accurate control.

I accept your usual argument (only hinted at above) that power zone training is superior to HR zone training for reliably accurate determination of effort intensity. I do not accept that “rate alone” suffices as an indicator of power generated or physiological stress created.

Rate (frequency of effort) x power (average amplitude of effort) does offer such an index of power applied in a standard packet of time (watt-minutes/stroke). And sweat is a pretty decent indicator except in low humidity.

Why the parenthetical [sic]? Is the c2 erg not a proper ergometer? The erg is commonly defined as a device which “measures” work. W=f*d. Seems to me the C2 measures force appled and distance over which force is applied and solves for W. What am I missing that nullifies the appellation ‘ergometer’ as applied to the c2 rower?

I am also in a brown study regarding the expression “Rate of Perceived Exercison” appearing twice in this thread. Apparently not a typo. Thread is chock full of head scratchers?

[jamesg]

Those who row are interested in boatspeed. Ergometers measure work and power delivered, as close as they can get to boatspeed.
The problem remaining Is efficiency; maybe HR/W can help you if you don't mind the complication.

[jackarabit]

The average indoor rower is not at all interested in boat speed and merely accepts, if she is even aware of the mathematical ramifications of the simulator conceit, that if we cloned her times 3 and placed all four of her in an extremely sharp, multi-oared racing shell, “they” would propel the boat at a pace calculated by the PM. We should all have our own float, boat and 2000-2500m long level in our rec room!

[johnlvs2run]

My 60 second resting heart rates: 35 - age 19 running track / 42 - age 30 running marathons;
oximeter reading: 39 last night going to sleep / max heart rate 208 during a time trial two weeks ago.