What's your resting heart rate?

didn't that bike dude Eddy Mercks have like a 20 rhh? somethng crazy like that

A lot of people can actually have a really low heart rate for various reasons, well trained or not. People with a third degree AV block can have heart rates in the low 20's at night.. A really low heart rate for a 'normal' guy is definitely not always a healthy sign in itself.

Originally Posted by Eason

Click to expand...

No, that's either 220 - age or some other formula, I'm pretty sure about this -10 thing. I remember hearing about it in school and when I worked in biometrics testing they told us the same thing too. I'm not saying it's even correct, but somebody other than me thinks you're supposed to subtract 10 for "true" resting, I swears its.

220-age is the predicted maximum heart rate by age. The subtraction of 10 from the maximum is to account for the impossibility of ever reaching maximum heart rate voluntarily.

I checked through my ACSM materials (2007 manuals) and there is no mention of subtracting 10 to find resting heart rate.

Is a low RHR necesscarily a sign of being in good cardiac shape? I've know of some spec war dudes whos resting heart rates were in the high 60's to 70's

Originally Posted by Mblova

Click to expand...

Is a low RHR necesscarily a sign of being in good cardiac shape? I've know of some spec war dudes whos resting heart rates were in the high 60's to 70's
Generally, but there are a lot of details that will affect it. I don't know what 'spec war dudes' are so I can't really comment, but a lot of people in the military are in pretty **** shape (at least for athletics). Most of the training concerns mental fortitude, not physical fitness. For what it's worth, my friend from high school was the team's running back and now as a SEAL he's in worse shape than when he entered the military. Now he can swim, though.

Originally Posted by why

Click to expand...

Generally, but there are a lot of details that will affect it. I don't know what 'spec war dudes' are so I can't really comment, but a lot of people in the military are in pretty **** shape (at least for athletics). Most of the training concerns mental fortitude, not physical fitness.

For what it's worth, my friend from high school was the team's running back and now as a SEAL he's in worse shape than when he entered the military. Now he can swim, though.

Special warfare are your SEAL/Green Beret types. Both people I knew were in ridic shape before and after BUD/S.
Although that thing about your friend is kinda funny.

Originally Posted by why

Click to expand...

Generally, but there are a lot of details that will affect it. I don't know what 'spec war dudes' are so I can't really comment, but a lot of people in the military are in pretty **** shape (at least for athletics). Most of the training concerns mental fortitude, not physical fitness.

For what it's worth, my friend from high school was the team's running back and now as a SEAL he's in worse shape than when he entered the military. Now he can swim, though.

While most special forces types are in really good shape, I agree totally about the mental aspect. It really is the most important factor. I was 1/75 Ranger (Airborne) from 82-85. People always ask about the physical nature. I always respond it's much more mental than physical. The physical stuff was easy; it was simply mind over matter. No one expects you to do 400 push-ups. They just don't want you to quit trying to do 400 push-ups.

The military's fitness program doesn't amount to much and most of the hard-core types augment it with workouts on their own or in small groups.

Originally Posted by why

Click to expand...

Not sure what this is in reaction to, exactly, but I like to run my sprints balls out. Just much more fun that way. Well, not fun, but it keeps me from slacking off. An 800 m sprint interval is well under 2:50, so it's not like I have to keep up the pace indefinitely. I will tell you that I am completely drenched in sweat after every single sprint session, and often pretty dehydrated. I'm definitely never in the "recommended" range. A lot of the training is mental at this stage. I've been taught, and play, all sorts of mid games to keep running although my legs are burning and I can barely breathe.

Originally Posted by Grayland

Click to expand...

While most special forces types are in really good shape, I agree totally about the mental aspect. It really is the most important factor. I was 1/75 Ranger (Airborne) from 82-85. People always ask about the physical nature. I always respond it's much more mental than physical. The physical stuff was easy; it was simply mind over matter. No one expects you to do 400 push-ups. They just don't want you to quit trying to do 400 push-ups.

The military's fitness program doesn't amount to much and most of the hard-core types augment it with workouts on their own or in small groups.

I have a buddy (now 40, I think) who was an Army Ranger, and I gotta say that there is no way I could compete athletically with him. At 40, he still regularly goes for a 10 minutes, 2 mile "run". No way I can do that, even if I were to blow out my muscles regularly (as his wife claims he does).

The last time I was checked it was in the 30s (note I was 20 or 21). However, I am in just as good as shape now as I was then (now 24) so I assume I am still in mid to high 30s.

about 60

I don't know, but it's not particularly low. I need to increase my cardio.

Does anyone know whether the monitors built into stationary bikes' hand grips are at all accurate?

Originally Posted by LA Guy

Click to expand...

Not sure what this is in reaction to, exactly, but I like to run my sprints balls out.

It was a reaction to the claim that after sprints your heart rate is 'above 210 easily'. That's not even remotely possible.

Originally Posted by why

Click to expand...

It was a reaction to the claim that after sprints your heart rate is 'above 210 easily'. That's not even remotely possible.

Well, anytime I wear a heart rate monitor, and then sprint, I am regularly at 215 or so. Everything is constantly "above safe limits", even when I am running at what I consider sustainable speeds (i.e. I can do 3 miles on it) and I constantly that red light that is supposed to mean that you are in danger of dying. I've been monitoring my HR for well over a decade, with lots of different heart rate monitors, and it's always been this way.

I just googled this, and I see that the maximum heart rate is 220-age (35) +/- 20, and that this doesn't really apply to serious endurance athletes. I can't say that I'm a serious athlete, but I've been doing pretty intense athletics for over 1 and a half decades now, so maybe that had something to do with it.

You're in NYC, right? Next time I'm in town, you're welcome to bring whatever machine you have to measure heartrate, and measure mine. Maybe I'll learn something new. But I've seen a lot of wierd physical anomalies, and I have a condition that makes my body work 2+ std devs from the average. For example, it takes 3x the amount of GA to knock me out. Unfortunately, this means that I also get 3x the aftereffects, so ever time I've gone under, I've had to schedule a full 24 hours for my body to work right again. And some of the medications I take, at the doses I take them, apparently would make most people have to sleep all day, and anyone who has met me can ascertain that it doesn't slow me down at all.

Does your heart rate monitor use a chest strap? I've noticed some monitors are inaccurate on some people, and different heart rate monitors either continually produce crazy readings or don't work at all (one person had a monitor that read 100+ when we were palpating her at 60ish).