Resting heart rate normal?

[Kikizmommy]

My resting heart rate is consistently around 54, I hear this good however I am definitely overweight and not an athlete at all. Anyone else have This issue? It even dips down to 40's in my sleep. I talked to my dr who did an ekg and said other then a few skips here and there (due to anxiety) it looked fine. Should I push for more test or does this sound ok? Am I alone in this?

[shipo]

Totally normal; I personally know a number of folks who have RHRs in the mid 50s when they are out of shape/over weight/under stress, myself included.

The good news is getting back in exercise mode helps things pretty dramatically; here is my RHR plot from January this year:

My RHR from earlier this month:

[Kikizmommy]

Ok, this makes me feel better. I've been concerned that mine was way too low! Google can be a great tool and a curs haha. I was worried I may need a pacemaker already at age 30!

[shipo]

Nah, no need for a pace maker, geez, if that was the case I would have been dead before I ever hit 30, and now I'm only a year shy of 60. 🙂

[JohnRi]

While our resting heart rate tells us a lot about our health, having a high or low heart rate doesn't always mean what we think it means.  And sometimes it does.

I'm am 220 lbs.  I'm 1.1 lbs from being from having a 29.9 BMI, the overweight range, and finally out of the obese range.  Before I got sick with the strep, the flu, a cold, brochitis, and now an lower respiratory infection..  Yeah tough couple of months for me..   My resting heart rate was 56. It had been down there once I quite caffiene.  It was around 68 before I gave up diet sodas and tea. 

Right at the moment it's around 65 because I'm fighting this infection.

While it's true having a low heart rate is most often in athletes, and fit people, that is not always true.  I've seen my rate into the 40's at night while sleeping. 

You've been to your doctor and he thinks you are fine, I would agree with him. 

I'm assuming you have a Blaze, Surge or Charge HR.  I'd keep an eye on it, but other than that I don't think you have anything to worry about.  I'd review every couple of months.  Otherwise I'd ignore it.  If you see it go up, chances are you are sick, and when it goes down, you are getting better.  I find that piece of data interesting.  But nothing more. 

And look on the bright side, at 54, your blood pressure is probably very good, and your chances of a heart attack or other heart related issue are very very very low. 

When my BP was high, and my resting rate around 100, I damaged my heart.  It's all stage 1 or mild, so I can live a healthy life with it damaged.  But it was reason enough that I've dropped 61 lbs, with 37 more to lose... 

You're fine, go out and stay active! 

[emili]

you for sure do not have an issue. in my opinion, its an invitation from your heart to see whats possible for you in the fitness realm.. accept the invite.

[Marcy]

I'm the same and am certainly no athlete.  My resting heart rate has been in the 50's since highschool. I think it is common, considering how many people post on the internet about having a 40/50 resting heart rate. My Surge says my resting bpm is 47 today. My physician says it's fine as long as there are no symptoms such as lightheadedness or dizzy spells. 

[Marcy]

---

@JohnRi wrote:

,,,And look on the bright side, at 54, your blood pressure is probably very good...

---

Please don't make any assumptions about blood pressure based on anything but a blood pressure measurement.  According to the American Heart Association, your pulse rate is not correlated with your blood pressure.

[shipo]

---

@Marcy wrote:

---

@JohnRi wrote:

,,,And look on the bright side, at 54, your blood pressure is probably very good...

---

Please don't make any assumptions about blood pressure based on anything but a blood pressure measurement.  According to the American Heart Association, your pulse rate is not correlated with your blood pressure.

---

While what you wrote is most likely true for most folks, I take pretty much anything stated by the AHA with a huge grain of salt. Why? They are also the same folks who promote the silly 200-Age formula for determining max heart rate and by extrapolation, heart rate zones.

[Marcy]

---

@shipo wrote:

While what you wrote is most likely true for most folks, I take pretty much anything stated by the AHA with a huge grain of salt. Why? They are also the same folks who promote the silly 200-Age formula for determining max heart rate and by extrapolation, heart rate zones.

---

Sure, throw out the baby with the bathwater if you want.

[shipo]

So are you wedded to these silly "one size fits all" truisms (BMI, Heart Rate, 3,500 calories = a pound)? To many, myself included, organizations which throw this junk out should then be questioned on everything they claim. Like I wrote earlier, what you wrote is most likely true for most folks, but the source you cited is questionable.

[Marcy]

---

@shipo wrote:
So are you wedded to these silly "one size fits all" truisms (BMI, Heart Rate, 3,500 calories = a pound)? To many, myself included, organizations which throw this junk out should then be questioned on everything they claim. Like I wrote earlier, what you wrote is most likely true for most folks, but the source you cited is questionable.

---

My impression is that you like to debunk conventional wisdom for the sake of debate. Since I think that can be a healthy thing to do, I'll play along regarding the topic at hand i.e. heart rate vs. blood pressure.

No one should  assume that a low resting heart rate means they have a healthy blood pressure level. To avoid posting anecdotal medical info of people known to me, I quoted one of the most logical authorities on the topic, the AHA. Since both heart rate and blood pressure are objectively measurable, I'm confident that the AHA is right on that topic.

[shipo]

True, true; in many cases, "Conventional wisdom" isn't, IMHO. That said, I agree there is very little correlation between heart rate and blood pressure.

[FitBeforeFifty]

---

@shipo wrote:
So are you wedded to these silly "one size fits all" truisms (BMI, Heart Rate, 3,500 calories = a pound)? To many, myself included, organizations which throw this junk out should then be questioned on everything they claim. Like I wrote earlier, what you wrote is most likely true for most folks, but the source you cited is questionable.

---

These aren't truisms, these are models based on scientific sampling. All models are wrong some models are useful. Calling a model junk because there are exceptions is just hyperbole. 

[shipo]

---

@FitBeforeFifty wrote:

---

@shipo wrote:
So are you wedded to these silly "one size fits all" truisms (BMI, Heart Rate, 3,500 calories = a pound)? To many, myself included, organizations which throw this junk out should then be questioned on everything they claim. Like I wrote earlier, what you wrote is most likely true for most folks, but the source you cited is questionable.

---

These aren't truisms, these are models based on scientific sampling. All models are wrong some models are useful. Calling a model junk because there are exceptions is just hyperbole. 

---

I have to disagree, these models are junk as the error rates are absolutely huge; BMI and 220-Age being chief among them. Here are two very easy to digest examples of criticisms of those two metrics:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_mass_index#Limitations
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_rate#Limitations

[FitBeforeFifty]

Yes, there is error in both models. There are errors in all models.

If you think you are the exception to BMI, have your body fat measured. 

If you think 220 - age doesn't fit your max HR, measure it.

Not really that hard. They are simple and convenient models to use as a starting point and they were originally based on scientific sampling and regression. Anyone that wants more precision can get measured.

My max HR is 183 (or at least it was a couple years ago) my predicted max HR would have been 173. Great, it's not perfect, but it was close enough for my initial training and then overtime wearing a HR monitor I was able to get a more accurate number.

Same with BMI. At 12% body fat I was in the center of the BMI chart. So sure, it was a little off. But when I started losing weight I picked a goal weight in the healthy BMI range. This was simple, convenient and useful. 

[shipo]

While I may well be an exception to pretty much every rule out there, I'd be okay if the error was limited to me. That said, it ain't. I don't know a single person who fits into either of the two models, much less both; granted I mostly hang around with distance runners in their 50s, 60s, and 70s, so my "study" results will be skewed.

As for scientific sampling, I've looked and looked and looked, and I have yet to come up with any scientific basis for 220-age. That said, I came across a cryptic comment somewhere which said, "The 220-age formula was the result empirical (i.e. observed) data from the 1940s and has zero scientific basis." If you can find a scientific study which supports this model, I'll gladly cede the point.

Then there is BMI; a metric which was error prone and outmoded the day it was instituted.

[Kikizmommy]

Good news is my blood pressure is just fine :). I was just worried about my heart rate

[JohnRi]

At 48 years old, last year I had a nuclear stress test down to find my maximum heart rate as well if I was physcially able to exercise at a high activity level.  I found the test grueling as I was at the peak of my weight and was in terrible shape physcially.  According the 220-age, my max should have been 172.  According to my test results, my max rate was 166.  Was the formula that day 100% correct?  No, but pretty **ahem** close. I'm sure today after 8 months of exercise, my max is probably different.  However I rarely get my heart rate above 150.  I hit that on my bike sometimes.

As for the BMI, it's biggest issue is it does not take into consideration body fat %.  However in my case the BMI is just very close match to my current stats.  My current fat % is around 29.5-30.3% on my Aria the last 5 days.  That is the top of the overweight/bottom of the obese range based on body fat for a male my age and height.  My BMI today is 30.0.  The top of the overweight range/start of the Obese range. 

So @shipo now you have met someone where the models do pretty much match.

[shipo]

Please understand, I've never suggested there aren't some folks who slot neatly into these formulas, however, like a broken analog watch, it is correct every now and again.

The question I have is, what is the accuracy? Forty percent? Fifty? Sixty or seventy?

If the above can be established (unlikely without any rigorously conducted studies, of which I know of exactly zero), then what is the accuracy threshold before establishing any given formula as a good model?

From my perspective as an engineer, if it is correct only half the time, then it is a bogus formula, if it is correct say, seventy percent of the time, then it is highly suspect.