Discussion: RHR

Like you, I have a low RHR: 36 when prone in the morning, 42 sitting up after coffee. I also have a low MHR compared to most others my age - probably around 160-162 - though I haven't been able to test it in over a year because of injuries. I was wondering if low RHR and low MHR tend to go together: do you know yours?

MY MHR is definately lower than say PG's, no way would I see 170. I have not even seen 160 in the past few years. May be in the 155 area now.

So maybe we've all got roughly the same range, just my range is higher, so I'm using them up faster? :-(

My range is higher, too. I used to have a RHR around 50 - now it is more like 60. Several years of de-training, I guess. Any significant effort gets me up into the 160s. When I did the Westfield 3 miles on Monday, my average HR was 162, max 176.

It seems that the difference between RHR and MHR may be more meaningful then the absolute numbers. (No doubt somebody has written their Ph.D. thesis on this.)

Checking my log, I have lots of data on MHR from 2002 to 2005. The highest values tended to occur during a final 800 on the track. The highest MHR's for the year were: 2002 (164), 2003 (163), 2004 (161), 2005 (161). (There's a definite trend here.) In early 2009, before the injuries, I hit 158 at the end of a very hard workout. So I guess my MHR is probably no higher than that now. Then, MHR - RHR = 122.