high RHR

[francis]

Hi Rip, I am a complete novice at strength training, and starting late too. 49yo, 1'74", 74Kg.

I got started recently with a 5x5 program, then found SS, read the book, also Barbell prescription, and plan to continue with SS.

However, I have one concern: I have a high RHR (average 95bpm determined via a 24h heart rate monitor). Recently seen a cardiologist (2 actually, the first on a few years back for the same issue), who has done echo, blood tests, ECGs etc and found nothing out of place. Diagnosis: I'm deconditioned. (the cardiologists I saw a few years back also found nothing out of place)

That does not take me by surprise as I've never been sporty or fit. Sill, the issue is that the cardiologist recommended exercise, I asked if lifting is ok, he said it's better to do aerobics.

Now it's not that want to assume the Dr does not know what he's talking about, he is also someone that specialises in tachycardia, arrhythmias and so on, but I am also aware (partly thanks to the articles I read from you and others here, and on other sites), that there might be a bias towards recommendation for cardio vs resistance exercise in the medical and fitness professions. However, it is also well-established that steady-state activities such as cycling are very effective in lowering RHR, moreso than lifting, I believe.

I looked at some posts on the forum, and most people I've seen complaining for high RHR mention 60 (!)

My question is: with a RHR of 95, would it still be recommended to build strength via the SS linear progression, before introducing conditioning, or would it be better to build an aerobic base via, say, cycling first.

I realise this question might be too general, or starting from a misguided point of view, but put simply, I am concerned and can't seem to think straight. There is a lot of conflicting information out there, even by official sources - for example, Strength training tied to better heart health than aerobic as opposed with a gazillion papers showing effects from cardio, and I can't seem to figure what's sound.

[Mark Rippetoe]

Let's clear up some of this confusion first. How tall are you at 160 pounds? -- 1 foot 74 inches is not really helpful. You say you have a high "resting heart rate", and then you tell us that your 24-hour average HR was measured at 95, which is not unusual, but is not the same thing as RHR. At what elevation do you live? And if imminent cardiologists have detected no pathology, what symptoms (as opposed to signs) prompted you to go to the doctor?

As an important general question, what is better about a lower RHR than a higher RHR? Is it the fact that the general public equates a low RHR with competitive endurance athletes, which are the Obvious Pinnacle of Human Physical Performance Expression, and that in this regard Doctors are quite firmly in the general public cohort? There is a huge genetic component to cardiodynamics that is outside your ability to affect. Some people have small hearts, some people have huge hearts, the demands of endurance athletics favors the genetics that allow more blood to be pumped, but that doesn't mean that a RHR of 80 is indicative of some type of inferiority in the absence of obvious problems that come with sitting on your ass all day.

Lastly, when you finally get your squat up to 365 x 5 x 3, report your HR to us at the end of the 3rd set.

[francis]

Sorry for being confusing, I meant 1m74. I checked the results of the 24h ECG, it's max 150bpm measured at 5pm (I was probably walking somewhere, for sure not exercising), min 70 bpm (at 4am, I was sleeping), average 94. With regards to RHR, I measured several times over several weeks, and it tends to read around 95, more if I had dinner or I just came home or moved around a bit. I live in London, so at sea level.

What prompted me to see the Dr was, a few years back, to have a check up to see if the fast HR was indicative of an underlying problem. There wasn't one, so I could have said case closed, I suppose.

But perhaps what worries me is that the vast majority of the people I know, including sedentary ones, have a much lower RHR, and also being aware of the fact that the expectation that a RHR above 85 is considered by the medical profession to be indicative of poor conditioning or some other issue - and also that at the population level a high HR is strongly associated with increased risk of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality.

Hence, my concern comes from the idea that there is something wrong and I have to do something about it. And the confusion is because the cardiologist I've seen recently said I should do aerobics and not lifting, and because I didn't want to take it at face value (in good part on the basis of materials I read here).

But thanks for your reply - I think I see what you mean and it is helpful. I will check my HR as you said, but why are you asking? Is the expectation that by the time I get to lift 365, HR it would be reduced overall?

[Mark Rippetoe]

I don't care about your HR, or your cholesterol level, or your blood pressure. I care about your health, not a doctor's pulled-out-of-his-ass opinion. You are a 49-year-old man with no heart disease, and if you want to lift weights, I think you should lift weights. If you want to run to satisfy your doctor, then that's what you should do. Both of these activities elevate your heart rate, but only one of them makes you stronger.

[Steven Kalin]

Sorry for being confusing, I meant 1m74. I checked the results of the 24h ECG, it's max 150bpm measured at 5pm (I was probably walking somewhere, for sure not exercising), min 70 bpm (at 4am, I was sleeping), average 94. With regards to RHR, I measured several times over several weeks, and it tends to read around 95, more if I had dinner or I just came home or moved around a bit. I live in London, so at sea level.

What prompted me to see the Dr was, a few years back, to have a check up to see if the fast HR was indicative of an underlying problem. There wasn't one, so I could have said case closed, I suppose.

But perhaps what worries me is that the vast majority of the people I know, including sedentary ones, have a much lower RHR, and also being aware of the fact that the expectation that a RHR above 85 is considered by the medical profession to be indicative of poor conditioning or some other issue - and also that at the population level a high HR is strongly associated with increased risk of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality.

Hence, my concern comes from the idea that there is something wrong and I have to do something about it. And the confusion is because the cardiologist I've seen recently said I should do aerobics and not lifting, and because I didn't want to take it at face value (in good part on the basis of materials I read here).

But thanks for your reply - I think I see what you mean and it is helpful. I will check my HR as you said, but why are you asking? Is the expectation that by the time I get to lift 365, HR it would be reduced overall?

Dude, I was a high level road and track cyclist. Back then my RHR was 48. I’m 51 now, reasonably fit, reasonably heavy lifts, and my RHR is like 60 something. I think 70 isn’t that bad, even if you put stock in such things.

[Frank_B]

The reason all your friends know their resting heart rate so readily is because companies like FitBit and Apple have made it a point to present RHR as a primary indicator of cardiovascular health.

It’s also something that’s fairly easy to train, and has a very rapid novice effect, resulting in a gamified feedback loop for people checking their watches all the time.

[Panda]

LOL, i thought id measure my RHR last night @ 10pm after being on the couch for two hrs..it was 85 ! I too started as a complete novice late at 52, now 55. Oh, I had a heartattack at 46 with one stent in place and also for good measure i am diabetic. I think RHR is just a number. These are the numbers I prefer, my squat workset this week was 360x5x3. DL440, PR180, BP290.

[VNV]

LOL, i thought id measure my RHR last night @ 10pm after being on the couch for two hrs..it was 85 ! I too started as a complete novice late at 52, now 55. Oh, I had a heartattack at 46 with one stent in place and also for good measure i am diabetic. I think RHR is just a number. These are the numbers I prefer, my squat workset this week was 360x5x3. DL440, PR180, BP290.

Shoot, those are good #s. Height and weight? Trying to recalibrate at 53, given a restart on squat/dead NLP.

[Frankie]

The reason all your friends know their resting heart rate so readily is because companies like FitBit and Apple have made it a point to present RHR as a primary indicator of cardiovascular health.

100% this is the reason. It's a very basic functionality that any cheap bluetooth crap can churn out, they seem built into anything electronic these days. When I starting worrying about my health I googled resting heart rate (we didn't call it RHR back in the day), and it said it varies and generally doesn't indicate much about a persons health. And haven't thought about it again since reading your post.
The first google hit today says 'A “normal” RHR falls between 60 and 100 beats per minute.' If you are 95bpm what else do you want to hear? I guess the heart of you question is 'will lifting weights make my heart worse?' and long story short, after a couple decades of reading about it, it's one of the best things you can do along with a sensible diet.

[Panda]

Shoot, those are good #s. Height and weight? Trying to recalibrate at 53, given a restart on squat/dead NLP.

5’8”, 230lb. I’ve put on ~ 30 lb since I started but body fat has gone down from 25 to 19%. The goal before I expire ! is 200/300/400/500.