Why You Should Not Be Running by Mark Rippetoe

Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)

Antti

Level 8 Valued Member
Is the heart rate in question the one that is supposed to be measured in the morning before getting out of bed? Or just something that is measured when you're calm?

I get my readings when I monitor my blood pressure in the evening. I've sometimes thought of putting the monitor beside my bed but I've always forgotten it.

I got around 60 the last time so that''s what I put in. I think I've sometimes had it even ten units less but it was in a different time of my life. Is there typically a big discrepancy beteen the readings? I'd assume that the reading done in bed would be the lowest by some units.
 

offwidth

Level 9 Valued Member
I can't vouch for what others do but I measure mine in AM upon awaking. I use various means:
Polar HR Monitor
Omron Blood Pressure Monitor
Wrist pulse count and sweep second hand watch

They are usually pretty consistent with one another.

If I check at other times throughout the day. I get comfortable and quiet for a few minutes and then take a reading. It will usually be 5 to 10 bpm higher than a morning reading.

I used to measure it every day and would plan work outs around it. These days I'm not so concerned about the number, so I don't measure it all that often.

I have been doing 'conditioning/endurance' activities and training for almost 45 years now. My lowest consistent RHR ever was 44. That was in my early 20's. Today all those years later, it hovers around 48-50
 

mprevost

Level 6 Valued Member
In both cases we start to see risk climb at or around 72bpm. Isn't 72 more or less considered 'normal'? So it stands to reason I guess.
It was nice to see (and I guess not surprising) that our small sampling of SF members averaged 57.
72 is probably about "normal" but normal in the United States is not so good. Like many lab test markers, scoring in the normal range in this sick population is not ideal.
 

Rif

Level 6 Valued Member
Master Certified Instructor
I don't know if it makes you faster, but for health benefits, I do think it's sufficient. I find walking at a comfortable (read: not brisk, just out for a stroll) pace seems to help keep my resting pulse low. I walk at around 100 BPM which isn't my MAF heart rate of 118 but I still feel it does something for me. NB: I have no evidence to support my claim other than my subjective impression of my own health.

-S-
I just don't see the point of actually running with all that impact if you're going to go at that aerobic level. Rucking is far safer and more balanced muscularly imo
 

Kozushi

Level 7 Valued Member
In my opinion, running is necessary if you want to be a serious athlete in something like judo, fencing or kendo, let alone obvious sports like soccer, swimming, basketball. Why? It's not just about endurance but about the speed of your forward spring/lunge, which is the critical thing in just about every competitive sport. Even "non-sports" like bowling require running and lunging.

I HATE running. However, it's obvious to me and has been obvious to me for years that it's quite necessary for a serious competitive athlete. However, for anyone else, I don't think it's necessary. Walking for an hour or more, rucking and similar things are perfectly fine for overall health and mobility.
 
Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
Top Bottom