32 ms·

I think the idea is that a frequent runner will have a much lower resting pulse rate, and the “extra” beats they use while exercising will be more than offset b

I think the idea is that a frequent runner will have a much lower resting pulse rate, and the “extra” beats they use while exercising will be more than offset by the fewer beats that accumulate during rest? I haven’t done the math though.

copperx 7y ago
That's the assumption, but I have never seen or done the math either, which is ridiculous because it shouldn't take more than 5 minutes to get some estimates.
- function_seven 7y ago
  Okay, you shamed me into doing it :) So, this is really rough napkin math, but here goes: Assuming that... ... a sedentary person (Donald) has a resting BPM of 80. ... an active runner (Justin) has a resting BPM of 60, and a peak BPM of 180 (while running) If Justin runs for a solid 2 hours, five times a week, he will have 158*60*60 + 10*60*180 = 676,800 beats per week While Donald, who doesn't run, but averages 1 hour a week doing strenuous activity, will have 167*60*80 + 1*60*180 = 812,400 beats per week Donald's heart beats 20% more often than Justin's. (And that's assuming Donald's heart also peaks at 180.) (Edited to change names and fix math errors)
  - aerique 7y ago
    Just to be that guy: using two names very similar to eachother (especially for a non-native speaker) is very confusing for examples like this.
    - function_seven 7y ago
      Thanks. I actually confused myself when I was writing it. I should have taken that as a sign to change the names. (I was going for a reference[1], but that shouldn't muddle things!) I hope the new names are differentiated enough. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_%26_Dave https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_%26_Dave
  - mrfusion 7y ago
    Thanks for doing the math. I’d say 130-140 would be better than 180 for someone in shape. Most people can’t even hit 180 after their 20s.
    - hvidgaard 7y ago
      It depends on your goals. If you just want to do the 5K as fast as possible, you'll be close to your max heart rate (180). If you're just "leisure" running (aka. you can talk while running) I suppose 140 is reasonable.
    - copperx 7y ago
      No wonder I dread going to the gym, I find it really strenuous. I'm 37, unfit, and try to hit 180 while running on a treadmill. I was using the same target BPM that I used in college. Thanks! I'll try 160 BPM next time. Running 45 mins should be more doable.
inlined 7y ago
When I was a runner, I had a resting heart rate in the low 50s. While running I would hover at 180bpm. Now that I’m sedentary (knee accident) I have a heart rate in the 70s. There are about 10k minutes per week and I ran for about 300 of them. That means my active lifestyle had about 588k beats per week and my sedentary lifestyle has about 750k beats per week. Sedentary life added about 27% total heart rate.

copperx 7y ago

That's the assumption, but I have never seen or done the math either, which is ridiculous because it shouldn't take more than 5 minutes to get some estimates.

function_seven 7y ago
Okay, you shamed me into doing it :) So, this is really rough napkin math, but here goes: Assuming that... ... a sedentary person (Donald) has a resting BPM of 80. ... an active runner (Justin) has a resting BPM of 60, and a peak BPM of 180 (while running) If Justin runs for a solid 2 hours, five times a week, he will have 158*60*60 + 10*60*180 = 676,800 beats per week While Donald, who doesn't run, but averages 1 hour a week doing strenuous activity, will have 167*60*80 + 1*60*180 = 812,400 beats per week Donald's heart beats 20% more often than Justin's. (And that's assuming Donald's heart also peaks at 180.) (Edited to change names and fix math errors)
- aerique 7y ago
  Just to be that guy: using two names very similar to eachother (especially for a non-native speaker) is very confusing for examples like this.
  - function_seven 7y ago
    Thanks. I actually confused myself when I was writing it. I should have taken that as a sign to change the names. (I was going for a reference[1], but that shouldn't muddle things!) I hope the new names are differentiated enough. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_%26_Dave https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_%26_Dave
- mrfusion 7y ago
  Thanks for doing the math. I’d say 130-140 would be better than 180 for someone in shape. Most people can’t even hit 180 after their 20s.
  - hvidgaard 7y ago
    It depends on your goals. If you just want to do the 5K as fast as possible, you'll be close to your max heart rate (180). If you're just "leisure" running (aka. you can talk while running) I suppose 140 is reasonable.
  - copperx 7y ago
    No wonder I dread going to the gym, I find it really strenuous. I'm 37, unfit, and try to hit 180 while running on a treadmill. I was using the same target BPM that I used in college. Thanks! I'll try 160 BPM next time. Running 45 mins should be more doable.

inlined 7y ago

When I was a runner, I had a resting heart rate in the low 50s. While running I would hover at 180bpm. Now that I’m sedentary (knee accident) I have a heart rate in the 70s. There are about 10k minutes per week and I ran for about 300 of them. That means my active lifestyle had about 588k beats per week and my sedentary lifestyle has about 750k beats per week. Sedentary life added about 27% total heart rate.