Talk:Heart rate

message: This reference at the bottom seems questionable.  The site that it is referenced from isn't a primary source; and it doesn't give its reference for the fact.,[']]
'
\  Also, I saw an ACSM (American College of Sport Medicine) documentary from 2003 which referenced a cross-country skier (not named) they had measured at 28 RHR BPM.  So I'm not sure it's appropriate to include this 'record.'  Anyone else have an opinion? 142.25.33.123 15:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Miguel Indurain 

message: Hi, I'm a belgium medical student.
Quote from above: "Can people give examples of how training zones are applied in real sports and the like? [[User:
This paragraph seems misleading to me, as it makes people think that by doing a low-intensity exercise they will burn more fat than by doing medium/high-intensity activities... Calories burnt in the unit of time is what matters. Low-intensity training is useless, as you will burn less calories and even if you burn 80% fats, food will replace them.
{I agree with the above paragraph that Calories burnt per unit of time would be an important addition.  I dissagree with his statement that Low-intensity training is useless.  I have done both and found low intensity more successfull at losing weight, and higher intensity better at increasing fitness and endurance.  RWP}
"The person above that said he/she lost more weight with low intensity is completely wrong. as stated above, what matters is the calories more minute, therefore, the higher the intensity the more calories expended, the more weight is lost!"
:As a cyclist, I would note that sustained high intensity exercise is only possible with sufficient carbohydrate intake.  Any long distance cyclist or marathon runner can tell you about the experience of "bonking" or "hitting the wall" when the body runs out of carbs and starts burning through fat reserves.  If you want to sustain or regain high-intensity performance you need to eat rather than processing fat, which is at odds with the goal of weight loss. -- Bdentremont (talk) 18:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: (Again, I don't have a citation.)  I read that "fat is burned in the flame of carbohydrates."  So, even though an ultra marathoner supposedly burns mostly fat, he/she can't continue to perform when carbs are depleted. 206.53.196.105 (talk) 20:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Reaction

message: Does anybody have any sources on this? I used to work on a geriatrics ward, and the resting pulse rates were anything from 40 to 120... admittedly they were PRs not HRs, but I wouldn't expect there to be such a huge difference between the two; and if there is a difference then PR must be less than HR. I'm willing to accept that I could have just worked on a freakish ward, but I would like to see some sources for the info!!! I know that the HR decreases from neonate until the end of adolescence, but I haven't seen any specific research about where it goes after that...--John24601 21:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If someone were to find a source for this data, would you please expand the number of years covered. I can't imagine that a 14 year-old is expected to have the same resting heart rate as someone in their 80's.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.53.70.145 (talk) 02:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I found an article that gives the desired information, and changed the table accordingly. However, I don't know how to change the reference, or how to site, on Wikipedia. Here is the website:  Maybe someone else with more Wiki skill can...do...something...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.53.70.145 (talk) 02:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resting HR decreases with age? 

message: The person who led the research team was Dr Michael Lauer, a cardiologist at the prestigious Cleveland Clinic in Cleveland, Ohio.
Michael Lauer: Well typically we will exercise people for about 8-12 minutes, that's how long it usually takes to get somebody going very quickly and getting them to the point of maximal exhaustion. Let's say for a typical 50-year-old man, you'd expect the heart rate to rise from about 70 at rest to about 170 at peak exercise. And then what we'd like to see is the heart rate fall by at least 20 beats per minute during that first minute after exercise.
Norman Swan: I think in the paper you defined the heart beat reduction as 12 beats per minute or less.
Michael Lauer: Twelve beats a minute, that's correct.
(........They were the ones who were at really high risk for subsequent death.)
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/helthrpt/stories/s63595.htm  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.36.82 (talk) 00:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: =======

message: The maximal heart rate is lower for cycling and swimming as stated above.  This is due to the number, size, and resistance(or power) of the muscle groups involved.  Treadmill is higher because there is high resistance and large muscle groups.  Swimming is lowest because although more muscle groups are involved, the resistance that each meets is significantly less than cycling or running (especially uphill).  It is my opinion that the target zone does not need to change in exercise on a bicycle or whilst swimming, since it is cardiac specific and not exercise specific.  The MHR is calculated whilst running uphill or on a treadmill with incline (after attaining 80-90% MHR on level or slight incline) in order to use the 'target zone' formulae.  Unfit people are unlikely to attain their MHR on first attempt at these tests (it takes a degree of stamina to keep running anaerobically up a hill at 100%MHR, typically for 2 minutes at the end of the test, which follows several minutes of 85%MHR)  Zeitnot 19:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  MHR revisited 

message: The section on the Zoladz method need revising, IMHO.  The formulas seem to mix two methods without 
explanation; the section does not explain the meaning of the term "exercise zone"; and the section needs a citation.  Andrew.Blucher (talk) 02:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Target Heart Rate 

message: change of 10 beats per minute in heart rate corresponds to the change of one degree Celsius in body temperature sounds like total hogwash to me.  When I exercise, I can easily raise my heart rate by 100 beats per minute which according to this would give a a tempurature of 47C which according to Thermoregulation#Human temperature variation effects should result in my certain death.--JBellis 18:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Body temp & heart rate 

message: I just added the restructuring template for this article because, after reading it over, there is a lot of information that is not very well organized.  Things like max heart rate, training heart rate, and resting heart rate, for example, could all be organized under an umbrella topic section (cardiovascular health?) and, after a brief definition, could be described in relation to each other towards edification for someone who is not very familiar with any of the seperate topics.  Rhetth 01:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restructuring this article -- lots of info 

message: I removed this section: A more reliable MHR (Maximum Heart Rate) calculation is based on the MRHR (Morning Resting Heart Rate) and your age. MRHR is an average of 3 or more samples of your HR at the moment you wake up from a normal sleep cycle. MRHR is used to calculate MHR. Polar has a free web service that will calculate your MHR based on your MRHR and your age . because:
* it doesn't make sense without using the polar website
* using that calculator on the polar website simply calculates MHR = 220-age which is described elsewhere.  The MRHR is used for calculating training zones but I think that it needs further reference.--JBellis 20:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  MRHR 

message: The section on training heart rates seems to be a paraphrase of other websites, changing "calories" to "food energy" (a weird way to phrase it), possibly to avoid being able to catch it by Googling for those phrases.
Anyone got permission or should I list it as a copyvio? --Frank Lofaro Jr. 16:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible copyvio 

message: In the "Control of Heart Rate" section, the article says:
The heart contains two cardiac pacemakers that spontaneously cause the heart to beat.
Now, I am aware of at least four different kinds of pacemakers, and all myocardial muscle tissue demonstrates automaticity, which means that in theory there are thousands, possibly tens of thousands of potential pacemakers in the heart. Of the four "kinds," there is the Sino-Atrial (SA) node, which is the normal pacemaker; ectopic Atrial pacemakers (usually, one of which fires escape beats faster than the others, and becomes the dominant pacemaker when not overdrive-suppressed by the SA node); the AV node (again, when not overdrive-suppressed by the SA node or an ectopic Atrial pacemaker); and ectopic Ventricular pacemakers (like the Atrial pacemakers, one will normally be slightly more irritable, or fire earlier, than other possible pacemakers unless overdrive-suppressed by the SA, ectopic Atrial, or AV node pacemakers).
I want to edit this section, but before I do I am hoping someone can defend the quoted text (I might learn something!). If not, I will edit it within the next few days. Aramis1250 03:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cardiac Pacemakers 

message: The proposed gender specific formula: 
 "  For males: 210 - 1/2 your age - 5% of total body weight (in pounds) + 4 = HRmax
    For females: 210 - 1/2 your age - 5% of total body weight (in pounds) + 0 = HRmax "
seems ambiguous:  Does the author mean " 214 - 1/2 age -5% (body weight)" or "210 - 1/2 age - 5% (body weight +4)" (which could also be written as "210.2 - 1/2 age - 5% weight."
I would have edited, but wasn't sure exactly which was intended.
Meviin 06:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  possible error in formula? 

message: The Sally Edwards/Heart Zones links in the text appear commercial. 81.132.79.241 05:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commercial Links 

message: This article is very anthropocentric :-) I'm actually interested in finding out about variations in heart rate across species - does anyone know of a good source of data? And if one were to incorporate such info into wikipedia should it go here in this article or should there be a separate article with a disambiguation page, or what?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.225.25.169 (talk) 13:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other Species 

message: Key terms in this article have been replaced with proper nouns. Can someone go back a couple of edits to before this page was vandalised? (I'm not sure how to)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.153.241 (talk) 06:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: In the second paragraph it says, "the average adult human heart beats at about 70 bpm (males) and 75 bpm (females)" and then later in the same para it says "the adult's (heart rate) about 80–100 bpm."
And in the table at the top-right, it says "60-101" is the normal heart rate.
-Strangerstome (talk) 20:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistencies about normal heart rate 

message: This edit appears to be a direct copy from here.  The apparent plagiarism seems to have survived in the article as it stands today.  I'm not sure how to proceed but thought I'd mention it.  71.203.159.204 (talk) 03:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Taken care of. On another note, this article is a total mess.  CKBrown1000 talk  06:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagiarism? 

message: I've removed the dubious tag from the statement:
The pulse rate (which in most people is identical to the heart rate) can be measured at any point on the body where an artery's pulsation is transmitted to the surface - often as it is compressed against an underlying structure like bone.
I'm not sure what fact the original tagger considered questionable - all three statements seem fairly straightforward (pulse rate usually = HR, multiple sampling points, compression => ability to palpate). -- MarcoTolo (talk) 19:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed "dubious" tag 

message: Half of the opening paragraph in the "Maximum heart rate" is about resting heart rate.  IMO, this indicates that some restructuring is warranted. (This paragraph also says resting heart rate increases with age.  I had heard that it decreases with age.  That sentence might deserve a "fact" tag.) 206.53.196.105 (talk) 21:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maximum heart rate 

message: I have pointed out an error in the heart rate diagram in the Talk:Aerobic exercise#Error in diagram discussion. Best contribute there if you have anything to add.
Zfishwiki (talk) 21:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heart Rate diagram 

message: The Valsalva maneuver decreases (early phase), and then increases (late phase), heart rate. This should be mentioned somewhere in the article, but I'm hesitant to add this info without a reference.Fuzzform (talk) 06:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Valsalva maneuver 

message: Even if this article is going to focus on humans, I think it would be very interesting and relevant to add a paragraph with a selection of different species and their average resting and active heart rates.  For example, what is the heart rate of a typical hummingbird when resting or feeding?  How about an elephant or a whale?  Or other close relatives like the Chimpanzee or Bonobo?  Not only is this information interesting in its own right but it provides a reference point and meaningful context that gives an idea of where human metabolism fits on the spectrum of other animals.  Cazort (talk) 16:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heart rates of non-humans

message: In "Recovery Heart Rates" the references are really weird...uh...so someone fix that?
--Heero Kirashami (talk) 01:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  refs are weird? 

message: 30bpm reduction at one minute seems high given some other random webpages I've looked at.  The referenced article itself states the measured median value for the 2,428 participants was 17bpm, with a range from the 25th to the 75th percentile of 12 to 23 beats per minute...  So...  Yea.  Seems a bit off (perhaps the intention was recovery rate over TWO minutes?).
Also, my apologies for not making the edit myself, as I'm not particularly familiar with editing articles, but the referenced article is available online:  http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/341/18/1351  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.47.203 (talk) 16:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recovery Heart Rate Correct? 

message: «These figures are very much averages, and depend greatly on individual physiology and fitness. For example an endurance runner's rates will typically be lower due to the increased size of the heart required to support the exercise, while a sprinter's rates will be higher due to the improved response time and short duration., etc. may each have predicted heart rates of 180 (= 220-Age), but these two people could have actual Max HR 20 beats apart (e.g. 170-190).»
This is utter nonsense. Working out has absolutely no impact on HRmax whatsoever. It is based solely on genetics and age.
Read any and every study, they are completely non-related. For instance, Hoff & Helgerud has published excellent articles on this very subject.
I suggest deleting it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Balls927583 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  This whole paragraph is completely false 

message: "A more precise method of determining pulse involves the use of an electrocardiograph, or ECG"
this is incorrect - an ECG shows the electrical activity of the heart and not necessarily the pulse rate - for example as seen in electromechanical dissociation  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.86.136 (talk) 17:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  ECG 

message: I think Indurain's heart rate dropped from 190 bpm to 57 bpm in one minute after the 1992 time trial in Luxembourg. But this is from memory alone, I can't find any sources. Count Iblis (talk) 16:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recovery heart rate for athletes 

message: I made minor changes; the reference has this: 'In univariate analyses, a low value for the recovery of heart rate was strongly predictive of death (relative risk, 4.0; 95 percent confidence interval, 3.0 to 5.2; P<0.001). After adjustments were made for age, sex, the use or nonuse of medications, the presence or absence of myocardial perfusion defects on thallium scintigraphy, standard cardiac risk factors, the resting heart rate, the change in heart rate during exercise, and workload achieved, a low value for heart-rate recovery remained predictive of death (adjusted relative risk, 2.0; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.5 to 2.7; P<0.001)." ' -- Jo3sampl (talk) 20:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change to Recovery section 

message: The section on "children" says that when doing exercise, heart-rates for children can be up to 200. This claim is not supported by the reference given (as far as I can see anyway) and is contradicted by several other sources we're listing.
The claim doesn't seem plausible either, the real number is certainly higher than this.
--Eivind Kjørstad (talk) 05:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: True. I've deleted it. I've emailed the corresponding author of the cited Lancet paper, asking for help summarising their findings for this article. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  children 

message: A formula like this:
HRmax = 203.7 / (1 + exp (0.033 x (age - 104.3)))
Could be made much more useful to non-mathematically inclined athletes simply wishing to quickly figure their personal maximum rate (e.g., runners who may not handy with calculating "exp") if an example or two were supplied perhaps two, one each for 40 and 60 years of age, or just a single example for 50 years of age.
: Agreed. Sounds like a great suggestion to me, and even standard practice.  GFI LookingGlass (talk) 11:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for example calculations 

message: An anonymous contributor added in the line "Very low heart rate may be associated with an autonomous nervous system impairment and has a high correlation with criminal tendencies" citing a blog post on New Scientist, from April 2013. While there may be a link, the line seems out of place under "Heart rate and cardiovascular mortality risk". If anything, it should be under "Neurocriminology". Anyway, my little investigation found the line was added by 14.200.91.233 on 08:13, 20 May 2013.
Fshafique (talk) 08:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Low Heart Rate = Criminal Tendencies??? 

message: 160.5.73.224 has changed the person with the lowest heart rate bit from Martin Brady to Edward Black.  I don't have the expertise to verify, but just wanted to leave a note in case this was unconstructive.  I won't be watching this page, so if you want to talk to me about this, use .  Thanks, RainCity471 (Whack!) 19:26, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lowest heart rate 

message: The Wikipedia article on caffeine specifically states the addiction level of caffeine is LOW or NONE.  The source quoted in this article [7] doesn't even support this :
Caffeine and nicotine
 Both stimulants are legal and unregulated, and are known to be very addictive.[7]  — Preceding unsigned comment added by N0w8st8s (talk • contribs) 23:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addiction Nonsense 

message: The research by Oakland University cited (Gellish RL, Goslin BR, Olson RE, McDonald A, Russi GD, Moudgil VK, abstract at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1746858) states their results as follows:
 Clinical measurements obtained during the administration of the GXT included in this longitudinal study resulted in the generation of a univariate prediction model: HRmax = 207 - 0.7 x age. Model parameters were highly statistically significant (P < 0.001).
Should the section be amended accordingly?
LookingGlass (talk) 15:58, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formulae given are NOT those in the research cited 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Heart rate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060630015812/http://www.obgyn.net/us/us.asp?page=%2Fus%2Fcotm%2F0001%2Fehr2000 to http://www.obgyn.net/us/us.asp?page=%2Fus%2Fcotm%2F0001%2Fehr2000
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120615162023/http://www.obgyn.net/english/pubs/features/dubose/ehr-age.htm to http://www.obgyn.net/english/pubs/features/dubose/ehr-age.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:37, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In the second paragraph normal heart rate is defined as 50-90BPM, after which the AHS is mentioned as taking a different stance with 60-100BPM as a range. In the sentence after that though, the AHS values of 60 and 100 seem to be used to define brady- and tachycardia with references to the AHS page for tachycardia. This seems like it should be 50 and 90 as well or should have other references. Can someone who knows more about this take a look?
Threore (talk) 06:17, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for pointing this out. See my response below. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:44, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistent definition of normal range vs brady-/tachycardia? 

message: Several studies, as well as expert consensus, indicate that the normal resting adult human heart rate is probably a range between 50 and 90 bpm,
:I dispute the above statement and have moved it here. I say this for the following reasons:
:*The HR provided in "Electrocardiographic reference ranges derived from 79,743 ambulatory subjects" states "The following were the reference ranges for this subgroup, determined using the 2nd and 98th percentiles: heart rate, 48 to 98 beats/min", so that does not support the statement above.
:*The other sources are not reliable or not suitable for use in this context:
:*#"Survey of selected cardiologists for an operational definition of normal sinus heart rate" is too old (1993), a primary study (WP:MEDRS), and should not be used to challenge a consensus statement by the AHA (WP:UNDUE)
:*#"Influence of heart rate on mortality after acute myocardial infarction" is not an analysis of the normal heart rate but an analysis of people who have AMI and their mortality. Also a primary source, and from 1990
:*#"Relation of resting heart rate to risk for all-cause mortality by gender after considering exercise capacity (the Henry Ford exercise testing project)" same applies to above. Primary source and not a record of what the overall heart rate of the population is. 
I have therefore removed this statement from the article. Please provide further reliable sources (WP:MEDRS) if you wish to discuss this further. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:49, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed statement 

message: I have removed the comments about Marco Pantani as they are unsubstantiated & verge towards deformation of character. No reference was given and the main article on Pantani states that allegations were never proved. I am unsure whether they would leave either Wikipedia or the contributor user:Boldarcticwolf exposed to possible litigation but I don't think they have place here. 
AlexBwineglass (talk) 11:07, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marco Pantani 

message: Text and refs are reports on individual studies. Per WP:MEDRS, if possible, these should be replaced by reviews, systematic reviews or meta-analyses if those are available. David notMD (talk) 11:23, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heart rate recovery as mortality predictor 

message: The article linked supporting the claim that the maximum heart rate was 480 bpm actually states that their patient had a recorded heart rate of 600 bpm, far surpassing the previous highest recorded heart rate of 480 bpm. Is there a reason this measurement has not been used as the highest recorded heart rate? Is the paper in question? Eahvez (talk) 09:49, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  maximum recorded heart rate