 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> Assuming this device is anywhere near accurate... should I be worried
> that I'm idling at about 75 BPM, it hit 101 BPM at one point, and I
> haven't actually got out of my chair yet?? o_O
You can always count your heart rate manually, without the aid of any
device. (Ok, that's not completely true. Of course you need a *clock* to
do that. But I mean that you don't need a device which specifically measures
your heart rate.)
AFAIK a rest pulse of 75 BPM is normal, at least for a person who is not
in good shape. Can I assume that you are not in very good shape?
Usually the better shape you are in, the lower your rest pulse. Someone
who exercises more or less regularly will usually have a rest pulse of
about 60-70, and someone who exercises very regularly (eg. an hour of
cardio each day) can have a rest pulse as low as 50. Rest pulse (on an
otherwise completely healthy person) is a relatively good indication of
how good of a shape you are in.
(The reasons why being in good shape lowers your rest pulse are various
and complicated, but AFAIK the major reasons are that the heart is stronger
and hence can displace a larger amount of blood in one beat, thus needing
less beats to transfer the same amount of oxygen, as well as things like
the muscles needing less oxygen to perform the same amount of work, and
the oxygen transporting capacity of the blood, determined by the amount of
hemoglobin, all of which gets better with regular aerobic exercise.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Orchid XP v8" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:4c41e3f6$1@news.povray.org...
> It's telling me I'm getting a great workout just from
> walking around my bedroom, which just can't be right. ;-)
Compared to sitting down all day in front of a computer, it probably is.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> It'll be interesting to see what kind of readings I get tonight. I'm
> going out to a Rock & Roll dance night. Up to 5 hours of Rock & Roll
> dancing, likely to be combined with high temperatures, high humidity and
> social stress.
>
> Maybe you guys could take bets on what my maximal BPM reading for the
> evening will be? :-P
During the first dance, the device registered a maximum BPM reading of
193. Amusingly (or not?), by the time the *next* dance finished (i.e.,
I'd been sitting around for about 3 minutes), my pulse was still
registering as around 150 BPM.
Then again, it was so hot I didn't go much below 100 BPM all night once
people actually started dancing.
Nearer the end of the night, I danced with Laura, who is ****ing
amazing. I achieved 195 BPM during that dance, and that's still the
maximum count for the entire evening.
I have no idea how many caleries I burned, but I must have lost a stone
and a half just in *sweat*. In utter seriousness, I am *soaking wet*
right now! >_<
Bugger me, that was one fantastic night out!
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 00:55:19 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> During the first dance, the device registered a maximum BPM reading of
> 193. Amusingly (or not?), by the time the *next* dance finished (i.e.,
> I'd been sitting around for about 3 minutes), my pulse was still
> registering as around 150 BPM.
Holy crap, man - and you think you're old? If I get up to 155, I feel
like I'm going to *die*.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> Holy crap, man - and you think you're old? If I get up to 155, I feel
> like I'm going to *die*.
There's actually some number you can calculate for a general idea, like
170-your age or some such.
Oh, GIYF. http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4736
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
C# - a language whose greatest drawback
is that its best implementation comes
from a company that doesn't hate Microsoft.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 19:25:27 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Holy crap, man - and you think you're old? If I get up to 155, I feel
>> like I'm going to *die*.
>
> There's actually some number you can calculate for a general idea, like
> 170-your age or some such.
>
> Oh, GIYF. http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4736
Yeah, that there is - 155 is actually just outside the top end of my
'zone'.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> During the first dance, the device registered a maximum BPM reading of
> 193.
Are you sure the device is working properly?
Measure your pulse manually (using a clock) and at the same time see
what the device is claiming your pulse to be. Maybe it's broken.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> There's actually some number you can calculate for a general idea, like
> 170-your age or some such.
220 - age
Wikipedia claims it has no scientific basis. Then again, according to
Wikipedia's slightly more accurate formula, my maximum heart rate should
be even lower still, so...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> During the first dance, the device registered a maximum BPM reading of
>> 193.
>
> Maybe it's broken.
Still, no matter what the machine says, I'm pretty sure I got a rather
thorough workout last night. ;-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Wikipedia claims it has no scientific basis.
I'm guessing the American Heart Association wouldn't make charts on their
site if they had no scientific basis at all. It's also what my doctor told
me. So....
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
C# - a language whose greatest drawback
is that its best implementation comes
from a company that doesn't hate Microsoft.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
