Originally Posted by John E
At about 160bpm and age 56, I rank near the bottom of the chart. Should my resting pulse of 43bpm also be factored in? Should I be concerned?
In a word, I don't think so. (Okay four words.)
First thing, an internet discussion forum of non-physicians is probably not an ideal place to go for medical advice.
Second thing, I think it's quite possible that a low resting pulse should indeed be factored in... some posters have already made this point. Certainly a resting pulse of 43 has to be considered pretty healthy! (Mine is about 60.) Third thing, the canonical simple-minded 220-minus-your-age formula, flawed as it is, gives 164 for an age of 56, which to the kind of accuracy we're talking about here is right on your value. So, from the sound of things, you've got a roughly normal max HR for your age, and a very low and healthy-sounding resting HR. Sounds pretty good to me!