[brianwawok]

> His resting heart rate is just below 60 beats per minute. The steps pushed it up to 155 beats per minute. (His maximum heart rate should be 220 minus his age, 80. That’s only 140 beats per minute — far below what he is capable of!)

Sorry, that's not how this works. 220 - age is a very crude and not very good guess at the heart rate for a population. It is not YOUR max heart rate, and your max heart rate being higher or lower than that is not a sign of health. It is likely just a sign of your particular heart. It's worth checking in on it every few years and knowing yours.

On the other hand, resting heart rate of under 60 is good. Under 50 is likely better.

[matheusmoreira]

> On the other hand, resting heart rate of under 60 is good. Under 50 is likely better.

Not true in the general case. Asymptomatic bradycardia without increased risk of death may be present in athletes but assuming that's always the case can be dangerous. Other causes include a number of heart diseases, hypothyroidism, sleep apnea, medications such as betablockers...

[outworlder]

> On the other hand, resting heart rate of under 60 is good. Under 50 is likely better.

At which point does that becomes bradycardia and a sign of a health problem? My understanding is that, unless you are an athlete, your resting heart rate won't be that low (as in, < 50)

[brianwawok]

Right, I think it depends on activity level.

Couch potatoe and 45? You may have a health problem.

Cardio athlete and 45? Likely means you are in good shape.

My own resting heart rate varies from low 40s when I am in good shape (trained for a marathon) to near 60 when I am not (currently recovering from having a newborn).

I did need an EKG once, and the dr raised an eyebrow at my heart rate, but upon hearing I was a runner he was fine again.