[throw1234651234]

The average is a huge range of 60-100. 70 is usually on the lower end and implies some cardiovascular fitness. It usually won't be that low from sitting on a couch. Running 2 miles at 9 minutes / mile isn't some accomplishment either, but it does imply some sort of training for an adult. I wanted to list a real standard for health, not athletic performance.

If you want athletic performance, there are the Iron Man / RASP standards and a heart rate between 40-60. Do note that while under 60 is highly trained, 40 is more on the elite athlete side of things.

[Fire-Dragon-DoL]

you seem way more informed than me, but if that's the case, I'm confused by your suggestion: if 70 already implies cardiovascular fitness, why do you recommend cardio, given the person already should have some cardiovascular fitness?

[throw1234651234]

Re-read my post. I am saying cardio is needed if HR isn't below 70bpm. Being concise for clarity, not to be rude.

[Fire-Dragon-DoL]

I don't think I misunderstood you, I was suggesting that if 70bpm is already "cardio fitness", shouldn't that be sufficient for most individuals to prevent the majority of health issues?

[throw1234651234]

Ah, got it. Yes, I agree that it's sufficient to be healthy, that's why it's the only number I initially brought up. I hate when people conflate exceptional fitness with health for people who don't want to specialize on fitness.