Re: Lower resting heart rate = Lower death rate



B

Bob Cardone

Guest
[email protected] (Brad Sheppard) wrote:

snip


>value of HR for outcome, e.g. in patients post-myocardial infarction.
>One possible explanation of the relation between low heart rate and
>life expectancy comes from the observations of Levine who proposed
>that all mammals have a maximum number of heartbeats that limit life
>expectancy. This hypothesis is based on the direct relation between
>lifespan and heart rate in a range of animals from mouse to whale."
>http://ftp.escardio.org/newscast/stock2001/sipido.htm


If this is true, then someone who exercises a great deal , and
frequently get's in their target heart rate zone is shortening their
life... I guess we all better sit around and relax :)

Bob
 
"Bob Cardone" <cardone1!@!mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] (Brad Sheppard) wrote:
>
> snip
>
>
> >value of HR for outcome, e.g. in patients post-myocardial infarction.
> >One possible explanation of the relation between low heart rate and
> >life expectancy comes from the observations of Levine who proposed
> >that all mammals have a maximum number of heartbeats that limit life
> >expectancy. This hypothesis is based on the direct relation between
> >lifespan and heart rate in a range of animals from mouse to whale."
> >http://ftp.escardio.org/newscast/stock2001/sipido.htm
>
>
> If this is true, then someone who exercises a great deal , and
> frequently get's in their target heart rate zone is shortening their
> life... I guess we all better sit around and relax :)

I know you were only joking but here's the math.
One hour at 150 + 23 hours at 50 = 1300
24 hours at 70 = 1680.
Not that I subscribe to this theory but I don't want there to be any
more reasons for being a couch potato.

Phil Holman
 
"Phil Holman" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Bob Cardone" <cardone1!@!mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> [email protected] (Brad Sheppard) wrote:
>>
>> snip
>>
>>
>> >value of HR for outcome, e.g. in patients post-myocardial infarction.
>> >One possible explanation of the relation between low heart rate and
>> >life expectancy comes from the observations of Levine who proposed
>> >that all mammals have a maximum number of heartbeats that limit life
>> >expectancy. This hypothesis is based on the direct relation between
>> >lifespan and heart rate in a range of animals from mouse to whale."
>> >http://ftp.escardio.org/newscast/stock2001/sipido.htm
>>
>>
>> If this is true, then someone who exercises a great deal , and
>> frequently get's in their target heart rate zone is shortening their
>> life... I guess we all better sit around and relax :)
>
>I know you were only joking but here's the math.
>One hour at 150 + 23 hours at 50 = 1300
>24 hours at 70 = 1680.
>Not that I subscribe to this theory but I don't want there to be any
>more reasons for being a couch potato.
>
>Phil Holman
>

> >One possible explanation of the relation between low heart rate and
>> >life expectancy comes from the observations of Levine who proposed
>> >that all mammals have a maximum number of heartbeats that limit life
>> >expectancy. This hypothesis is based on the direct relation between
>> >lifespan and heart rate in a range of animals from mouse to whale."
>> >http://ftp.escardio.org/newscast/stock2001/sipido.htm
>

Now the way I read that is that someone named Levine stated that
mammals have a max number of heartbeats that limit life
expectancy.......

I then made that statement that a great deal of cardio exercise where
you get your heart rate elevated for long periods of time ( which I do
) would then shorten your life expectancy. I don't think my reply to
the above statement is complicated or difficult to understand?????
Maybe that's just me :)

Bob
 
"Bob Cardone" <cardone1!@!mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Phil Holman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Bob Cardone" <cardone1!@!mindspring.com> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> [email protected] (Brad Sheppard) wrote:
> >>
> >> snip
> >>
> >>
> >> >value of HR for outcome, e.g. in patients post-myocardial
infarction.
> >> >One possible explanation of the relation between low heart rate
and
> >> >life expectancy comes from the observations of Levine who proposed
> >> >that all mammals have a maximum number of heartbeats that limit
life
> >> >expectancy. This hypothesis is based on the direct relation
between
> >> >lifespan and heart rate in a range of animals from mouse to
whale."
> >> >http://ftp.escardio.org/newscast/stock2001/sipido.htm
> >>
> >>
> >> If this is true, then someone who exercises a great deal , and
> >> frequently get's in their target heart rate zone is shortening
their
> >> life... I guess we all better sit around and relax :)
> >
> >I know you were only joking but here's the math.
> >One hour at 150 + 23 hours at 50 = 1300
> >24 hours at 70 = 1680.
> >Not that I subscribe to this theory but I don't want there to be any
> >more reasons for being a couch potato.
> >
> >Phil Holman
> >
>
> > >One possible explanation of the relation between low heart rate and
> >> >life expectancy comes from the observations of Levine who proposed
> >> >that all mammals have a maximum number of heartbeats that limit
life
> >> >expectancy. This hypothesis is based on the direct relation
between
> >> >lifespan and heart rate in a range of animals from mouse to
whale."
> >> >http://ftp.escardio.org/newscast/stock2001/sipido.htm
> >
>
> Now the way I read that is that someone named Levine stated that
> mammals have a max number of heartbeats that limit life
> expectancy.......
>
> I then made that statement that a great deal of cardio exercise where
> you get your heart rate elevated for long periods of time ( which I do
> ) would then shorten your life expectancy. I don't think my reply to
> the above statement is complicated or difficult to understand?????
> Maybe that's just me :)
>
To obtain a resting HR of 50, one has to work out maybe an hour a day,
otherwise it would be up around 70.
This lends itself to a math problem whereby one calculates the break
even point for time spent working out versus reduction in resting HR.

Phil Holman
 
"Phil Holman" <[email protected]> wrote:

>To obtain a resting HR of 50, one has to work out maybe an hour a day,
>otherwise it would be up around 70.
>This lends itself to a math problem whereby one calculates the break
>even point for time spent working out versus reduction in resting HR.
>
>Phil Holman
>

I work out almost an hour a day and have for years. My resting heart
rate is not 50. Where are you getting these numbers from and are
they guaranteed?

Bob
 
"Bob Cardone" <cardone1!@!mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Phil Holman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >To obtain a resting HR of 50, one has to work out maybe an hour a
day,
> >otherwise it would be up around 70.
> >This lends itself to a math problem whereby one calculates the break
> >even point for time spent working out versus reduction in resting HR.
> >
> >Phil Holman
> >
>
> I work out almost an hour a day and have for years. My resting heart
> rate is not 50. Where are you getting these numbers from and are
> they guaranteed?
>
Good question. Apparently this is not guaranteed as your own testimony
shows. However, 50 in absolute terms may not be achievable but in
relative terms I would say that your resting HR is lower than it would
be if you didn't work out. It may also be that your level of effort is
not high enough to solicit a larger decrease. As a bike racer, I'm
somewhat surrounded by people who are fit to the extreme so my view may
be somewhat parochial as far as a HR of 50 goes. Most of my cycling
buddies have HRs in the 40s, myself included. The question can be raised
"is it the training that solicits such a low resting HR or is it a
person's predisposition for a low HR (a naturally higher cardiac output)
that makes them gravitate towards endurance sports?"

Phil Holman
 
On Sun, 02 Nov 2003 05:45:49 GMT, "Phil Holman"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>To obtain a resting HR of 50, one has to work out maybe an hour a day,
>otherwise it would be up around 70.

Incorrect and inaccurate.

>This lends itself to a math problem whereby one calculates the break
>even point for time spent working out versus reduction in resting HR.

See above.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap970827.html
Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long.
 
On Sun, 02 Nov 2003 17:05:07 GMT, "Phil Holman"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>However, 50 in absolute terms may not be achievable but in
>relative terms I would say that your resting HR is lower than it would
>be if you didn't work out.

Relative to this being an absolute, absolutely not.

> It may also be that your level of effort is
>not high enough to solicit a larger decrease. As a bike racer, I'm
>somewhat surrounded by people who are fit to the extreme..

Depends on your definition of fitness.

> ....so my view may
>be somewhat parochial as far as a HR of 50 goes. Most of my cycling
>buddies have HRs in the 40s, myself included. The question can be raised
>"is it the training that solicits such a low resting HR...

Sometimes.

>or is it a
>person's predisposition for a low HR (a naturally higher cardiac output)...

Not necessarily.

>that makes them gravitate towards endurance sports?"

No.

Success makes you gravitate toward certain sports.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap970827.html
Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long.
 
"Partial Eclipse Of The Mu_n" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 02 Nov 2003 17:05:07 GMT, "Phil Holman"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >However, 50 in absolute terms may not be achievable but in
> >relative terms I would say that your resting HR is lower than it
would
> >be if you didn't work out.
>
> Relative to this being an absolute, absolutely not.
>
> > It may also be that your level of effort is
> >not high enough to solicit a larger decrease. As a bike racer, I'm
> >somewhat surrounded by people who are fit to the extreme..
>
> Depends on your definition of fitness.

The ability to sustain a high aerobic output for several hours. Anyone
who becomes a Category 2 or above USCF road racer is not only very fit
but can crank out some serious wattage. Whether this is healthy in the
long is another question entirely.

>
> > ....so my view may
> >be somewhat parochial as far as a HR of 50 goes. Most of my cycling
> >buddies have HRs in the 40s, myself included. The question can be
raised
> >"is it the training that solicits such a low resting HR...
>
> Sometimes.
>
> >or is it a
> >person's predisposition for a low HR (a naturally higher cardiac
output)...
>
> Not necessarily.
>
> >that makes them gravitate towards endurance sports?"
>
> No.
>
> Success makes you gravitate toward certain sports.

I don't see how this is any different. Success being a factor of ones
natural pysiological potential.

Phil Holman
 
Bob,

I also work out more than one hour a day, my resting pulse is around
60. Genetics must play a role. Also, there is a big variation in how
different people respond to aerobic training. To further improve, I'm
trying to workout at nearly my max heart rate (170) three times a
week. I've read that quality of workout is more important than
quantity. I'm not aware of studies proving that exercise increases
lifespan, but it definitly effects quality of life.

Bob Cardone <cardone1!@!mindspring.com> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Phil Holman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >To obtain a resting HR of 50, one has to work out maybe an hour a day,
> >otherwise it would be up around 70.
> >This lends itself to a math problem whereby one calculates the break
> >even point for time spent working out versus reduction in resting HR.
> >
> >Phil Holman
> >
>
> I work out almost an hour a day and have for years. My resting heart
> rate is not 50. Where are you getting these numbers from and are
> they guaranteed?
>
> Bob
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back