Resting Heart Rate (Read 1603 times)


A Dance with Monkeys

    Eyelid blinking is controlled by muscles.  They are muscles, just like any other muscle in the body.  If you overuse them and blink too often, your eyelids will fail and you will no longer be able to blink.

     

    Right?

     

    No, of course not.


    Why would eyelids be better adapted to blinking than the heart is to beating?

      Why would you think that a lower HR is better, per se?

       

      Why would you think that a lower number of heartbeats in a [insett time period] is better?

       

      I don't know.

      As long as it's greater than zero, I've always been told by athletes that lower resting HR is better citing examples such as Lance Armstrong.

       

      I've tried to understand why, and I've thought along the lines of what DougB wrote.

      I've also thought about how the blood flows through the heart and the "speed" of the blood as it pushes through the muscle and fact that it might "flush out" the cholesterol and other plaque types of build up in the "tunnel".


      But, I really don't know why other than that's what "doctor's" and "athletes" say it should be.

       

      Brian

      2014 Goals:

      #1: Do what I can do. <DOING>

      #2: 365 Hours training <NOPE, INJURED>

       


      Feeling the growl again

        Right.  Jeff gets it.  Heart Rate is a classical confounder.  The cause of better health outcomes is NOT the Heart Rate, but aerobic conditioning.  Aerobic conditioning causees a lower heart rate and better health outcomes.

         

        Yes.  And there are pathological reasons for low HR as well.  Show up in the ER with a HR of 29 and don't tell them you are a highly trained endurance athlete and see what happens.

        "If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does.  There's your pep talk for today.  Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

         

          your heart has a factory limit on the total number of beats.  when you reach that limit you die.  that's why elephants live longer than hummingbirds. 

           

          I assume this is sarcasm, but either way last year a doctor told me that a healthy heart could last 150 years.  Of course, something else will go wrong in your body first, but if you take care of your heart it won't be the reason you die (except for defects that may be unknown)

           

          At birth you are not designated a predetermined number of beats, just like your feet do not have a predetermined number of steps it can take.

           

          MTA: If anyone prefers to believe that they only get a predesignated number of beats, that is ok, but they should realize that the rest of their body will never last that long to find out.

          Thank you for taking the time to read my signature!


          A Dance with Monkeys

            I've always been told by athletes that lower resting HR is better citing examples such as Lance Armstrong.

             

            It may or may not be better.

             

            However, per Jeff's point, the HR is an indicator of underlying good health, not a cause.


            And DoubB's point is just wrong.  Although one could make the philisophical argument that any given heart has a limited number of beats, and after that last beat is beat, the person dies, but that everybody's number is different AND the cause of death is usually something other than the heart deciding not to beat again (such as when hit by a train).  This is not a factory limit, but a metaphysical limit.

              philisophical argument

               

              ??

               

                It may or may not be better.

                 

                However, per Jeff's point, the HR is an indicator of underlying good health, not a cause.


                And DoubB's point is just wrong.  Although one could make the philisophical argument that any given heart has a limited number of beats, and after that last beat is beat, the person dies, but that everybody's number is different AND the cause of death is usually something other than the heart deciding not to beat again (such as when hit by a train).  This is not a factory limit, but a metaphysical limit.

                 

                I know that Doug's point is wrong (predestined # of beats...), but his 2nd post about the 23 hours at 50 and the 1 hour at 140 and comparing it to another person with 24 hours at 65 is pretty interesting.

                 

                And I do understand that the lower HR is a result of good aerobic conditioning and good health.


                 

                2014 Goals:

                #1: Do what I can do. <DOING>

                #2: 365 Hours training <NOPE, INJURED>

                 


                A Dance with Monkeys

                  his 2nd post about the 23 hours at 50 and the 1 hour at 140 and comparing it to another person with 24 hours at 65 is pretty interesting.

                   

                  Why is it interesting, even in the least?

                    Why is it interesting, even in the least?

                     

                    Because it support my complete bullshit theory. 

                    In an infinite universe, the one thing sentient life cannot afford to have is a sense of proportion

                    http://htwins.net/scale2/scale2.swf?bordercolor=white&fb_source=message

                     

                     

                     

                      Why is it interesting, even in the least?

                       

                      because I think in numbers... it's probably not at all interesting to anybody else.

                       

                      But

                      (23 * 60 * 50) + (60 * 140) = 77,400 beats per day

                      (24 * 60 * 65) = 93,600 beats per day

                      = 17% fewer beats per day

                       

                      It seems to me that one of the benefits may have been that due to aerobic conditioning and a lower resting HR, the total beats per day while living in a non-aerobic condition combined with the time that you're in an aerobic state is less than if you did not have a "strong heart".

                       

                      Therefore, I may have thought, the 1 hour of strain and stress creates non-activity benefits throughout the rest of the day by relaxing your heart and having it operate more efficient over the course of a given day.

                       

                      But I don't know (and don't have any thoughts regarding) the benefits of an efficient heart during non-activity time periods (remaining 23 hours).

                      2014 Goals:

                      #1: Do what I can do. <DOING>

                      #2: 365 Hours training <NOPE, INJURED>

                       

                        So, I've been presuming that with training, the heart muscle grows stronger and larger, and consequently the volume of blood pumped per beat increases.  Hence, lower heart rate to sustain resting functions.

                        Well at least someone here is making relevance to the subject.


                        A Dance with Monkeys

                          17% fewer beats per day

                           

                          But why is this important in the least?


                          A Dance with Monkeys

                            So, I've been presuming that with training, the heart muscle grows stronger and larger, and consequently the volume of blood pumped per beat increases.  Hence, lower heart rate to sustain resting functions.

                             

                            Right, so HR is a confounder.

                              An off-the-wall thought.  Training makes our muscles sore.  After a hard race, our heart muscle would also be sore, if it had nerves to tell us, right?

                              Well at least someone here is making relevance to the subject.

                                But

                                (23 * 60 * 50) + (60 * 140) = 77,400 beats per day

                                (24 * 60 * 65) = 93,600 beats per day

                                = 17% fewer beats per day

                                 

                                 

                                And I have a feeling that if we were to poll non-runners throughout our community of friends, they would guess that an athlete who works out 1 hour a day at a "high heart rate" would have more beats per day than someone who doesn't.

                                 

                                ... and that might be interesting

                                2014 Goals:

                                #1: Do what I can do. <DOING>

                                #2: 365 Hours training <NOPE, INJURED>