Originally Posted by
Carbonfiberboy
Actually it's not BS. And you are correct about the rest of it. That's a big reason that those who exercise live longer. It's probably not quite that simple, and counting heartbeats may be a symptom, not a cause, but for sure a lower resting HR is a good thing. Low resting HR can also accompany the over-stressed heart syndrome, but it's certainly not diagnostic.
My personal experience: I've been training hard for 20 years, starting when I was 50. I was at my peak about 10 years ago, riding ego-busting group rides every Sunday, intervals midweek, the usual, and did experience "stutter." My doc fitted my with a Halter device, but it didn't show anything. I backed it off a bit and that went away. At 70, my HR doesn't drop as fast as it used to, but it's still decent. My resting HR is ~44, standing resting HR ~54, LT ~143. Don't know max, but it must be ~158. I'll see over 150 once in a while. Don't do many intervals anymore, but I still participate in fast group rides, just not as fast as they used to be - we've all gotten older. In endurance events I don't try to come anywhere near LT any more, though I can still take it into zone 5 on centuries and shorter. Eventually it'll be a cartoon: racing down the hallway with our walkers.
How is it not bs AND I'm right for the rest of it?
You're saying that if I was born and decided to do cocaine and heroin and eat poorly and sleep poorly that I'd still have as many heart beats as if I exercised and ate well?
I'd tend to agree that intervals themselves are hard on yourself, but if you spend an hour a day at 150 beats and the rest of your day at 50 beats, you come out way ahead compared to someone who does no activity and has a resting heart rate of 80.
1 hour * 150 beats + 23 hours * 50 beats = 78,000 beats per day
24 hours * 80 beats = 115,200 beats per day
You could even change the exercise individual's RHR to 60 and the non-exercise individual's to 70 and you still come out almost 10,000 beats ahead.