Comment by jacurtis | Hacker News Reader

Comment by jacurtis | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

That's what you hypothesize. Research like this affirms your hypothesis with fact.

There are historically lots of things that "seemed obvious" but couldn't hold up under research, which is why we do research. It confirms what you think or maybe it forces you to question what you think. Either way, it is good.

Case and point, there is a rising opinion lately which Trump has promoted that your heart only beats a set, finite number, of beats in a lifetime. Therefore, according to this opposing hypothesis, it makes sense to not perform intense cardiovascular activity throughout your life, because it accelerates your heart hitting that finite limit that it is capable of. This opinion has gained traction in recent years and to some people it "seems obvious" that a faster heartrate might wear it out more quickly, leading to premature death. So to those people, research like this defeats their assumptions and helps them feel more confident about performing exercise because it is research-backed that Cardiovascular Fitness prolongs life.

That's why research is important. Obvious shouldn't stand for anything.

Not agreeing with the (somewhat amusing) limited heartbeats theory, but even under that theory, cardio is beneficial since it lowers your resting heart rate.

e.g.

my HR is 50 thanks to running an hour a day, my HR during those runs are between 120 to 150, that gives 50x60x23+150x60 == 78000 beats a day

a non runner might've a HR of 60 (being very generous, most folks are well above 70), that gives 60x60x24 == 86400 beats

Again, the limited heartbeats theory sounds like an oversimplification. But the point of rigorous training (cardio and strength) is that your body adapts to the taxing efforts during training and doesn't need to work nearly as hard for your day to day.

For most adults, a resting heart rate above about 60 bpm is a sign of serious underlying pathology. Doctors usually won't recommend medical treatment unless resting heart rate exceeds 100 bpm, but over time there is a significantly increased risk of premature death.

> For most adults, a resting heart rate above about 60 bpm is a sign of serious underlying pathology.

Sources? The claim I most recently heard is that 60-80 bpm is within normal range (which itself surprised me, because I've usually been told a target of 60 bpm resting heartrate, leaving aside the 40 bpm achievable by some athletes).

I think they were asserting that people are out of shape because they are sick, and that this study does not imply the causality most people would assume: that getting in shape will make you live longer.

The study itself can’t address the direction of causality because it is observational.

Surely the number of beats of a higher heart rate while exercising would be more than offset by the lower resting heart rate of a fitter person?

Weird though since you can get your resting heart rate much lower by exercising.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com