>From:	Robert W. Avery <[log in to unmask]>

Mine [heartbeat] (on a fairly
> sedentary regime)is usually in the low 50's.

Mine is about the same, & can get down below 50 on long fasts.

Mightn't exercise tone up the muscles,including the heart muscle, such
that they would operate moreefficiently, become stronger, and thereby
last longer?

This may be true, but I more concerned with what the wastes
generated by all this activity will do to the rest of your organs.
Heart failure is probably not going to be on most of our death
certificates.

>As a simplistic theory, suppose that we are each entitled to
> "x" number of heartbeats per lifetime.

Various attempts have been made to correlate lifespan with metabolic
rate & sometimes heartbeats, with varying degrees of success.  I is
not quite that simple.

>Well, when exercising, I am clearly squandering heartbeats,

And clearly foreclosing most elimination while generating large
volumes of wastes.

> but during the intervals between exercising, I'm
>saving heartbeats if my exercise training has lowered my norma
>l pulse rate.  If the beats I save between exercise periods are greate
>r than the beats I squander during exercise, mightn't I be extending, not
>shortening, my life by this athletic training?

There seems to be a logical error in all this, but I'm not really
clear why marathoners can depress their pulse rate so far.  My
lowest has been in the low 40s when deep into a fast.  Let me put it
the other way:  how can something which raises your pulse so high be
good for you?  Again, I think the automotive engine analogy is
appropriate: engines only wear out through use.

--Doug Schwartz
[log in to unmask]