On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 16:32:04 +0100, Invisible wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 08:48:31 +0100, Invisible wrote:
>> 
>>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>
>>>> Lactic acid.  That also is what can make you feel queasy when working
>>>> out.
>>> OK, never heard of that one...
>> 
>> The wikipedia article about Lactic Acid talks about why it hangs around
>> during intense exercise.
> 
> No no, I know all about lactic acid. But I've never heard of anybody
> feeling queezy due to exercise. 

One of the trainers I worked with said it wasn't at all uncommon; the 
last trainer I worked with told me that eating a little bit before 
exercise will help with that.

> (Unless you've just eaten, of course.
> Jiggling around a full stomach isn't a good idea.)

Full stomach = bad, but eating a little bit = good.  I tried it myself 
when CJ suggested it, and he was right - that made it much better.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> But I've never heard of anybody feeling queezy due to exercise.

You haven't exercised hard enough. Really push yourself and you'll puke.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
    C# - a language whose greatest drawback
    is that its best implementation comes
    from a company that doesn't hate Microsoft.

Post a reply to this message

On 21-7-2010 16:26, Invisible wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> My heart rate (at rest) is 68.5+-5.5 (62--87)
> 
> So you're fit then?
> 
>> Heart rate is also a function of size*. The longer you are the lower 
>> your heart rate.
> 
> Really? I would have thought you'd need a higher heart rate to pump 
> blood further.

I think it is more like that you need to move more mass, both muscle and 
blood. And the time for the contraction wave to move along the entire 
heart increases too, because the velocity does not change that much. 
Imagine what would happen if a big whale heart (one a meter in length or 
more) beat once a second. If it could do that its vessels would probably 
tear apart or it would not contract simultaneously, one part contracting 
while another already starts to relax again. That would not pump much. 
Yet a mouse is perfectly capable of 10 times per second.

> Also, is that why my heart rate increases significantly if I stand up 
> rather than sit down?

LOL. I guess that is for comical reasons and you do know why.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> I think it is more like that you need to move more mass, 

I've read that the natural lifespans of mammals is surprisingly close to the 
same number of heartbeats for all of them.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
    C# - a language whose greatest drawback
    is that its best implementation comes
    from a company that doesn't hate Microsoft.

Post a reply to this message

On 21-7-2010 22:23, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> I think it is more like that you need to move more mass, 
> 
> I've read that the natural lifespans of mammals is surprisingly close to 
> the same number of heartbeats for all of them.
> 
Yes (most, some exceptions) and a surface ECG is almost the same size in 
every mammal (around 1mV) and breathing scales with size at about 5-10 
beats per breath in rest...

Post a reply to this message

On 21/07/2010 9:23 PM, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> I think it is more like that you need to move more mass,
>
> I've read that the natural lifespans of mammals is surprisingly close to
> the same number of heartbeats for all of them.
>

I've read recently that is not true. Humans are the exception.

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

4c475b03$1@news.povray.org...
> On 21/07/2010 9:23 PM, Darren New wrote:
>> andrel wrote:
>>> I think it is more like that you need to move more mass,
>>
>> I've read that the natural lifespans of mammals is surprisingly close to
>> the same number of heartbeats for all of them.
>>
>
> I've read recently that is not true. Humans are the exception.
What is the natural lifespan of human ?


Marc

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Or at least, count it. Yes, today I bought a heart monitor.
> 
> Or rather, I bought two. The first one looks like a normal wrist watch. 
> "No chest strap!" it boasts. Which is true, but unfortunately to 
> complete the circuit you have to touch the metal frame with your other 
> hand. Only when you do this do you get a reading. Which is of course 

> 
> So I returned it to the shop and got a nearly identical device which 
> also comes with a chest strap. This transmits wirelessly to the watch, 
> which displays a reading and some basic statistics.
> 
> So now I'm probably going to spend the rest of the way obsessing about 
> my heart rate. ;-)
> 
> Assuming this device is anywhere near accurate... should I be worried 
> that I'm idling at about 75 BPM, it hit 101 BPM at one point, and I 
> haven't actually got out of my chair yet?? o_O

Now for the exercise programme, I am told that you should aim for 120 to 
140 BPM or so, and either step of step down the intensity level to keep 
it in that range.  Over time the intensity level required to keep the 
pulse at this level will go up, meaning that you're getting healthier.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

On 21/07/2010 10:41 PM, M_a_r_c wrote:

> 4c475b03$1@news.povray.org...
>> On 21/07/2010 9:23 PM, Darren New wrote:
>>> andrel wrote:
>>>> I think it is more like that you need to move more mass,
>>>
>>> I've read that the natural lifespans of mammals is surprisingly close to
>>> the same number of heartbeats for all of them.
>>>
>>
>> I've read recently that is not true. Humans are the exception.
> What is the natural lifespan of human ?
>

I read that about 120 years is close to the maximum lifespan for humans. 

just under four and a half billion (1e9) heartbeats @ 70 bpm.
If we lived for 1 billion heartbeats like other animals then 27 years is 
our lot.


-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:

> You haven't exercised hard enough. Really push yourself and you'll puke.

OK, I am *so* trying that when I get home...

NOT! :-P

Post a reply to this message