 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 20/07/2010 11:55 AM, Invisible wrote:
> I wanted to see whether that's actually the best one to use, or whether
> there's something better.
Try the femoral artery. It is good for getting to know girls better. ;-)
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> You can't get brain damage from measuring your pulse.
>
> Not unless you cut an artery and time the spurts. ;-)
One...
T-t-too...
Thre..e...eeee....
*thud*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I wanted to see whether that's actually the best one to use, or whether
>> there's something better.
>
> Try the femoral artery. It is good for getting to know girls better. ;-)
Ladies and gentleman, we have a winner! :-D
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Try regular daily exercise.
Yeah, that would be a start...
Then again, I've reached the point now where I take up to 4 hours of
dance classes per week. (And 3 hours of that is Rock & Roll.) Obviously
[or perhaps not?] a one hour class isn't a continuous one hour workout.
You stand around waiting for whoever to sort out the next CD. You
practice a move through, stop, try it again, stop and try again. You
dance a combination of moves and then have a rest. Still, it's certainly
better than nothing.
The best part about dancing, of course, is that it's *fun*. It makes you
*want* to do it. And let's face it, if you enjoy doing something, you're
way more likely to keep doing it more and more often.
Still, unless I get to the point where I dance every single day [which
would probably be quite expensive], I think I probably am going to have
to do something else as well.
> If you do this for at least 6 months, you'll notice how your rest pulse
> will start lowering as you get into better shape.
Part of the reason I bought this heart monitor was to see if I make any
improvement over time. (Although now I'm just not sure whether it
actually *works* or not...)
> (For most optimal results, you would have to start also watching a bit
> what you eat. More proteins and fibers, less carbs, more plant fats and
> less animal fats.)
...so, *not* cheese on toast then?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> > Try regular daily exercise.
> Yeah, that would be a start...
> Then again, I've reached the point now where I take up to 4 hours of
> dance classes per week. (And 3 hours of that is Rock & Roll.) Obviously
> [or perhaps not?] a one hour class isn't a continuous one hour workout.
> You stand around waiting for whoever to sort out the next CD. You
> practice a move through, stop, try it again, stop and try again. You
> dance a combination of moves and then have a rest. Still, it's certainly
> better than nothing.
Sounds like much better than nothing, but if you really want to get into
better shape in a rational amount of time, you need that (about) 1 hour of
cardio 5 or 6 times a week (preferably 6).
Walking is good exercise because it's easy to do even for someone who is
in bad shape, and doesn't require a lot of fitness to begin with. As long
as you walking pace is fast enough (you get a bit exhausted and break a
sweat) it's as good as going to the gym.
> > (For most optimal results, you would have to start also watching a bit
> > what you eat. More proteins and fibers, less carbs, more plant fats and
> > less animal fats.)
> ...so, *not* cheese on toast then?
Cheese is ok (lots of protein, no carbs), but of course in moderation,
as everything else. Toast is usually made of white bread, which has
staggering amounts of carbohydrates. If it's basically the *only* source
of carbs you have (ie. you don't eat candy and such), then it's ok, but
don't exaggerate.
From your photos I don't think you are overweight, so you don't have to
watch so much your carb intake, as long as your diet is *balanced* and
healthy. Just don't go overboard. Eating candy and pastries all day long
is a bad idea no matter what your weight or fitness. (If nothing else, too
much sugar increases the risk of diabetes and caries, and via that indirectly
heart problems.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mca### [at] aoldotcom> wrote:
> On 20/07/2010 11:55 AM, Invisible wrote:
> > I wanted to see whether that's actually the best one to use, or whether
> > there's something better.
> Try the femoral artery. It is good for getting to know girls better. ;-)
I envision the pick-up line: "Hey, can I palpate your pulse from your
femoral artery? For scientific purposes only."
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> I envision the pick-up line: "Hey, can I palpate your pulse from your
> femoral artery? For scientific purposes only."
Hell man, if *that* worked, scientists would get laid all the time! ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 20/07/2010 1:50 PM, Warp wrote:
> Stephen<mca### [at] aoldotcom> wrote:
>> On 20/07/2010 11:55 AM, Invisible wrote:
>>> I wanted to see whether that's actually the best one to use, or whether
>>> there's something better.
>
>> Try the femoral artery. It is good for getting to know girls better. ;-)
>
> I envision the pick-up line: "Hey, can I palpate your pulse from your
> femoral artery? For scientific purposes only."
>
You missed out "It won't hurt much".
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mca### [at] aoldotcom> wrote:
> > I envision the pick-up line: "Hey, can I palpate your pulse from your
> > femoral artery? For scientific purposes only."
> You missed out "It won't hurt much".
Why would it hurt at all?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 20/07/2010 2:33 PM, Warp wrote:
> Stephen<mca### [at] aoldotcom> wrote:
>>> I envision the pick-up line: "Hey, can I palpate your pulse from your
>>> femoral artery? For scientific purposes only."
>
>> You missed out "It won't hurt much".
>
> Why would it hurt at all?
>
I was thinking of it as a pressure point, not comfortable.
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mca### [at] aolDOTcom> wrote:
> On 20/07/2010 2:33 PM, Warp wrote:
> > Stephen<mca### [at] aoldotcom> wrote:
> >>> I envision the pick-up line: "Hey, can I palpate your pulse from your
> >>> femoral artery? For scientific purposes only."
> >
> >> You missed out "It won't hurt much".
> >
> > Why would it hurt at all?
> >
>
> I was thinking of it as a pressure point, not comfortable.
The slap might hurt, though.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> Try regular daily exercise.
>
>> Yeah, that would be a start...
>
>> Then again, I've reached the point now where I take up to 4 hours of
>> dance classes per week. (And 3 hours of that is Rock & Roll.) Obviously
>> [or perhaps not?] a one hour class isn't a continuous one hour workout.
>> You stand around waiting for whoever to sort out the next CD. You
>> practice a move through, stop, try it again, stop and try again. You
>> dance a combination of moves and then have a rest. Still, it's certainly
>> better than nothing.
>
> Sounds like much better than nothing, but if you really want to get into
> better shape in a rational amount of time, you need that (about) 1 hour of
> cardio 5 or 6 times a week (preferably 6).
Heh. Maybe all I need to do is go outside and dance Tiger Feet for a
while each night I'm not at class? ;-)
(Tiger Feet is a simple yet energetic dance. I imagine it's probably
about as effective as doing star jumps for a while, while being less
dull - mainly due to the presence of Mud.)
> Walking is good exercise because it's easy to do even for someone who is
> in bad shape, and doesn't require a lot of fitness to begin with. As long
> as you walking pace is fast enough (you get a bit exhausted and break a
> sweat) it's as good as going to the gym.
I've always been a sprint runner, not long distance. At school, I could
sprint extremely fast, but I almost couldn't finish a 100m sprint due to
lack of energy.
I have quite literally *no idea* how I survived Saturday night. Usually
when I dance it takes me ages to recover. But on Saturday night, I
danced and danced and danced and danced. And, more to the point, I
didn't feel tired. Even when I got home at, like, 1am, you'd *think* I
would be half asleep and my legs would be like lead. But no, I was wide
awake, I was dancing drop-basics on my way from the car to the front
door, I was hoping and skipping. I was *psyched*! I have no idea how the
hell I did that...
I do quite often go for a walk in my lunch break at work. Trouble is, I
*can't* break into a sweat, because I've got to sit at my desk for the
rest of the day. Besides, I find that if I walk fast, long before I get
breathless or sweaty, I get crippling cramps in my legs, particularly my
calf muscles.
>>> (For most optimal results, you would have to start also watching a bit
>>> what you eat. More proteins and fibers, less carbs, more plant fats and
>>> less animal fats.)
>
>> ...so, *not* cheese on toast then?
>
> Cheese is ok (lots of protein, no carbs), but of course in moderation,
> as everything else. Toast is usually made of white bread, which has
> staggering amounts of carbohydrates. If it's basically the *only* source
> of carbs you have (ie. you don't eat candy and such), then it's ok, but
> don't exaggerate.
>
> From your photos I don't think you are overweight, so you don't have to
> watch so much your carb intake, as long as your diet is *balanced* and
> healthy. Just don't go overboard. Eating candy and pastries all day long
> is a bad idea no matter what your weight or fitness. (If nothing else, too
> much sugar increases the risk of diabetes and caries, and via that indirectly
> heart problems.)
My diet consists mainly of cheese sandwiches, cheese on toast, pizza,
pasta and chicken.
Around 2009, my weight suddenly started increasing for no apparent
reason. (The only lifestyle change I can think of is that that's when I
started dancing.) Now half my trousers don't fit any more. But beyond
that, I'm still the stick insect I always was.
Oh, and I was fairly recently poked and prodded by a doctor because I
kept having random chest pains. We determined fairly comprehensively
that whatever the problem was, it wasn't heart-related.
Never the less, sitting motionless until your legs actually hurt from
lack of bloodflow surely can't be healthy...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> During the first dance, the device registered a maximum BPM reading of
>> 193.
>
> Are you sure the device is working properly?
Seems ok to me for a not-super-fit person doing a strenuous dance. I know
if I start out on my bike and attack the hill at the end of my road full
power I can easily get to 180+ within a minute or two. But my watch gives
me 3 beeps when it goes over 175 so I know to back off a bit.
> On the other hand, while driving home, the monitor did briefly flash up
> 206 BPM,
ANything can interferes with the signal between the chest strap and the
watch can cause problems. If I cycle under power cables, or near an
electrified railway track it screws up. Cars are notorious for electrical
interference, so I wouldn't believe anything it says whilst in a car.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 20/07/2010 2:59 PM, Bill Pragnell wrote:
> Stephen<mca### [at] aolDOTcom> wrote:
>> On 20/07/2010 2:33 PM, Warp wrote:
>>> Stephen<mca### [at] aoldotcom> wrote:
>>>>> I envision the pick-up line: "Hey, can I palpate your pulse from your
>>>>> femoral artery? For scientific purposes only."
>>>
>>>> You missed out "It won't hurt much".
>>>
>>> Why would it hurt at all?
>>>
>>
>> I was thinking of it as a pressure point, not comfortable.
>
> The slap might hurt, though.
>
>
There is that :-)
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> My diet consists mainly of cheese sandwiches, cheese on toast, pizza,
> pasta and chicken.
> Around 2009, my weight suddenly started increasing for no apparent
> reason.
There is a reason: Age.
While this varies a lot from person to person, it's extremely common that
when you are young (ie. in your early twenties) you can often eat whatever
you like and nothing special happens, but when you reach a certain age,
often around the point when you turn middle-aged, suddenly your body
chemistry changes and it starts storing most of that energy instead of
getting rid of it. Suddenly you notice that you can't eat all the junk food
you ate in your early twenties without it going to your belly and thighs.
(This is very often accentuated by the fact that at this age you usually
start going to real jobs and getting some serious income, allowing you to
spend more on junk food, while at the same time reducing the amount of
exercise you get because you don't have the time anymore, being busy at
work and all.)
It is just a fact of life that when you reach a certain age (typically
somewhere around 30) you just must start watching what you eat if you don't
want your belly to start growing. There are exceptions, of course, but it's
pretty common.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> is called throttling, a choke cuts off the air supply and strangling is
> a combination of both (British definition).
It never even occurred to me to wonder if these three words had different
definitions. Cool.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> (I've never heard of it being measured from your neck. I especially like
> the way the instructions said "but don't press too hard". Um, why? What
> happens if you press too hard??)
If you press too hard then you close off the vein and you can't feel the
pulse any more.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> I do quite often go for a walk in my lunch break at work. Trouble is, I
> *can't* break into a sweat, because I've got to sit at my desk for the
> rest of the day.
So pack a bag in your car with extra shirts, a stick of deoderant, and some
hand towels, and wash off when you get back. Most office buildings have
showers for just this reason, but it doesn't sound like you work in a real
office building.
> Besides, I find that if I walk fast, long before I get
> breathless or sweaty, I get crippling cramps in my legs, particularly my
> calf muscles.
When that happens, stop and stretch. That's the lactose(?) building up, and
stretching your muscles works it into the blood stream where it can get
properly recycled/disposed/digested/whatever.
> Around 2009, my weight suddenly started increasing for no apparent
> reason.
Welcome to the f'ing club. It's called getting older.
> Never the less, sitting motionless until your legs actually hurt from
> lack of bloodflow surely can't be healthy...
Well, no. Get up and go outside and walk around the building a couple times.
It's also probably bad air in the place unless you have windows that open,
so getting the stale co2 out of your system for a few minutes will help you
think also.
--
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 Tue, 20 Jul 2010 08:33:36 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> When that happens, stop and stretch. That's the lactose(?) building up,
> and stretching your muscles works it into the blood stream where it can
> get properly recycled/disposed/digested/whatever.
Lactic acid. That also is what can make you feel queasy when working
out; one of the trainers I worked with suggested eating something (not a
lot, an energy bar or something like that) right before working out to
help with the queasiness.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 20/07/2010 4:25 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>> is called throttling, a choke cuts off the air supply and strangling
>> is a combination of both (British definition).
>
> It never even occurred to me to wonder if these three words had
> different definitions. Cool.
>
It's not really important in RL, it's more of a martial arts thing. If
you relate choke and throttle to old cars it is easy to remember.
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 20/07/2010 4:27 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> (I've never heard of it being measured from your neck. I especially
>> like the way the instructions said "but don't press too hard". Um,
>> why? What happens if you press too hard??)
>
> If you press too hard then you close off the vein and you can't feel the
> pulse any more.
>
In lieu of Andrel, I'll point out that vein's don't have pulses,
arteries do. :-P
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> In lieu of Andrel, I'll point out that vein's don't have pulses,
> arteries do. :-P
Damnit, now I fancy lentil soup. >_<
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> In lieu of Andrel, I'll point out that vein's don't have pulses,
> arteries do. :-P
True. I was thinking veins because they usually run closer to the surface,
but now that you mention it...
--
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 20/07/2010 10:34 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>> In lieu of Andrel, I'll point out that vein's don't have pulses,
>> arteries do. :-P
>
> True. I was thinking veins because they usually run closer to the
> surface, but now that you mention it...
>
Veni, vidi, vici or do I mean In vino veritas? ;-)
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> Lactic acid. That also is what can make you feel queasy when working
> out.
OK, never heard of that one...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I do quite often go for a walk in my lunch break at work. Trouble is,
>> I *can't* break into a sweat, because I've got to sit at my desk for
>> the rest of the day.
>
> So pack a bag in your car with extra shirts, a stick of deoderant, and
> some hand towels, and wash off when you get back. Most office buildings
> have showers for just this reason, but it doesn't sound like you work in
> a real office building.
Heh, well the building is real, and it does contain offices. Then again,
given that the *door handles* don't work [and you'd think it would be
pretty much impossible to get something that trivial wrong], god only
knows how broken the showers would be if we had some...
Actually, one of the girls brings a bag with her to work, and just
before home time you see her toddle off to the little girls' room and
come back looking all sporty and cute. [I probably shouldn't describe
other people's wives that way...] Still, that's because she goes to the
gym just *after* work.
>> Besides, I find that if I walk fast, long before I get
>> breathless or sweaty, I get crippling cramps in my legs, particularly
>> my calf muscles.
>
> When that happens, stop and stretch. That's the lactose(?) building up,
> and stretching your muscles works it into the blood stream where it can
> get properly recycled/disposed/digested/whatever.
In my case, that would probably result in a lot of stopping and not very
much walking.
I think I might just be walking too rigidly or something... Nobody else
has any problem with it.
> Welcome to the f'ing club. It's called getting older.
I'm old. :'{
And all I can think about now is "damn, I really should have hooked up
with a girl while I was still handsom..."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> During the first dance, the device registered a maximum BPM reading of
>>> 193.
>>
>> Are you sure the device is working properly?
>
> Seems ok to me for a not-super-fit person doing a strenuous dance. I
> know if I start out on my bike and attack the hill at the end of my road
> full power I can easily get to 180+ within a minute or two. But my
> watch gives me 3 beeps when it goes over 175 so I know to back off a bit.
My dad claims his sometimes exceeds 200 BPM. I must admit, I didn't
think that was an outrageous number until everybody here started being
all like "dude, if it hits 150 BPM you'd nearly be in a coma!"
>> On the other hand, while driving home, the monitor did briefly flash up
>> 206 BPM,
>
> ANything can interferes with the signal between the chest strap and the
> watch can cause problems. If I cycle under power cables, or near an
> electrified railway track it screws up. Cars are notorious for
> electrical interference, so I wouldn't believe anything it says whilst
> in a car.
That's fine, but it also occasionally does this when I'm sitting in the
house too. Why the heck would it do that?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
Also, is that why my heart rate increases significantly if I stand up
rather than sit down?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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. (Unless you've just eaten, of course.
Jiggling around a full stomach isn't a good idea.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Stephen" <mca### [at] aolDOTcom> a écrit dans le message de news:
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
> utterly useless - especially for a device that costs £50.
>
> 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:
> "Stephen"<mca### [at] aolDOTcom> a écrit dans le message de news:
> 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.
Assuming you don’t die of war, accidents or disease. That would give you
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> On the other hand, while driving home, the monitor did briefly flash up
>> 206 BPM,
>
> ANything can interferes with the signal between the chest strap and the
> watch can cause problems. If I cycle under power cables, or near an
> electrified railway track it screws up. Cars are notorious for
> electrical interference, so I wouldn't believe anything it says whilst
> in a car.
Last night, I drove to my dance class, and I drove home again. And on
both journeys, the monitor went crazy just as I drove past a specific
roundabout. I have no idea why, but that seems like one hell of a
coincidence...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> My dad claims his sometimes exceeds 200 BPM.
See link below...
> I must admit, I didn't think that was an outrageous number until everybody
> here started being all like "dude, if it hits 150 BPM you'd nearly be in a
> coma!"
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ad/Exercise_zones.png
If I do a "harcore" cycle ride for an hour or so my average is usually about
155, which seems inside the 152-171 zone identified by that chart for my
age.
> That's fine, but it also occasionally does this when I'm sitting in the
> house too. Why the heck would it do that?
Spurious electrical noise from things switching on/off?
> Last night, I drove to my dance class, and I drove home again. And on both
> journeys, the monitor went crazy just as I drove past a specific
> roundabout. I have no idea why, but that seems like one hell of a
> coincidence...
High voltage electric cables above or below the ground? Or a train line?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ad/Exercise_zones.png
>
> If I do a "harcore" cycle ride for an hour or so my average is usually
> about 155, which seems inside the 152-171 zone identified by that chart
> for my age.
I thought your heart rates were determined by your current level of
fitness rather than just your age.
>> Last night, I drove to my dance class, and I drove home again. And on
>> both journeys, the monitor went crazy just as I drove past a specific
>> roundabout. I have no idea why, but that seems like one hell of a
>> coincidence...
>
> High voltage electric cables above or below the ground? Or a train line?
In fact, I seem to remember it happened to be that same location the
*first* time I noticed it go wrong in the car too. So that's three
malfunctions, all on the same road. Certainly sounds like an
interferrence problem, doesn't it?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I thought your heart rates were determined by your current level of
> fitness rather than just your age.
I am not an expert, but I think those ranges for the different sorts of
exercise are just depending on your age. How much actual work you have to
do to get your heart rate in to those ranges will depend on how fit you are.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> I thought your heart rates were determined by your current level of
>> fitness rather than just your age.
>
> I am not an expert, but I think those ranges for the different sorts of
> exercise are just depending on your age.
Actually, the ranges are some percentage of your maximum heart rate. If you
don't care to measure your maximum heart rate, then you can use a chart and
assume you have a fairly average maximum heart rate.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Stephen" <mca### [at] aolDOTcom> a écrit dans le message de news:
4c47d6f1@news.povray.org...
>
> I read that about 120 years is close to the maximum lifespan for humans.
> Assuming you don’t die of war, accidents or disease. That would give you
> 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.
>
120years is the maximum theorical lifespan with all the knowledge in
medecine, nutrition, etc... applied
You may call that "natural" but then it is not the same nature as animals,
is it? ;)
Marc
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 22/07/2010 4:53 PM, M_a_r_c wrote:
> "Stephen"<mca### [at] aolDOTcom> a écrit dans le message de news:
> 4c47d6f1@news.povray.org...
>>
>> I read that about 120 years is close to the maximum lifespan for humans.
>> Assuming you don’t die of war, accidents or disease. That would give you
>> 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.
>>
> 120years is the maximum theorical lifespan with all the knowledge in
> medecine, nutrition, etc... applied
> You may call that "natural" but then it is not the same nature as animals,
> is it? ;)
>
True, and you could say that human behaviour is not "natural" anyway.
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> True, and you could say that human behaviour is not "natural" anyway.
Please explain what "unnatural" means, other than being synonymous with
"human behavior"?
--
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 23/07/2010 5:21 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>> True, and you could say that human behaviour is not "natural" anyway.
>
> Please explain what "unnatural" means, other than being synonymous with
> "human behavior"?
>
LOL
Not natural and unnatural and not the same. :-P
I meant that we (humans) modify our behaviour for our overall benefit.
For instance a dog will overeat until it cannot easily stand then
continue to eat. Whereas we will diet.*
Well that is the theory.
* If anyone has been affected by any of the views expressed in this post
then grow a skin. :-P
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> I achieved 195 BPM during that dance, and that's still the
> maximum count for the entire evening.
Amusingly (or not?) even when I dance "normally" I hit 180 BPM or so.
Now I can understand that when I go out and utterly dance my socks off,
I might hit a high number. But even when I'm dancing comparatively
casually in class the numbers aren't all that much lower. Interesting...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
