fietsbob

Did in the past.. done before I tackled my Longest cyclo-tour for my 50th year.. Just to make sure.

Road Fan

One person says "endurance training" and another says "strenuous exercise" -- these don't sound to me like they are talking about the same actual degree of stress applied by the individual. Or are they?

Any body know of any actual literature on this that would explain what is actually the statement of the experts?

Western Flyer 

I’ve had few stress tests, ecos and Holters, and more ekgs than I can count, I’m sure 100+. As I understand it the goal of the stress test are two fold. One is to see if there is any damage to the heart muscles and equally important not to kill the patient. Every stress test I’ve taken I’ve had to sign a release form stating I might die from a heart attack during the test. They were definitely not looking for a personal best.

DaveQ24

Those are really great questions that makes me remember a life choice I made years ago as a college sophomore - whether to pursue a science-oriented career path or something else. I just didn't have the ability to learn the advanced math skills to go in that direction, but when I start thinking about questions like this and looking at the resources available online now, I wish I had a better, more formal scientific background. C'est la vie, I enjoy what I do - primarily tax law with a smattering of many other things thrown in - but diving into questions like this makes me a little nostalgic yet regretful. All tangential and irrelevant except to say I wish I could answer your primary question in an informed way.

I geeked out on your question for just a short time and found a vast number of possibly relevant references online - the problem is being able to understand it all and separate the chaff from the grain. And then make sense out of the pieces of relevant information. I think that this link, which I am posting not as "an answer to your question" but as an example of one of the many types of resources online that potentially might help answer your question, is a starting point:

JAP : J Appl Physiol

What we as interested but untrained amateurs with the status of patients or potential patients really need would be for some world-class researcher in cardiology, exercise physiology, or some other related discipline to come here and post some great, concise, truly informed definitive answers to all of these questions - if you fit that description and are lurking, please come forward, we certainly seem to be a flock in need of some shepherding.

DaveQ24

Here is my completely amateur take on that question, my only basis of knowledge and opinion coming from having hung around gyms for 10-15 hours a week for many years, doing a lot of one on one sessions with some really well educated personal trainers, reading, life in general, etc:

I'm sure that disciplines like exercise physiology, kinesiology and cardiology have actual technical definitions of those terms. Amateur or colloquial definitions are really where this group, this forum, is at.

Endurance training is easy for me to define as I understand it -a program of specific aerobic exercises aka "cardio" with limited supportive strength/resistance exercise added, performed following a set, progressive regimen with the goal of being able to compete or participate in short, medium or long duration events, competitive or not, which are beyond the level of intensity which the "average" untrained person could endure. A good example was the USA Masters Swim program I used to do - usually two coached group workouts a week of 90 to 120 minutes with a diverse set of drills and practices designed to improve technique, skill, endurance and speed.

"Strenuous" is a lot harder to nail down - moving target that varies from person to person. Which in a sense is the way it should be - relative to the indivudual's fitness and overall health - unfortunately in the United States of Obesity also a bar that is set way too low for society's overall health. I see it like this - a lot, I would say the vast majority in excess of 80%, of the members of this forum wouldn't flinch if they were asked to ride 10 miles at any pace they like. Make it 10 miles in 30 minutes and most are still on board. Ask "the general public" to do either of those and most people would probably find 10 leisurely miles way too hard - realistically a lot randomly-selected Americans without any underlying medical limitations would probably freak if you asked then to walk 2 miles. It's all relative to experience, health, fitness, attitude, motivation. If someone asked me to ride 100 miles this Saturday, my response would be "where, what time do we leave, and are what and where are we riding - pavement, trails, and what bike, road, hybrid or mountain? Ok, good, bring it!"

2 Piece

The usual protocol for a stress test is the "Bruce" protocol. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_protocol
After reading through these post I am surprised at how many the poster is actually worried about taking a stress test. To some it maybe hard, to others it will be easy. If you are 5'8" and 300 pounds it maybe hard, If you are 5'8" and 150 pounds it will probably be easy, but this too will depend on your level of fitness.

It looks as though I have had the most stress done, 6 or so over the last 10 years, They were all with nuclear tracer and one of them was done via ultra sound instead of the CAT scan.
Take it from me Chill out, it ain't no big deal, relax you will be OK. From what I have read here from the posters, I would agree most on here probably should get a stress test cause you are stressing out way to much over a stress test.
Number one rule in stress test is Do Not Try to Beat the Treadmill.

ModeratedUser150120149

Maybe a word of definition is in order. "Test" in this sense is Not A Competition. It is an observation to measure the heart. So, language like "I flunked", or "I passed", are not appropriate.

Results are single view snapshots of the heart's electical system and, by inference, of the heart.

Interpretation of results is very much an art. I have been in ACLS recurring education where there were almost as many interpretations as docs.

So, take an exercise stress test if you must. But treat it like someone putting a yard stick on the heart rather than a competition. No matter the measurement treat the interpretation with a whole sack full of salt.

metalheart44

I ave had one nuclear stress test, two stress-echocardiograms, and 4 or 5 regular stress tests since my first heart attack. Just to echo the "snapshot" comment above, just short of a week before my second heart attack, I had a stress test because of some persistent chest pain that could have been something other than heart issues but the stress test was done just to make sure. After the procedure, my cardiologist said that I was in the top 1% for people my age and that things looked good. Six days later I was in surgery getting another 2 stents. So, they can be diagnostic or not........

Darth Lefty 

Yeah, I worry about this, because I already have plenty for them to look at on an echo and worry that they won't get around to doing an angiogram to see coronary problems. :/

tsurr

our backgrounds are similar, ran 10k's to marathons for ~27 years before right knee gave up, also triathlons and many long bike rides, soon to be 73 years old, typically bike 5000 miles or more per year. During some major surgery had an echo cardiogram and ekg, they were trying to place a stint in my arm to measure blood flow and I kept blowing it out; then they asked what king of exercise I did and I explained. They said that they usually had to turn the volume up on the echo to hear it but for me a 1 was more than enough, blood volume off scale for my age, my heart rate was 58, and they were concerned, I informed them my normal rate was around 52 beat, and currently very stressed, they later told me my cardio profile was like a 40 year old who was very fit. On a previous treadmill test they could't max me out. I wAS TALKING AND MY HEART WAS 155 BEATS. We sort of freak out the medical community because we are the exception. One doctor said they were use to a 40 year old with a 70 year old profile, normal, but not a 70 year old with a 40 year old profile. My doctor get concerned about my max heart rate so he put me on a Beta blocker to slow it down. I am like you I don't view biking or running as exercise, but pure pleasure.

deacon mark

Ok, went back today for all the results. Stress test was ok lasted 13.5 minutes noted I was not in any distress stopped because of blood pressure but nothing abnormal in ekg. Eco-cardiogram was ok noted increase in some muscle wall thickness in heart consistent with endurance athlete. Holton 48 hr normal few pvc's that show but nothing out of the ordinary. Note ave heart rate was 56, low 33.

So I suppose anything can happen but keep running and riding. I sure feel better mentally and really wanted to go on the treadmill longer to see how far I could get but I will take it. The deacon gives all praise to the Lord.

RonH

Saw my cardiologist today to get the result of my annual stress test I had on Feb 1.
He said I'm still alive and that's good. He said I did excellent and found no problems.

bobwysiwyg

Interesting and timely thread. Last week of Sept. way up and in the western U.P. broke my left femur, out of cell range and miles from nowhere. Ended up in an excellent, as it turned out, 17 bed hospital in the Keweenaw peninsula. Before the surgery, I'm guessing due to my age, they did a nuclear stress test. It revealed an abnormality. The nearest hospital that could have evaluated it in greater depth was 2.5 hours away. Told them to go ahead with surgery and I would follow-up at home.

Saw a cardiologist who reviewed test results. He queried me about whether I had ever had a heart attack. Never have that I know of. He scheduled a CT scan which my insurer denied. Now scheduled for what I think they called a calcium scan? Not sure what it is, but it's tomorrow A.M. At this point I'm 95% curious and 5% concerned. Guess I'll know more, or not, tomorrow.

Biker395 

Your doc is doing the right thing. The scan will show the status of blockages in your cardiac arteries. It will either point out the need for further investigation or treatment (of which there are many) or ease your mind. Either way it's all good and better than an unexpected sudden heart attack.

RonH

My wife and I had the cardiac CT scan in 2009. Our insurance didn't pay so we paid the bill, $300 each. That's how I found out I have a "bad heart" and have been seeing a cardiologist since. Somehow none of this ever affected my riding. But it keeps me motivated to ride. Great cardio workout.

bobwysiwyg

Had the scan this morning, no results yet of course. Chatting with the tech it seems all the insurers have stopped paying for this scan. By the way, it is the scan my doctor prescribed, just not covered. I paid $100 so I guess I can't complain. Not sure what my game plan is knowing my score when I get it.

BlazingPedals

Mind you, my opinion of health care reform is that health care should be made affordable enough that we don't need insurance for routine stuff like office visits and drugs. But compared to what it could have been, a hundred bucks ain't bad.

bobwysiwyg

Couldn't agree more.

bobwysiwyg

Well, cardiologist's office called, CT score result, 687, Yipes! Setup an appointment for Thursday for review and next steps. Still having trouble equating this to other factors, if accurate, suggest I'm pretty fit.

Biker395 

Is that high? I don't recall.

Look at the bright side ... you've identified a problem that can be treated well with modern techniques. For a lot of people, their first heart attack is their last.

I had a (non-blood) relative that found themselves getting winded easily, and after their GP dismissed it as depression, vitamin deficiencies, hormone deficiencies, and a host of other things, finally got checked out. They had a 95% blockage of one of their cardiac arteries. Now that's a bullet-dodging experience.

bobwysiwyg

The chart they gave me after the test had 400 something as the high!

Biker395 

Yikes. Sorry to hear that!

This is the reason I've become a disciple of those calcium scans. I know people who are perfectly healthy and presumed to be near zero risk to tested badly, and others who were thought to be high risk, on statins, and the calcium scan revealed no blockages whatsoever. They are now off the statins.

You have a point of reference now ... your doc can come up with a treatment plan to make sure you're riding for a long time to come. Knowledge is power, baby.

bobwysiwyg

"Knowledge is power, baby. "

Yup, one of my mantras. The other is there is no such thing as too conspicuous.

rck

I have questions: Mobile 155 and 2 Piece-Do you mean angiogram?

bobwysiwyg-a stress test with a broken femur? Ow-sounds painful or did they use meds instead? Good luck with upcoming Dr's visit.

2 Piece

Well, I don't exactly remember the post you are referring to. I have had several heart catheter procedures which can be an angiogram and I have had angiogram. Stents implanted twice, wanted a better look on two other occasions. I have had nuclear stress test every two years since 2006, but this past year I have had two echocardiograms. I have some pretty serious health issues that has appeared in 2016 and unfortunately has pretty much grounded me from riding. My message to all the people on here concerned about a stress test is... don't worry about it, it isn't that big of deal.