And also it would need to be cross-evaluated against whether early expenditure of heartbeats prevents even earlier death from things like diabeetus.

I love that AG always broadcasts her location in real-time.

That's too complex. This is just to test the hypothesis, favored by a certain former President, that there is a maximum number of times your heart can beat before you die, notwithstanding any other potential causes of death. This would just look at the total number of heart beats before death for anyone who didn't die of something else, like cancer, or a stroke, or a bus, to name a few options.

It was then used to justify not exercising as a method to prolong life. That itself would require testing in addition to the part you're focused on.

If you had a finite number of beats, exercise would be detrimental. You would want to be as lethargic as possible to keep the ticker ticking slooowly.

Nah. If you disprove the basic hypothesis, you disprove any corollaries.

That should be fine. My road club has a full slate of rides on the schedule including a 93 mile trip to Moorpark Ridge and back. That means climbing Santa Susana in 110 degree heat near the end. Nope. Did enough of that.
They also have 3 remote rides starting closer to the ocean. I haven't heard from any friends yet.

Except that sedentary people tend to have higher HR. Apparently "normal" resting HR is 60-100 bpm.

SO! Let's take a sedentary person. Their HR of 60-100 yields 86,400 - 144,000 beats per day.

Now, let's posit somebody fitter. This person has a RHR of 45, and they do 1 1/2 hours of exercise with an average HR of 120. So, in the 22 1/2 hours they aren't exercising, their heart beats 60,750 times. In the 1 1/2 hours they exercise, it beats 10,800.

Add those two together, and you get 71,550 beats a day - at least 14,850 FEWER beats than the sedentary individual. Roughly every 6 days, they'd gain an extra day of longevity over the sedentary person.

SO, EVEN IF it were true that there's a maximum number of beats, you'd use them up quicker if you never exercised.

You may be on to something.

So you're saying that at some point in the future, my right arm will simply hang useless, one might say impotent, at my side?

Mrs datlas and I still won’t eat inside a restaurant. We went to a local brewpub that has an outdoor patio.

:bday:


https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...6f38203fd.jpeg

I have never done that, and it's already enough.

:twitchy:

So the difference is, you're thinking "How quickly can I disprove?". I'm thinking "What'd be the requirement to actually prove the hypothesis?". Which does require both steps.

I wouldn't either!

In my business, you don't prove hypotheses. You either succeed or fail in disproving them, and how solid your hypothesis is depends on how hard you try to disprove it. Essentially, Science is about trying as hard as you can to prove yourself wrong, and if you fail, you succeed!

My last experience, I called Uber. Mrs. F was unaware I had an issue. It was personally frustrating, but the house stayed peaceful. I'll take it as a win.

:bang:

This is the issue I run into trying to talk to Science! types.

I plead guilty.

I've done a lot of stupid stuff.

Oh, me too! But not that particular stupid thing.

Proving that something that is false is false is easier and more definitive than proving that something that is true is true. That's just how it works.

I had a white Trek and I was climbing in 115 degree heat and I noticed the top tube was turning red. Turned out my nose was the culprit. Still had to get home.
All of my club rides of any distance involve at least some climbing to get back into the valley where I live.

One 4th of July we rode to the beach and on the way back someone in a car told us it was 114.

A cycling riend of mine had bypass surgery about 5 years ago and recently had knee replacement. He's like 69. Anyway, he had to have his cardiologist sign off before this knee surgery and the doc said that he had had another heart attack at some point. No idea when.