Bike Forums

Bike Forums (https://www.bikeforums.net/forum.php)
-   Road Cycling (https://www.bikeforums.net/forumdisplay.php?f=41)
-   -   Addiction 2022.3 (https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=1254494)

Bah Humbug 08-31-22 03:28 PM


Originally Posted by genejockey (Post 22631247)
It would require about 100 years and a very large N, monitored constantly the whole time. You'd have to bulk up the N to account for all those who die from misadventure or other causes unrelated to running out of heartbeats.

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

Bah Humbug 08-31-22 03:35 PM


Originally Posted by genejockey (Post 22631246)
Last time I had to call, when my tire was slashed by glass, I made sure to remain cheerful and friendly when she arrived, rather than responding to her negativity with defensiveness, and it helped a lot. That, and she'd finally figured out how to use "Find My Friends" and Siri on her iPhone so she could locate me and get directions easily.

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

genejockey 08-31-22 03:38 PM


Originally Posted by Bah Humbug (Post 22631398)
And also it would need to be cross-evaluated against whether early expenditure of heartbeats prevents even earlier death from things like diabeetus.

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.

Bah Humbug 08-31-22 03:51 PM


Originally Posted by genejockey (Post 22631409)
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.

Mojo31 08-31-22 04:19 PM

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.

genejockey 08-31-22 04:20 PM


Originally Posted by Bah Humbug (Post 22631430)
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.

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

big john 08-31-22 04:32 PM


Originally Posted by Eric F (Post 22631340)
Plans for Sunday morning dirt with my westside buddy, and bringing another friend from SGV with me. Saturday will probably be 8am on the road for a couple hours.

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.

genejockey 08-31-22 04:40 PM


Originally Posted by Mojo31 (Post 22631470)
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.

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.

datlas 08-31-22 04:42 PM


Originally Posted by genejockey (Post 22631339)
It would be like thinking any other muscle had a fixed number of contractions before it stopped working. I guess that would argue for lower cadence, huh?

You may be on to something.

genejockey 08-31-22 04:44 PM


Originally Posted by datlas (Post 22631494)
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?

datlas 08-31-22 04:44 PM

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

genejockey 08-31-22 04:44 PM


Originally Posted by big john (Post 22631484)
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.

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

datlas 08-31-22 04:45 PM


Originally Posted by genejockey (Post 22631497)
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?

:twitchy:

Bah Humbug 08-31-22 04:45 PM


Originally Posted by genejockey (Post 22631472)
Nah. If you disprove the basic hypothesis, you disprove any corollaries.

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.

Bah Humbug 08-31-22 04:46 PM


Originally Posted by datlas (Post 22631498)
Mrs datlas and I still won’t eat inside a restaurant. We went to a local brewpub that has an outdoor patio.

:bday:

I wouldn't either!

genejockey 08-31-22 04:49 PM


Originally Posted by Bah Humbug (Post 22631501)
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.

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!

Eric F 08-31-22 04:58 PM


Originally Posted by genejockey (Post 22631175)
Mrs. GeneJockey, OTOH, always comes to get me, but makes me wish I hadn't called her.

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.

Bah Humbug 08-31-22 04:58 PM


Originally Posted by genejockey (Post 22631505)
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!

:bang:

Bah Humbug 08-31-22 04:59 PM

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

genejockey 08-31-22 05:08 PM


Originally Posted by Bah Humbug (Post 22631517)
This is the issue I run into trying to talk to Science! types.

I plead guilty.

big john 08-31-22 05:12 PM


Originally Posted by genejockey (Post 22631499)
I have never done that, and it's already enough.

I've done a lot of stupid stuff.

genejockey 08-31-22 05:14 PM


Originally Posted by big john (Post 22631535)
I've done a lot of stupid stuff.

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

genejockey 08-31-22 05:16 PM


Originally Posted by Bah Humbug (Post 22631513)
:bang:

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.

big john 08-31-22 05:35 PM


Originally Posted by genejockey (Post 22631539)
Oh, me too! But not that particular stupid thing.

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.

Trsnrtr 08-31-22 05:47 PM


Originally Posted by MoAlpha (Post 22630847)
Why is it cycling folk wisdom that old people need to limit their HR to some arbitrary number or they'll drop dead?

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.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:35 PM.


Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.