How Many Heartbeats Do You Have Left?
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Our life is, of course, not literally measured in heartbeats—or at least not usefully so (since there are many other factors). However, there is a strong inverse correlation between resting heartrate and healthy longevity! That is to say, the slower your heart beats, the longer you’ll live.
Caveat: this is a generalization, and applies to a low resting heart rate that is the result of good cardiac health. It does not mean you should, for example, take up the use of heroin for its heartbeat-slowing effects. That will not help you to live longer!
Where’s the science?
Lest our opening claim there sound like popular wisdom rather than something backed by good science, let’s tend to that before moving on to the main thing today. There are, in fact, many papers to back up this claim, but here’s a good one:
It’s a 30-year longitudinal cohort study with 5,070 participants and baseline (as with most longitudinal studies, not everyone survived for the entire duration), and why we particularly like this one is not just its strong statistical significance, but also, because rather than simply looking at average resting heartrate and longevity, it also looked at changes in average resting heartrate and longevity, which makes the case for the link being causal much stronger.
❝In this study, we examined the association between resting heart rate and lifespan using linear regression in the Paris Prospective Study I, the Whitehall I Study, and the Framingham Heart Study. We used Cox proportional hazards regression to relate changes in heart rate over years to mortality risk.
We observed a statistically significant association between increases in resting heart rate over a 5-year period and risk of mortality in the Paris Prospective Study I (HR mortality per 10 bpm increase over time: 1.20; 95% CI: 1.13 to 1.27) and over an 8-year period in the Framingham Heart Study (HR: 1.13; 95% CI: 1.07 to 1.19 for men and HR: 1.09; 95% CI: 1.04 to 1.15 for women), after adjusting for classical risk factors and resting heart rate.
Our study shows that men and women who increase their resting heart rate over time increase their risk of mortality.❞
You may be wondering: why did we say 30 years, if the abstract is citing 5 years and 8 years?
And the answer is: it has to do with the statistical modeling used; the participants were followed for up to 30 years, but the statistical analysis allows us to look at what difference a change in resting heartrate makes over the course of 5 or 8 years, which is more illustrative for most people than “this is what will probably happen when you are [your age plus another 30 years]” statements. Indeed, the very fact that we can see a statistically significant change in mortality risk in just 5 years, makes it clear how big that risk is.
And how big is the risk? Translating the hazard ratios into percentages, we’re looking at, per 10 bpm increase over time, a 20% increase in mortality risk in the 5-year period per the Paris Prospective Study, or a 10%-ish increase in mortality risk in the 8-year period per the Framingham Heart Study. As for why the 5-year period has a bigger risk than the 8-year period, it’s likely down to a slightly different methodology and what other risk factors were controlled for.
One final note: about that “…and resting heart rate”, lest that seem confusing, we will mention that this too was controlled for because the primary input variable being looked at was the change in resting heartrate, not the resting heartrate itself.
In summary: if your resting heartrate increases, so does your mortality risk, at a rate of 10–20% over 5–8 years, for every 10 bpm increase (in other words: that stacks!).
So, what’s this about how many heartbeats we have left?
Based on the above, we can infer that since a change in heartrate is associated with an inverse change in longevity, the total number of heartbeats may often not change much, it’s just that the shorter-lived people squoze more heartbeats into less time.
With that in mind, a “common sense” logic tells us that we should conserve our heartbeats in order to live longer. This is somewhat consistent with the ideas behind some meditative practices.
However, while in a sense that’s not wrong (and such meditative practices can indeed help extend healthy lifespan), this presents an apparent paradox:
Should we avoid exercise, because it accelerates our heartrate while we are exercising?
And the robust answer is no, as some recent science by Dr. Kristel Janssens et al. shows clearly.
How it works: while exercise indeed speeds up the heartrate while exercising, it also lowers one’s resting heartrate by a sufficient amount (per metabolic equivalent of task minutes), that when all’s said and done, the hearts of those who regularly exercise beat fewer times per day than those who do not regularly exercise—and the difference isn’t small:
❝Athletes had an average heart rate of 68 beats per minute (bpm), while non-athletes had 76bpm. That translates to a total of 97,920 beats per day for athletes and 109,440 beats per day for non-athletes – around 10 percent less.❞
Note: that’s average heartrate, not average resting heartrate*. So it’s still counting all the heartbeats that happened during exercise, too. The athletes’ hearts were simply beating slowly enough the rest of the time to more than compensate.
*This is also worth bearing in mind because 68 bpm would be an astonishingly high resting heartrate for a very fit person.
Read the paper in full, here: Balancing Exercise Benefits Against Heartbeat Consumption in Elite Cyclists
Want to do more for your heart?
Check out:
How To Improve Your Heart Rate Variability
…for another thing to bear in mind (and helpfully, it’ll usually lower your resting heartrate, too).
Enjoy!
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Recommended
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
-
Rebounder vs Vibration Plate
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Both have science for an array of often-overlapping benefits.
But which is best, if you’re going to go for one or the other?
Which is best?
Firstly, let’s look and how each works:
- Rebounding uses a mini trampoline for workouts, can reach around 70% of max heart rate, giving a cardio session as well as providing the rapid gravitational shifts to improve lymphatic drainage.
- Vibration plate delivers up-and-down, side-to-side, and oscillating vibrations, stimulating blood (and lymph) flow, but providing a more relaxed, minimal-exercise experience.
Now, system by system, according to not just her experience, but also various papers she cites in the video:
- Cardiovascular fitness: rebounding improves VO₂ max, lowers blood pressure, and boosts cholesterol markers; vibration plates modestly lower blood pressure and arterial stiffness.
- Musculoskeletal health: rebounding strengthens legs and core with low joint impact; vibration plates trigger reflex contractions, aiding strength especially in older adults, and those with mobility issues.
- Bone density specifically: evidence is stronger for vibration plates than rebounding, though trampolines may still support balance and stability.
- Athletic performance: rebounding sharpens balance and neuromuscular control; vibration plate effects for athletes are small and inconsistent.
- Metabolic health: rebounding burns more calories, builds muscle, improves insulin sensitivity, and reduces fat mass; vibration plates help regulate blood sugar spikes and improve lipid profiles.
- Lymphatic drainage: limited research, but both are often reported anecdotally to reduce fluid retention and support lymph movement.
Want one? Here for your convenience are example products on Amazon: Rebounder | Vibration Plate ← currently half price at time of writing, for a top-of-the-range vibration plate with 98% five-star reviews!
For more on all of this, plus more direct references to the science that’s been done, enjoy:
Click Here If The Embedded Video Doesn’t Load Automatically!
Want to learn more?
You might also like:
- Rebounding Into The Best Of Health
- Rebounding: Good Or Bad For Joints?
- Vibration Plate, Review After 6 Months: Is It Worth It?
Take care!
Share This Post
-
Exercises for Aging-Ankles
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Can Ankles Deterioration be Stopped?
As we all know (or have experienced!), Ankle mobility deteriorates with age.
We’re here to argue that it’s not all doom and gloom!
(In fact, we’ve written about keeping our feet, and associated body parts, healthy here).
This video by “Livinleggings” (below) provides a great argument that yes, ankle deterioration can be stopped, or even reversed. It’s a must-watch for anyone from yoga enthusiasts to gym warriors who might be unknowingly crippling their ankle-health.
How We Can Prioritise Our Ankles
Poor ankle flexibility isn’t just an inconvenience – it’s a direct route to knee issues, hip hiccups, and back pain. More importantly, ankle strength is a core component of building overall mobility.
With 12 muscles in the ankle, it can be overwhelming to work out which to strengthen – and how. But fear not, we can prioritise three of the twelve: the calf duo (gastrocnemius and soleus) and the shin’s main muscle, the tibialis anterior.
The first step is to test yourself! A simple wall test reveals any hidden truths about your ankle flexibility. Go to the 1:55 point in the video to see how it’s done.
If you can’t do it, you’ve got work to be done.
If you read the book we recommended on great functional exercises for seniors, then you may already be familiar with some super ankle exercises.
Otherwise, these four ankle exercises are a great starting point:
How did you find that video? If you’ve discovered any great videos yourself that you’d like to share with fellow 10almonds readers, then please do email them to us!
Share This Post
-
The Real Way To Eat More Veg If You Don’t Like Veg
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Let us start by assuming you’re aware you can blend them into a soup. Juicing is also an option.
Turning vegetables into a liquid will keep most of their nutrients, but be aware that soup-ifying will lose some fiber, and juicing will lose all (or nearly all) of the fiber.
See also: Can you drink your fruit and vegetables? How does juice compare to the whole food?
If you do opt for juicing, please have it alongside something that’s not juice, because otherwise it will wreak havoc on your gut:
3 Day Juice Fasting? Not So Fast!
…not to mention your blood sugar levels:
Fruit Is Healthy; Juice Isn’t (Here’s Why)
For a deeper dive into the physiology of why that happens, check out: Which Sugars Are Healthier, And Which Are Just The Same?
Ask yourself one question
No, this isn’t about whether you feel lucky. Rather, the question is:
Why don’t you like veg?
To be clear, this is not challenging you to justify your dislike. Your likes and dislikes require no justification; they simply are.
But! It is important, to be able to proceed with this, for you to understand what it is about veg that you don’t like.
- For some people it’s the flavors (in which case cooking vigorously will kill most flavors)
- For some it’s the lack of flavors (in which case, time to go light on the cooking, heavy on the seasoning)
- For some, it’s the textures (needing them to not be soft)
- For some, it’s the textures (needing them to not be varied)
- For some, it’s about needing to do too much prep (needing something easier)
With regard to “too much flavor”, as we say, that’s easy; just cook it more and the flavor will go. Yes, you’ll probably lose some nutrients too, but you’ll still get some.
With regard to “not enough flavor”, then by all means cook them less, where safely possible (for example, potatoes are poisonous raw, so please still cook those). See also:
Make Your Vegetables Work Better Nutritionally ← this is about which veg you should cook more or less or differently, for optimal nutrients
And to add the healthiest extra flavors of all: Our Top 5 Spices: How Much Is Enough For Benefits?
With regard to needing them to not be soft, most are good raw, e.g. carrots, celery, bell peppers, cucumber, as some top items.
Remember also that salad doesn’t have to have soft leaves! You can make it out of anything you want; nobody can stop you!
See for example: Supergreen Superfood Salad Slaw ← so very crunchy!
If you are cooking, though, remember that you can choose vegetables will stay crunchy if cooked lightly (for example just quickly stir-frying), such as sugarsnap peas, cabbage, water chestnuts, Brussels sprouts (slice them!), bamboo shoots, etc.
With regard to needing the textures to not be varied, that usually means making them soft, and simply means cooking them generously. It’s possible that you might not like the smell of some vegetables while cooking (cruciferous vegetables are a common one for this complaint), so you might want to just skip those ones.
There are also ways of getting in things that are soft and homogenous without cooking, so such hummus, guacamole, and other similar dips!
With regard to needing it to require less prep, buy things ready-prepped as much as you can! Get in that frozen veg, or canned, it’s all good. Or even just ready-prepared stir-fry veg that you just need to toss into a wok.
We’ll tell you an extra secret: you can even literally just order take-out of your favorite vegetable dishes. Yes, there’ll probably be a bit more salt and maybe even sugar than you might use at home, but you’re getting vegetables in, and a positive attitude to diet (i.e., focusing on what to include, rather than what to exclude) will almost always result in the heathiest balance.
Also, getting things ready mixed (e.g. mixed frozen veg over separate) also cuts down on prep time and things you need to do. similarly, some of the things we mentioned earlier are zero-prep if bought ready-made, e.g. the hummus, guacamole, etc.
Still not a fan of veg?
All is not lost. As it turns out, fruit and vegetable extracts are still beneficial even in supplement form!
See: Are Fruit & Vegetable Extract Supplements Worth It?
Take care!
Share This Post
Related Posts
-
The Truth About MMS
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
First, what it is:
❝Sodium chlorite solutions are frequently marketed in alternative medicine circles as ‘Miracle Mineral Solution’ (MMS), a panacea for a wide array of illnesses. Distributors of MMS advocate that when mixed with citric acid, it exhibits efficacy against autism and cancer, as well as against various microbial pathogens including SARS-CoV-2-19❞
So, what does the science say about this?
Sodium chlorite cures autism: True or False?
False! Or at least, and we’ll say child here because it is invariably a matter of parents trying to cure their children of autism, it will not cure autism except insofar as it could kill your child and then indeed you would no longer have a child with autism.
Learn more: Dangerous Trend: Chlorine Dioxide and Autism
Why “chlorine dioxide” when we were talking about sodium chlorite? It’s because marketers advocate for mixing it with citric acid, which produces chlorine dioxide.
In other words, please do not drink bleach or give bleach to others to drink.
Sodium chlorite kills cancer cells: True or False?
True! However, it also kills non-cancerous cells, i.e., the rest of you. So this is a little like the old “yes, this thing kills cancer cells in a petri dish, but so does a handgun”.
Let’s look at the science here. For example,
❝The anticancer activity of CIO2 was assessed on DMS114 small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) cells and human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVEC) as control by WST-1, Annexin V, cell cycle analysis, and acridine orange staining. We for the first time investigated the possible therapeutic effects of long-term stabilized ClO2 solution (LTSCD).
Our preliminary findings showed that LTSCD significantly inhibited the proliferation of SCLC cells (p < 0.01) with less toxicity in HUVEC cells. Additionally, LTSCD induced apoptotic cell death in SCLC cells through nuclear blebbing and vacuolar formation.
LTSCD can be a therapeutic potential for the treatment of SCLC. However, further investigations are required to assess the LTSCD-induced cell death in SCLC both in vitro and in vivo.❞
Read in full: The Anticancer Potential of Chlorine Dioxide in Small-Cell Lung Cancer Cells
Sounds promising, doesn’t it?
Just one problem, and it’s found in the bonus content you got if you clicked through to read the study
❝This article has been retracted by the Editors-in-Chief due to the presence of fundamental errors and methodological flaws which undermine the credibility of the study’s results and conclusions.
The authors disagree with the decision to retract.❞
Oops!
Sodium chlorite kills pathogenic microbes: True or False?
True! Mostly. It doesn’t kill all pathogenic microbes, but it does kill many. So that one is a health claim that can be at least somewhat justified by good science.
Unfortunately… Do you remember that satirical song about the pharmaceuticals industry, featuring the fictional wonder-drug paracetamoxyfrusibendroneomycin? It has a couplet that goes:
🎵 We tested it on animals, and none of them survived!
But that’s ok ‘cos when we wrote the paper up, we lied 🎵If you’ve never heard this song, here it is on YouTube 🙂
More seriously, this is more or less what happened in the case of sodium chlorite.
❝This study evaluates the in vitro antimicrobial efficacy and cytotoxicity of acidified sodium chlorite (ASC), a source of chlorine dioxide.
Therefore, we aimed to elucidate the activity of ASC against biofilms of Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Enterococcus faecalis, Streptococcus mutans, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Escherichia coli, and Lactobacillus sp. or an organic acid (ASC1, ASC2, respectively). The lowest antimicrobial concentration of ASC registered was 0.002992% (29.92 ppm) but did not exhibit stronger antimicrobial activity than polyhexamethylene biguanide. Biofilms of S. mutans and E. coli were the most susceptible to tested formulations. Biofilm formed by L. rhamnosus displayed susceptibility to concentrations lower than the minimum biofilm eradication concentration (0.09575%, 957.5 ppm). In the in vitro cytotoxic assay towards eukaryotic fibroblasts and in vivo model of Galleria mellonella larvae concentration-related increase of cytotoxic effects was observed.
Chlorine dioxide generated from ASC does destroy pathogens, but effective levels (around 30 ppm) also damage skin cells and caused high mortality in the in vivo model.
Our findings demonstrate that these concentrations of ASC which can effectively eradicate biofilms, also pose potential health risks due to their in vitro and in vivo cytotoxicity.❞
In other words, yes it can eradicate biofilms, but alas, it can also eradicate you, so please don’t.
You can read this paper in full, here: Antimicrobial properties and toxicity challenges of chlorine dioxide used in alternative medicine
As an aside, “toxicity challenges of chlorine dioxide used in alternative medicine” is really a very polite way of putting it. Because yes, that sure does present challenges.
Want to learn more?
Check out:
How To Know Whom To Trust In The Health World
And also: How Science News Outlets Can Lie To You (Yes, Even If They Cite Studies!)
Take care!
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
-
Who you are and where you live shouldn’t determine your ability to survive cancer
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
In Canada, nearly everyone has a cancer story to share. It affects one in every two people, and despite improvements in cancer survivorship, one out of every four people affected by cancer still will die from it.
As a scientist dedicated to cancer care, I work directly with patients to reimagine a system that was never designed for them in the first place – a system in which your quality of care depends on social drivers like your appearance, your bank statements and your postal code.
We know that poverty, poor nutrition, housing instability and limited access to education and employment can contribute to both the development and progression of cancer. Quality nutrition and regular exercise reduce cancer risk but are contingent on affordable food options and the ability to stay active in safe, walkable neighbourhoods. Environmental hazards like air pollution and toxic waste elevate the risk of specific cancers, but are contingent on the built environment, laws safeguarding workers and the availability of affordable housing.
On a health-system level, we face implicit biases among care providers, a lack of health workforce competence in addressing the social determinants of health, and services that do not cater to the needs of marginalized individuals.
Indigenous peoples, racialized communities, those with low income and gender diverse individuals face the most discrimination in health care, resulting in inadequate experiences, missed diagnosis and avoidance of care. One patient living in subsidized housing told me, “You get treated like a piece of garbage – you come out and feel twice as bad.”
As Canadians, we benefit from a taxpayer funded health-care system that encompasses cancer care services. The average Canadian enjoys a life expectancy of more than 80 years and Canada boasts high cancer survival rates. While we have made incredible strides in cancer care, we must work together to ensure these benefits are equally shared amongst all people in Canada. We need to redesign systems of care so that they are:
- Anti-oppressive. We must begin by understanding and responding to historical and systemic racism that shapes cancer risk, access to care and quality of life for individuals facing marginalizing conditions. Without tackling the root causes, we will never be able to fully close the cancer care gap. This commitment involves undoing intergenerational trauma and harm through public policies that elevate the living and working conditions of all people.
- Patient-centric. We need to prioritize patient needs, preferences and values in all aspects of their health-care experience. This means tailoring treatments and services to individual patient needs. In policymaking, it involves creating policies that are informed by and responsive to the real-life experiences of patients. In research, it involves engaging patients in the research process and ensuring studies are relevant to and respectful of their unique perspectives and needs. This holistic approach ensures that patients’ perspectives are central to all aspects of health care.
- Socially just. We must strive for a society in which everyone has equal access to resources, opportunities and rights, and systemic inequalities and injustices are actively challenged and addressed. When redesigning the cancer care system, this involves proactive practices that create opportunities for all people, particularly those experiencing the most marginalization, to become involved in systemic health-care decision-making. A system that is responsive to the needs of the most marginalized will ultimately work better for all people.
Who you are, how you look, where you live and how much money you make should never be the difference between life and death. Let us commit to a future in which all people have the resources and support to prevent and treat cancer so that no one is left behind.
This article is republished from HealthyDebate under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
-
Chia vs Sesame – Which is Healthier?
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Our Verdict
When comparing chia to sesame, we picked the chia.
Why?
This might not be a shocking decision; after all, chia has an awesome reputation, and it’s well deserved. But sesame seeds are great too, and definitely have their strengths!
In terms of macros, chia seeds have more than 3x the fiber (which is lots) for a little over 1.5x the carbs (giving it the lower glycemic index), and about equal protein. The matter of fats is also interesting: sesame seeds have nearly 2x the fat, but chia seeds have the better fats profile, with less saturated fat and more omega-3s. All in all, a sound win for chia in this category!
In the category of vitamins, chia seeds have more of vitamins B3, C, E, and choline, while sesame seeds have more of vitamins B1, B2, and B9. A more marginal win for chia here.
When it comes to minerals, chia seeds have more phosphorus, manganese, and selenium, while sesame seeds have more calcium, copper, iron, and zinc, making it a marginal win for sesame seeds this time!
Adding up the sections make for an overall win for chia (especially if we were to consider the macros category for its full weight, given the importance of those components, but it’s still a 2:1 win for chia even if we pay no attention to that), but by all means enjoy either or both; diversity is good!
Want to learn more?
You might like:
The Tiniest Seeds With The Most Value: If You’re Not Taking Chia, You’re Missing Out
Enjoy!
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
