Heart Rate & Heart Disease. Normal heart rate is 60 to 100 beats per minute. If....

[NiceGuyResearcher]

Heart Rate & Heart Disease. Normal heart rate is 60 to 100 beats per minute. If your heart rate is at the lower end of the scale at like 60 or 65,

Would you then say that by implication, by inference, you probably don't have clogged arteries?

Here's a copy and paste of my research:

Quote:
A normal resting heart rate for adults ranges from 60 to 100 beats per minute.

Generally, a lower heart rate at rest implies more efficient heart function and better cardiovascular fitness. For example, a well-trained athlete might have a normal resting heart rate closer to 40 beats per minute. (End Quote)

We'd all love to be relaxed like some mediation guru, but most of us find that we get more stuff done with angst

So that angst could signal a higher blood pressure number like a 155 systolic, or evidence of hypertension, yet if your heart beats per minute are within 60 to 100 and lower to the bottom end of this scale, you could still have a healthy heart, right?

In other words, a little bit of hypertension evidenced by the higher top Blood Pressure # is ok if your heart beats per minute are like 65 or 70 heart beats per minute

I mean...how could a person have clogged arteries and messed up heart valves...if there heart beats are within a lower range like a 62, that show it is beating or working efficiently? It can't right?

For example,While we wait for cardiologist tests, can we just find some relief in having a blood pressure cuff like on 3 different occassions show a heart beat per minute at the 60 or 65 range (an efficiently working heart)?

Some of us, technically have hypertension because the top # is like at a 152 in a bp reading, but look at this info.:

Quote:
The generally accepted standard for “normal” blood pressure is 90/60 to less than120/80. If your blood pressure is consistently lower than 90/60, you have low blood pressure. Blood pressure between 120/80 and 140/90 is still considered normal. (end quote)

I mean 152 is not a whole lot higher than a 140, right?

[kelkel]

Interesting post! I'll link you to a post a made a year or so ago. Adding that my heard rate is frequently in the 50's, often lower 50's. Bradycardia, yet I still have some arterial blockage. That said, as we age it's common for arterial calcium to increase. Food for thought.

https://forums.steroid.com/anabolic-...ring-test.html

[wango]

CO (Cardiac Output) is the HR (Heart Rate) x SV (Stoke Volume). Cardiac Output is how much blood is pumped every minute. The CO adjusts to the body cell’s needs moment by moment. If the body cell’s need for blood (oxygen) doesn’t change and if the HR is slow (bradycardia) then the stroke volume or strength of contraction must increase. More efficient, perhaps, but the fact remains that the left ventricle must contract harder to supply the body’s cells with adequate blood.

Any elevation of blood pressure must increase the cardiac output, period, end of story. That means if your HR is low, your SV must increase and the left ventricle must work harder. The longer the left ventricle works harder? Well you know the end of that story.

Dude, a systolic of 142 vs. 140 makes the left ventricle work harder. Yes, 152 is “a lot” worse than 140.

At 63, you better believe that I raise an eyebrow when my BP is above 125/85. Over 135/90? Both myself and my MD are playing around with my med combinations (above and beyond diet, cardio, stress reduction) to lower it. Hell, now that I’m retired, I’m trying low dose THC gummies as well. Playing with the math, if I only started getting high blood pressure in my 50’s (which I did), well it’s going to take 2 or 3 decades of extra cardiac output to finally piss my left ventricle off into telling me to fuck off. That’s why if you are young and have HBP, it is a problem that needs to be addressed.

I’m sorry to be a downer, but rationalizing it by saying your heart rate is lower is not a good approach.