Dr. Gary Null PHD & Jeremy Stillman -- Does Heart Rate Affect Longevity?

          Having spent my entire adult career working with tens of thousands of individuals as a scientist, clinician, and therapist in anti-aging research, it has been my observation that the higher one’s resting heart rate, the more susceptible one is to heart disease and premature death. Considering that we have added nearly ten years to the average lifespan over the last forty years, what can we point to that accounts for this change? A look at the evidence shows that it is multifactorial. 

When I was growing up, my parents, aunts and uncles, all smoked two to three packs of cigarettes a day. They drank a lot of alcohol- not to get drunk but to socialize- and they had high concentrations of animal protein, saturated fats and refined carbohydrates. They rarely exercised and more often than not, they internalized their distress. This lifestyle was typical among that generation of Americans.

Today, the last two generations have caused a renaissance in health awareness. Thanks to them, we now know the importance consuming a healthy vegan diet high in raw foods and fresh juices, using supplements, and abstaining from alcohol and smoking. We are aware of how indispensible exercise and more and more people are reaping the benefits of de-stress practices such as yoga and meditation.  The combination of all these factors has produced a quantitative change our life expectancy.

As a competitive athlete, having won more than 500 races and competed in more than 600, I have interacted with hundreds of professional athletes. Most of the athletes I have come to know have heart rates between 50 and 65. Most non-athletes, but those who still have a proper diet, have resting pulses between 70 and 80.  Those who are overweight, obese, or have diabetes, tend to have pulses between 75 and 85 and often suffer from heart disease and other serious medical conditions that inevitably shorten the lifespan. It is my experience that once they begin to exercise and bring their pulse down by more than 10 points or into the 60 to 70 range, that it increases their lifespan by approximately ten years. I’ve counseled many individuals who were given a very problematic prognosis (i.e., a shortened lifespan). By following the therapies listed above, many of them were able to significantly lower their blood pressure and heart rate. These people went on to live many years longer than what would have been expected and most of them survive today.  These experiences helped me arrive at my hypothesis that the lower the heart rate, the healthier the heart, and the longer the lifespan. A review of the scientific research on this subject shows that this hypothesis is well-founded. 

Examining the Evidence

In studies on both humans and animals, a clear relationship exists between high resting heart rate and shorter lifespan. In 2010, cardiologist Dr. Eva Lonn of McMaster University presented the results of a study that examined this connection in over 30,000 patients over the course of 4 years to the Canadian Cardiovascular Congress. Speaking before her colleagues, Lonn stated that "the higher the heart rate, the higher the risk of death from cardiovascular and all causes, even after adjusting for all risk factors that could confound our results," [1] The study found that individuals with heart rates above 78 beats per minute were 77% more likely to die from heart disease, and 65% more likely to die from all causes, than their counterparts who had a resting heart rate of 58 or below.  

These findings are corroborated by numerous other studies that connect an above-average resting heart rate with a significantly increased risk of death, especially from cardiovascular illness.[2] [3][4][5][6][7]   A study of more than 129,000 women published in the British Medical Journal found that women who had a heart rate of more than 76 ran a significantly higher risk of cardiac arrest and heart disease than those women whose pulse rate was lower than 62.[8] A recent paper out of France noted that “an increase in heart rate by 10 beats per minute was associated with an increase in the risk of cardiac death by at least 20%.”[9]

The connection between heart rate and longevity goes well beyond deaths related to cardiovascular illness. Using data collected during the 25-year-long Paris Prospective Study, which surveyed over 5,000 men aged 42-53, researchers at University Paris Descartes determined “resting and exercise heart rate had consistent, graded and highly significant associations with subsequent cancer mortality in men.”[10] Compared to the men with a resting heart rate below 60 beats per minute, those individuals with a heart rate of more than 73 beats per minute were 2.4 times more likely to die from cancer. The results are consistent with previous analyses showing a direct relationship between heart rate with cancer mortality.[11] A study out of Italy known as the MATISS Project investigated the possible association of pulse rate and mortality among Italian middle-aged males. The authors concluded that heart rate was a reliable independent predictor of total mortality.[12]  

Not only does a higher heart rate predict a shorter lifespan, but a body of evidence indicates that carrying out heart rate lowering activities such as exercise and meditation may help boost longevity.[13] In a paper from 2003, researchers at the European Society of Cardiology proposed the following explanation of why resting heart rate may be related to lifespan:

In mammals, the calculated number of heart beats in a lifetime is remarkably constant, despite a 40-fold difference in life expectancy. According to this view, a reduction in heart rate would increase life expectancy also in humans. The heart produces and utilizes approximately 30 kg adenosine triphosphate each day, and slowing its rate by 10 beats/min would result in a saving of about 5 kg in a day. Considering that heart rate is a major determinant of oxygen consumption and metabolic demand, heart rate reduction would be expected to diminish cardiac workload. Clinical studies with beta-blockers have already shown a reduction in mortality and improvement in outcome as a result of reduction in heart rate.[14]

The authors go on to recommend research into therapies designed to lower heart rate and in turn, potentially increase lifespan.  This suggestion is supported by a 2008 report in the Harvard Heart Letter which concluded that engaging in activities aimed at reducing heart rate such as exercise and de-stressing techniques may extend longevity.[15]

---

[1] Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada (2010, October 26). High resting heart linked to shorter life expectancy in stable heart disease patients, study suggests. ScienceDaily. Retrieved September 4, 2012, from http://www.sciencedaily.com­/releases/2010/10/101026161239.htm

[2] J. Nauman, I. Janszky, L. J. Vatten, U. Wisloff. Temporal Changes in Resting Heart Rate and Deaths From Ischemic Heart Disease. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 2011; 306 (23): 2579 

[3] Zhang, G., and W. Zhang. "Heart Rate, Lifespan, and Mortality Risk." Ageing Research Rev P. M. Okin, S. E. Kjeldsen, S. Julius, D. A. Hille, B. Dahlof, J. M. Edelman, R. B. Devereux. All-cause and cardiovascular mortality in relation to changing heart rate during treatment of hypertensive patients with electrocardiographic left ventricular hypertrophy.

[4] Palatini, Paolo. "Elevated Heart Rate: A “New” Cardiovascular Risk Factor?" Progress in Cardiovascular Diseases 52.1 (2009): 1-5. Pubmed.gov. Web. 5 Sept. 2012. <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19615486>.

[5] Benetos, Athanase, Et Al. "Influence of Heart Rate on Mortality in a French Population."Hypertension 33 (1999): 44-52. Ahajournals.org. 1999. Web. 4 Sept. 2012. <http://hyper.ahajournals.org/content/33/1/44.short>.

[6] Ferrari, R. "Prognostic Benefits of Heart Rate Reduction in Cardiovascular Disease."European Heart Journal Supplements 5 (2003): G10-14. Print.

[7] European Heart Journal, 2010; DOI:iews 8.1 (2009): 52-60. Print.

[8] BMJ-British Medical Journal. "Resting Heart Rate Can Predict Heart Attacks In Women."ScienceDaily, 5 Feb. 2009. Web. 4 Sep. 2012.

[9] Perret-Guillaume, Christine, Laure Joly, and Athanase Benetos. "Heart Rate as a Risk Factor for Cardiovascular Disease." Progress in Cardiovascular Diseases 52.1 (2009): 6-10. Pubmed.gov. Web. 5 Sept. 2012. <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19615487>.

[10] Jouven, Xavier, Sylvie Escolano, David Celermajer, Jean-Philippe Empana, Annie Bingham, Olivier Hermine, Michel Desnos, Marie-Cécile Perier, Eloi Marijon, and Pierre Ducimetière. "Heart Rate and Risk of Cancer Death in Healthy Men." Ed. Julian Little.PLoS ONE 6.8 (2011): E21310. Print.

[11] Persky, V, Et Al. "Heart Rate: A Risk Factor for Cancer?" American Journal of Epidemiology 114.4 (1981): 477-87. Pubmed.gov. Web. 4 Sept. 2012. <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7304578>.

[12] Fulvia Seccareccia et al., “Heart Rate as a Predictor of Mortality: The MATISS Project,” Am J Public Health 91, no. 8 (August 1, 2001): 1258-1263.

[13] Hjalmarson A. Significance of reduction of heart rate in

cadiovascular disease. Clin Cardiol 1998;21:II3—7.

[14] Ferrari, R. "Prognostic Benefits of Heart Rate Reduction in Cardiovascular Disease."European Heart Journal Supplements 5 (2003): G10-14. Print.

[15] "Harvard Heart Letter." Harvard Reviews of Health News. Harvard University, Dec. 2008. Web. 04 Sept. 2012. <http://www.harvardhealthcontent.com/newsletters/HeartLetter.pg>.

Gary Null, PhD and Jeremy Stillman - Prescription for Disaster: The Dirty Dozen FDA-Approved Pharmaceutical Drugs

The Food and Drug Administration is mandated with the responsibility to ensure that our foods and medications are safe and effective. Hence, when a physician, primary health care provider or pharmacist provides a consumer with these medications, there is a fundamental belief that these work and will do minimal harm.  Then we meet reality. The FDA has not only allowed extraordinarily inefficient, extremely toxic drugs onto the market, but then has ran interference on behalf of pharmaceutical companies and other special interests to protect their profits instead of immediately withdrawing their drugs from the market.

The consequence of eating at a restaurant you don’t like is that you won’t go back again. The consequence of taking a toxic drug is injury or death.  The FDA has a long history of allowing deadly drugs to be promoted and marketed.  The FDA has not sought prosecution when prima facie evidence proves that the manufacturers and their scientists, boards of directors and marketers knew all along that these drugs did not work as claimed or had dangerous side effects that they withheld from the FDA . These companies have engaged in overtly criminal activities and instead of ending up in prison or bankrupt, no one is held accountable.  Bonuses are given and the value of their corporate holdings goes up- it’s all part of the cost of doing business today.
This article is to show you clear and exact examples of lethal and harmful drugs that should never have been marketed – some of which are still available to consumers.  They are drugs that an honest and diligent FDA would never have allowed to be released on the market.  Cumulatively, tens of thousands of Americans have died and hundreds of thousands more have been injured.  And the standard penalty meted out for such criminality?  Pay a fine. Smile. You got out of jail free.

Click to read more ...

A review of waste management practices and their impact on human health

This work reviews (i) the most recent information on waste arisings and waste disposal options in the world, in the European Union (EU), in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OEDC) countries, and in some developing countries (notably China) and (ii) the potential direct and indirect impact of waste management activities on health. Though the main focus is primarily on municipal solid waste (MSW), exposure to bioaerosols from composting facilities and to pathogens from sewage treat- ment plants are considered. The reported effects of radioactive waste are also briefly reviewed. Hundreds of epidemiological studies reported on the incidence of a wide range of possible illnesses on employees of waste facilities and on the resident population. The main conclusion of the overall assessment of the lit- erature is that the evidence of adverse health outcomes for the general population living near landfill sites, incinerators, composting facilities and nuclear installations is usually insufficient and inconclusive. There is convincing evidence of a high risk of gastrointestinal problems associated with pathogens orig- inating at sewage treatment plants. In order to improve the quality and usefulness of epidemiological studies applied to populations residing in areas where waste management facilities are located or planned, preference should be given to prospective cohort studies of sufficient statistical power, with access to direct human exposure measurements, and supported by data on health effect biomarkers and susceptibility biomarkers.

Click to read more ...