S. D. Wells -- True history: The AMA (American Medical Association) was built on racketeering and the pocketing of 'non-profit' profits

The year is 1847. Physicians in America are not enjoying competing with inexpensive, natural remedies, which are offered by Indians and skilled midwives. These are remedies which are very effective but are not profitable, nor patentable, so the physicians get together to form an alliance called the AMA, the American Medical Association. Only "regulars" were allowed to join this new, prestigious organization, which strictly excluded herbalists, homeopaths and Indian doctors.

The new bylaws enacted would ensure that any physician caught dealing with a "non-regular" would be cast out and his reputation ruined. There was only one problem, and it was a huge problem. Conventional medicine in America was based on philosophy, not science, because nothing had been tested. We know this as a cold hard fact today. The kind of medicine regarded as conventional then consisted of blood letting, mercury poisoning, and other methodology we laugh at today.

Word started getting out. Doctors from Europe who visited and then returned home told others of the ill health of the average American, whose skin was sallow, eyes sunken, and teeth and jaws crooked. Lo and behold, these are all symptoms of mercury poisoning. And so there you have it. United States healthcare started with mercury poisoning! That's why it's still in vaccines and flu shots, because they can get away with it.

Read more.. http://www.naturalnews.com/037152_AMA_racketeering_history.html

FEMA VIDEO

Here is the video Gary mentioned on his radio show.  

Gary's Dance Video from 1984

Gary Null Dance Party at Red Parrot in 1984 from Gary Null on Vimeo.

Jennifer Browdy de Hernandez -- We Eat by the Grace of Nature, Not by the Grace of Monsanto

“Organic, schmorganic,” fumes New York Times columnist Roger Cohen sarcastically in an article entitled “The Organic Fable.”

He bases his sweeping dismissal of the organic foods movement on a new Stanford University study claiming that “fruits and vegetables labeled organic are, on average, no more nutritious than their cheaper conventional counterparts.”

Cohen does grant that “organic farming is probably better for the environment because less soil, flora and fauna are contaminated by chemicals…. So this is food that is better ecologically even if it is not better nutritionally.”

But he goes on to smear the organic movement as an elitist, pseudoscientific indulgence shot through with hype.

“To feed a planet of 9 billion people,” he says, “we are going to need high yields not low yields; we are going to need genetically modified crops; we are going to need pesticides and fertilizers and other elements of the industrialized food processes that have led mankind to be better fed and live longer than at any time in history.

“I’d rather be against nature and have more people better fed. I’d rather be serious about the world’s needs. And I trust the monitoring agencies that ensure pesticides are used at safe levels — a trust the Stanford study found to be justified.”

Cohen ends by calling the organic movement “a fable of the pampered parts of the planet — romantic and comforting.”

But the truth is that his own, science-driven Industrial Agriculture mythology is far more delusional.

Let me count the ways that his take on the organic foods movement is off the mark:

Organic food may not be more “nutritious,” but it is healthier because it is not saturated with pesticides, herbicides, fungicides and preservatives, not to mention antibiotics, growth hormones and who knows what other chemicals.

There are obvious “health advantages” in this, since we know—though Cohen doesn’t mention—that synthetic chemicals and poor health, from asthma to cancer, go hand in hand.

Read more.. http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/09/08-3

Jason Mark -- Whoa, Is Organic Food No Healthier Than Non-Organic? Controversy Erupts Over Study

I had barely drank my first cup of coffee when I heard the news yesterday morning on NPR [3] – organic food, it turns out, may not be that much healthier for you than industrial food.

The NPR story was based on a new study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine [4] which concluded, based on a review of existing studies, that there is no “strong evidence that organic foods are significantly more nutritious than conventional foods.” The study, written by researchers at the Stanford School of Medicine, also found that eating organic foods “may reduce exposure to pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria.”

The interwebs were soon full of headlines talking down the benefits of organic foods. “Stanford Scientists Cast Doubt on Advantages of Organic Meat and Produce,” the NY Times [5] announced, as reporter Kenneth Chang pointed out that pesticide residues on industrially grown fruits and vegetables are “almost always under the allowed safety limits.”CBS news [6], running the AP story on the Stanford study, informed readers: “Organic food hardly healthier, study suggests.”

Organic agriculture advocates were quick with their rebuttals. The Environmental Working Group [7] put out a press release playing up the researchers’ findings that organic produce has less pesticide residue. Charles Benbrook, a professor of agriculture at Washington State University and former chief scientist at The Organic Center [8], wrote a detailed critique you can find here [9]. Benbrook noted that the Stanford study didn’t include data from the USDA and US EPA about pesticide residue levels. He also pointed out that the researchers’ definition of “significantly more nutritious” was a little squishy.

Is this the last word on the nutritional benefits of organic foods? Hardly. As Benbrook said, in the coming years improved measurement methods will hopefully allow for better comparisons of food nutritional quality. (You can find an Earth Island Journal cover story on this very issue here [10].)

I’ll leave it to the PhDs and MDs to fight this out among themselves. As they do, I’ll keep buying (and growing [11]) organic foods. Why? Because even if organic foods are not demonstrably better for my health than industrial foods, I know that organics are better for the health of other people – the people who grow our nation’s food.

To his credit, NPR’s new ag reporter, Dan Charles, was careful to note that organic agriculture “can bring environmental benefit[s].” One of the most important environmental benefits organic agriculture delivers is a boost to public health and safety.

Let’s say you’re not worried about the relatively small amounts of pesticides that end up on the industrial foods at the supermarket. (Though you should read this [12] Tom Philpott dissection of the Stanford report when considering your risk of eating pesticide residue.) Well, you should still be concerned about the huge amounts of pesticides that end up in the air and water of farming communities – chemicals that can lead to birth defects, endocrine disruption, and neurological and respiratory problems.

When pesticides are sprayed onto farm fields, they don’t just stay in that one place. They seep into the water and waft through the air and accumulate on the shoes and clothes of farm workers. In recent years in California (the country’s top ag producer) an average of 37 pesticide drift incidents [13] a year have made people sick. Pesticides also find their way into the homes of farm workers. A study by researchers at the University of Washington found that the children of farm workers have higher exposure to pesticides [14] than other children in the same community. When researchers in Mexico looked into pesticide exposure of farm workers there, they found that 20 percent of field hands “showed acute poisoning. [15]”

The health impacts on those workers were serious and included “diverse alterations of the digestive, neurological, respiratory, circulatory, dermatological, renal, and reproductive system.” The researchers concluded: “there exist health hazards for those farm workers exposed to pesticides, at organic and cellular levels.”

There are shelves’ worth of studies [16] documenting the health dangers of pesticide exposure. A study published last year found that prenatal exposure to organophosphate pesticides [17] – which are often sprayed on crops and in urban areas to control insects – can lower children’s IQ. A follow-up investigation into prenatal pesticide exposure concluded that boys’ developing brains appear to be more vulnerable [18] than girls’ brains. A study by Colorado State University epidemiologist Lori Cragin found that women who drink water containing low levels of the herbicide atrazine are more likely to have low estrogen levels [19] and irregular menstrual cycles; about three-quarters of all US corn fields are treated with atrazine annually. British scientists who examined the health effects of fungicides sprayed on fruits and vegetable crops discovered that 30 out of 37 chemicals studied altered males’ hormone production [20].

Read more.. http://www.alternet.org/food/whoa-organic-food-no-healthier-non-organic-controversy-erupts-over-study

Frances Moore Lappé -- Stanford Scientists Shockingly Reckless on Health Risk And Organics

I first heard about a new Stanford "study" downplaying the value of organics when this blog headline cried out from my inbox: "Expensive organic food isn't healthier and no safer than produce grown with pesticides, finds biggest study of its kind."

What?

Does the actual study say this?

No, but authors of the study -- "Are Organic Foods Safer or Healthier Than Conventional Alternatives? A Systematic Review" -- surely are responsible for its misinterpretation and more. Their study actually reports that ¨Consumption of organic foods may reduce exposure to pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria."

The authors' tentative wording -- "may reduce" -- belies their own data: The report's opening statement says the tested organic produce carried a 30 percent lower risk of exposure to pesticide residues. And, the report itself also says that "detectable pesticide residues were found in 7% of organic produce samples...and 38% of conventional produce samples." Isn't that's a greater than 80% exposure reduction?

In any case, the Stanford report's unorthodox measure "makes little practical or clinical sense," notes Charles Benbrook -- formerly Executive Director, Board on Agriculture of the National Academy of Sciences: What people "should be concerned about [is]... not just the number of [pesticide] residues they are exposed to" but the "health risk they face." Benbrook notes "a 94% reduction in health risk" from pesticides when eating organic foods.

Assessing pesticide-driven health risks weighs the toxicity of the particular pesticide. For example the widely-used pesticide atrazine, banned in Europe, is known to be "a risk factor in endocrine disruption in wildlife and reproductive cancers in laboratory rodents and humans."

"Very few studies" included by the Stanford researchers, notes Benbrook, "are designed or conducted in a way that could isolate the impact or contribution of a switch to organic food from the many other factors that influence a given individual's health." They "would be very expensive, and to date, none have been carried out in the U.S." [emphasis added].

In other words, simple prudence should have prevented these scientists from using "evidence" not designed to capture what they wanted to know.

Moreover, buried in the Stanford study is this all-critical fact: It includes no long-term studies of people consuming organic compared to chemically produced food: The studies included ranged from just two days to two years. Yet, it is well established that chemical exposure often takes decades to show up, for example, in cancer or neurological disorders.

Consider these studies not included: The New York Times notes three 2011 studies by scientists at Columbia University, the University of California, Berkeley, and Mount Sinai Hospital in Manhattan that studied pregnant women exposed to higher amounts of an organophosphate pesticide. Once their children reached elementary school they "had, on average, I.Q.'s several points lower than those of their peers."

Thus, it is reprehensible for the authors of this overview to even leave open to possible interpretation that their compilation of short-term studies can determine anything about the human-health impact of pesticides.

What also disturbs me is that neither in their journal article nor in media interviews do the Stanford authors suggest that concern about "safer and healthier" might extend beyond consumers to the people who grow our food. They have health concerns, too!

Many choose organic to decrease chemicals in food production because of the horrific consequences farm workers and farmers suffer from pesticide exposure. U.S. farming communities are shown to be afflicted with, for example, higher rates of: "leukemia, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, multiple myeloma, and soft tissue sarcoma" -- in addition to skin, lip, stomach, brain and prostate cancers," reports the National Cancer Institute. And, at a global level, "an estimated 3 million acute pesticide poisonings occur worldwide each year," reports the World Health Organization. Another health hazard of pesticides, not hinted at in the report, comes from water contamination by pesticides. They have made the water supply for 4.3 million Americans unsafe for drinking.

Finally, are organic foods more nutritious?

In their report, Crystal Smith-Spangler, MD, and co-authors say only that "published literature lacks strong evidence that organic foods are significantly more nutritious than conventional foods." Yet, the most comprehensive meta-analysis comparing organic and non-organic, led by scientist Kirsten
Brandt, a Scientist at the Human Nutrition Research Center at the UK's Newcastle University found organic fruits and vegetables, to have on "average 12% higher nutrient levels."

Bottom line for me? What we do know is that the rates of critical illnesses, many food-related --from allergies to Crohn's Disease -- are spiking and no one knows why. What we do know is that pesticide poisoning is real and lethal -- and not just for humans. In such a world is it not the height of irresponsibility to downplay the risks of exposure to known toxins?

Rachel Carson would be crying. Or, I hope, shouting until -- finally -- we all listen. "Simple precaution! Is that not commonsense?"

Read more.. http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/09/06-12

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 & 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," 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. 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. 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%.”

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.” 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. 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.

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. 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.

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.

^ 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

^ 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 

^ , 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.

^ 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>.

^ 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>.

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

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

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

^ 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>.

^ 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.

^ 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>.

^ 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.

^ Hjalmarson A. Significance of reduction of heart rate in

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

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

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