Hm...sounds strikingly similar to my great-grandparents...except they had to
-tend a large garden (no grocers)
-hunt and slaughter animals (again, no grocers)
-tend livestock ("")
-pump water (no plumbing)
-walk to the general store (no car)
-chop/haul firewood (no central heat)
-scrub clothes (no washing machine)
-scrub dishes (no dishwasher)
-beat rugs (no vacuum)
-mow the lawn with a rotating mower (no electric/gas lawn mower)
-trim trees with a handsaw (no chainsaw)
-walk to friends' homes to talk (no telephone)
-other things I'm sure I'm missing.

Just because they didn't strap on a pair of Nikes and hit the gym doesn't mean they weren't moving a whole lot more than we do now. Consider every little bit of housecleaning we do now, and then consider how it would have to be done without modern appliances.

Servants were a lot more common in my grandparent's age. And there most certainly were grocers. Well, one set of my grandparents were from the city, one set were rural. And the rural grandparents I'm sure moved a lot more; the city grandparents, I don't think so.

Manual laborers tend to get fat too, though. So obviously, there's something other than how much one moves going on.

I have no clue about statistics. And the runner, if the theories are right about slower, more muscular heart being better, should have a lower incidence of heart disease than the general population, not the same, if what is claimed is true. I do know that many claims made about exercise and health are not backed by research. That doesn't mean it's false, just that it's unproven.

I do know there are instances where too much muscle on the heart is bad and can interfere with normal function.

I understand WHY the heart rate is slower for people who are aerobically fit. What I would like to know is IF that actually affects life expectancy or if perhaps heart disease is caused by something other than fitness.

Tiredangel - I think you took my post as being antagonistic and I honestly didn't mean it that way, I'm sorry if I offended you, I was asking some honest questions that I was interested in the response. In re-reading my post, I can see how it was taken as being antagonistic, I'm sorry.

Well that was kinda my point as well, mine was also very high before losng weight/low-carbing (way above 90), but after losing 100lbs it was around 63 - 65, after starting a running program it kept going down and is currently around 47. I have a collegue (male) who lost 75lbs doing low-fat/high-carb and his resting heart rate went down to 59 from ~100. My only question about this was I am wondering if it can be attributed to low carb OR the weight loss. I'm interested if anyone knows of research/reports of low-carbing lowering resting heart rate more than low-fat when equal weight loss is achieved???

From what I have read the lower your heart rate the better. You heart at rest works significantly less the lower the bpm. I have also read theories that our heart is preprogrammed with a fixed number of beats in it, so the slower the better.

I know my husband's blood pressure and bpm are naturally low and got even lower with exercise. I'm not saying everyone in every case has to exercise (or even lose weight) to have a low heart rate, it is just that the averages seem to be 60 -90.

Point taken

I think people who exercise in any way are healthier and that bears out on the research from what I have read. There is some conflicting research about why marathoners, in particular, bump up on the sudden heart attack scale. Most of it seems to point to undertraining as being the real problem - people doing things their bodies are not ready for in a steady state for hours and then suddenly stopping. That is why there are so many finish line deaths. Hardly anyone dies at mile 18 of a marathon. Ryan Shay had a heart problem and died at the Olympic trials at mile 5(?) but he was exhibiting symptoms and they were ignored before he ran. Most heart attacks in healthy athletes are due to a genetic condition that is not routinely screened for and might happen anywhere. Here is a condensed version of the Runner's World article on it http://www.runnersworld.com/article...12948-0,00.html

I don't have time now to look into these studies I'm quoting below, but here they are just to throw them into the mix:

My grandparents raised almost everything they ate (except pasta, and they even made that themselves.) This required lots of activity. Gardening and canning vegetables and fruits whenever the season, eating the canned food when it was a non-gardening season.
They also didn't spend any money on recreation and sat for hours, watching TV at night. That was their recreation. They stayed at home 99.5% of their lives, too.
They didn't drive.
They didn't eat much meat. They ate a lot of carbs. They didn't 'exercise', they 'worked'.
They were fat.
As examples of healthful living, they didn't live a long, long time. Long enough, though, into late 70s and early 80s. What more can a person hope for? Well, if they practiced calorie restriction, which is not low-carbing but low-calorie-ing with attention to packing as much nutrition into a small meal, they might have hoped to reap the benefits of that lifestyle, one of which is a longer life.
They would have been perfect subjects for the calorie-restriction diet. They were not naturally lean.
http://www.livescience.com/health/0...estriction.html

Of the activities listed previously:
tend a large garden (no grocers) -check
-hunt and slaughter animals (again, no grocers)
-tend livestock ("") -check (chickens)
-pump water (no plumbing)
-walk to the general store (no car) -check
-chop/haul firewood (no central heat)
-scrub clothes (no washing machine) -check
-scrub dishes (no dishwasher) -check
-beat rugs (no vacuum) -check
-mow the lawn with a rotating mower (no electric/gas lawn mower) -check
-trim trees with a handsaw (no chainsaw) -check
-walk to friends' homes to talk (no telephone) -check (they had a telephone, but they thought it was too expensive to use much)

Some background on Calorie Restriction and longevity:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandst.../sep/11/fitness

I agree.

And also just to add anecdotally my experience with low-carb, losing 100lbs and starting running:

Just low-carbing improvements:
- significant weight loss
- improvement of skin problems (psoriasis)
- overall mental improvements (not as irritable, better concentration and focus)
- no lethargy, tiredness
- better sleep
- improved lipid profile, resting heart rate, overall health indicators (blood tests like liver/kidney functions, etc)

However even after all the weight loss I still had very poor circulation in the legs, cramping in the legs (and yes I was taking potassium), pain in the joints, getting up after sitting was very painful on the ankles and feet, I still got winded somewhat easily (like if I was carrying laundry up the 2 flights of stairs in my home).

After starting running these are the improvements:
- body reshaping and shrinking even if scale did not move -- dropped an entire size with no change on scale
- more skin improvements that didn't happen with low-carb alone
- much happier person overall and most of the time, not just after exercising
- much, much more energy than I had just with weight loss
- lipid profile, resting heart rate, etc. have all improved even more
- biggest changes have been in my circulation, flexibility, strength, etc. I have no joint pain, no cramping (and I don't take the potassium regularly anymore), I can jump out of bed in the morning and walk right away normally which I never could do before.
- I feel much less stress and anxiety about things, low-carbing alone did not fix this

For me, the benefits of exercise are clear and I have experienced significant quality of life improvements. Maybe it won't keep me alive any longer, I can't say that for sure, but I will certainly live happier and more active (and I like being active -- it's fun).

Actually, I think this is representative of one of the big issues behind our weight gain. It used to be pretty hard work to eat. If you wanted something sweet, you might make a pie rather than drive to McDonalds. It'd take you at least 45 minutes to an hour to make and quite awhile longer to let it bake and cool. Now I bet most of us could have one ready to eat within 10-15 minutes with no more effort involved than getting into the car.

If you ever get a chance watch one of those reenactments on PBS of historic periods where they take modern people and have them live as folks did in the 1800's (or earlier). It's really eye-opening how much effort people spent in just procuring their next meal.

I have one of those PBS videos!
My grandmother not only made the pies (and taught me to make the pies, thanks, grandma..) but she and her family went on berry-picking excursions to pick all the berries to put in the pie. In the woods, not on a farm. And while there, filled bottles with water from a spring that was reputed to be pure. This was in the days before bottled water was even on the market.
I'm surprised we trusted that spring. It was icy cold, clear, seemed pure, tasted delicious and no one ever got sick from drinking the water. Don't know that I'd ever do that today - the looks of water is not an indication of its purity.

Found this on one of my Science Blogs. It's mainstream, but provides some good info:

This was my experience exactly. In fact, I can go one better. Sitting for a long time used to be torture for me and I had terrible knee pain for days after a long plane ride. I walked alot because I am car-free, so I was getting plenty of exercise. But only running cured my knees and strengthened the muscles around them enough. In the two years I've been running, the pain has never come back (and I had had it since I was a 150-lb teenager so it had nothing to do with my weight loss). I healed myself with exercise.

That's one of the cancers that sun exposure prevents. I'm sure that's a factor when walking outdoors. A good reason to avoid the gym when you exercise...

I think so too, except for excessive exercise.

I fixed a painful shoulder just with mobility exercises and some light weights.

I do know an extreme example of overdoing it. I know of a woman who ran herself to death. She was exercise addicted. She got progressively sicker with inflammation, then auto immune, then cancer and she couldn't roll it back. She was a doctor herself and knew what was going on but couldn't manage to both keep the running and keep her health although she tried.

There are people who overdo it, especially normal people who treat themselves as professional athletes working fulltime jobs without the time for napping and relaxation that the professionals have - I have seen that, too. It's definitely a matter of balance.