讀者Jones Wen在2020-12-20利用本網站的「與我聯絡」詢問:林教授您好,讀完您的三本著作,收益良多,糾正了我一些先前錯誤的認知,非常感謝。在下有一問題懇請林教授解惑,常看到哺乳類動物心跳若快,則壽命較短的論述,所以人類是否也是如此,有科學依據嗎?謝謝您。
其實,我真該謝謝這位讀者的提問,因為我對心率跟壽命之間的關係一直很感興趣,但由於之前沒人提問,也就沒想到要發表文章來討論。
我之所以會對《心率與壽命》感興趣,原因之一是網路上看到《十億心跳理論》(Billion Heartbeat Theory)。這個理論,比較鬆散地講,是所有的動物在一生中的總心跳數都是在十億左右。但是,《所有的動物》畢竟是太過籠統,所以,比較嚴謹的說法是,所有的哺乳類動物一生中的總心跳數都是在十億左右。
既然所有的哺乳類動物,包括人,一生的總心跳數都差不多,那,心跳較慢的人就會活得較久。所以,有人就說,那我才不要運動,因為運動會使心跳加速,而心跳加速就會使壽命變短。還有人說,這個說法是太空人阿姆斯壯的名言,但事實上他從未說過這樣的話。請看維基百科。
不管如何,這個理論的源頭可以追朔到一篇1997年發表的論文。它的作者是心臟科醫生Herbert Levine,而標題是Rest heart rate and life expectancy(靜息心率和預期壽命)。這篇論文的第一個圖表是常被拷貝和引用來“證實”《十億心跳理論》,而它共列舉了15種哺乳類動物,從最小的小鼠,到最大的鯨魚。除了人類之外,這些動物的心率和壽命呈現出一個《逆半對數關係》(inverse semilogarithmic relation)。簡單地說就是,心率越高的動物種類,壽命就越短。
既然知道每一種動物的心率和壽命,就可以算出每一種動物一生的總心跳數。所以,Herbert Levine醫生就將那15種動物一生的總心跳數陳列在這篇論文的第二個圖表。除了人類之外,這些動物一生的總心跳數都是在7.3億左右。
7.3億當然不是10億,所以《十億心跳理論》並沒有出現在Herbert Levine醫生這篇論文裡。但是,我在網路上看到的資料都是說動物一生的總心跳數是10億左右,包括一些學術界的網站,例如北卡羅來納州立大學和聖荷西州立大學。
在我看到的所有資料中,一般讀者最容易看得懂的應該是The Heartbeat Hypothesis。這篇文章把上面那篇論文的第一個圖表重新製作,而我個人認為這個新圖表比較好看,所以就採納它做為本文的插圖。

這篇文章也有提供下面這六種動物的心率,壽命,和一生總心跳數:
侏儒尖鼠:每分鐘心跳1300,壽命1.5年,一生心跳10.2億次。
小鼠:每分鐘心跳500,壽命5年,一生心跳13.1億次。
貓:每分鐘心跳150,壽命15年,一生心跳11.8億次。
人類:每分鐘心跳60,壽命71年,一生心跳22.4億次。
馬:每分鐘心跳44,壽命40年,一生心跳9.3億次。
大象:每分鐘心跳28,壽命70年,一生心跳10.3億次。
從上面這六種動物就可看出,人類是《十億心跳理論》的唯一例外(一生總心跳數高達20多億)。沒有人知道原因,但目前最好的解釋是《先進的醫療照顧》和《先進的社會結構》。(註:這六種動物的壽命和心率和圖表上所顯示的數據並不完全吻合。我個人認為那是因為Herbert Levine醫生所採用的數據不夠精確。還有,新圖表的製作也將那條直線拉得太平了。請看下面Herbert Levine醫生的原圖表)

好,談完《不同動物心率與壽命之間的關係》,我們現在來談《不同個人心率與壽命之間的關係》。先來看一篇2009年發表的綜述論文Heart rate, lifespan, and mortality risk.(心率,壽命和死亡風險)。它的摘要的前兩句是:「越來越多的科學研究和觀察證據表明,靜息心率與恆溫哺乳動物之間以及單個物種內的壽命成反比。在很多人體研究中,靜息心律的升高與死亡風險增加有關。 靜息心律與壽命之間的相關性似乎是由於基礎代謝率和與心血管相關死亡風險。」
再來,我們看一篇2013年發表的研究論文Elevated resting heart rate, physical fitness and all-cause mortality: a 16-year follow-up in the Copenhagen Male Study(升高的靜息心率,體魄健全和全因死亡率:在哥本哈根男性研究中進行的16年隨訪)。這項研究共追踪調查5200男性16年,最後收集到其中2800位的完整資料。這些資料顯示(1)體魄越健全,靜息心率就越低,(2)靜息心率越高,死亡風險就越高,(3)靜息心率每增加10,死亡風險就增加16%。
從這兩篇論文可以看出,體魄越健全,靜息心率就越低,而壽命也就越長。
我在文章的開始有提到,有人認為運動會使心跳加速,而心跳越快壽命就越短,所以想長壽就不要運動。這聽起來似乎很有道理,只不過…。請看下面解釋。
張三從不運動,而他的靜息心跳是每分鐘75下,所以他每天心跳次數是108,000下。
李四每天做運動,所以他的靜息心跳是每分鐘50下。在他每天一小時的運動中,心跳是每分鐘150下,所以一小時下來,他的心跳次數是9,000下。可是,他不做運動的那23小時的心跳次數是69,000下,所以,他運動時的9,000下和他不運動時的69,000下加起來,得到他每天心跳次數是78,000下。
也就是說,李四每天的心跳次數是比張三整整少了三萬。那,是運動會比較長壽,還是不運動?
當然,長壽有很多因素。張三李四的例子只是從心率和壽命之間的關係來指出運動是比不運動好。不管如何,整體而言,心率越低的人,壽命就越長。
我現在也是每天在運動,除非除非是沒時間。運動好處多多。
讚Liked by 1 person
謝謝!我也是天天運動,但只是喜歡,不是為了長壽。
讚Liked by 1 person
You will find that this correlation of heart rate and lifespan does not fit many animals at all, such as many bird species including parrots, also turtles, reptiles, amphibians, fish plus many invertebrates such as insects. Some birds can live to 80 years or more and yet they have rather fast heart rates. A horse’s heart is significantly slower than that of a human being, but has a lifespan that is three times shorter.
In general, larger hearts naturally beat more slowly, and smaller hearts beat much faster, as physics dictate. In other words, the correlation of heart rate and lifespan often has little or nothing to do with health, fitness or longevity.
On average, men’s hearts are 10 beats slower than those of women, and yet women all over the world outlive men by between 5 to 9 years.
Also, a superb athlete’s heart may beat twice as slow as an average person’s heart, yet, on average, few athletes can outlive an average healthy person by more than just a few years, and hardly any of the longest living human beings are or were professional athletes.
讚讚
Please provide references.
讚Liked by 1 person
Dear Sir,
My previous comment comes from years of being consilient and holistic through interdisciplinarity and multidisciplinarity in order to see and understand the parts and the whole, and to guard against (re)presenting or believing in erroneous claims or problematic findings.
Rather than relying on me to present you with a list of references, it is much better to consistently cultivate a healthful dose of scepticism, and to read and check counterarguments and contrary evidence in your own research.
The issues pertaining to this case regarding the strength and generalizability of its alleged correlation can also be demonstrated by the study of alcoholism and mortality: when researchers fully check that those who label themselves as non-drinkers, teetotallers or very light drinkers are indeed so for their entire lives and not those who had been moderate or heavy drinkers in the past, the graph (alcohol consumption on x axis and mortality on y axis) shows a straight line. This indicates that there is really no safe level of alcohol consumption at which there is no harm to the human body. Perhaps as a parallel, there is really no safe level of dogmatic religious consumption at which there is no harm to the human mind.
Please be informed that you might need to use a desktop or laptop computer with a large screen to view the rich multimedia contents available for heightening your multisensory enjoyment at my blog, which could be too powerful and feature-rich for iPad, iPhone, tablet or other portable devices to handle properly or adequately.
In addition, since my blog contains advanced styling and multimedia components plus animations, it is highly recommended to read my posts and pages directly in my blog so that you will be able to see and experience all of the refined and glorious details. Hence, it is prudent to refrain from viewing my blog in the WordPress Reader, which tends to ignore or strip away some styling and formatting components, and also fails to display animations, all of which are aplenty in my posts and pages, which will look very different and even improper or amiss in the WordPress Reader.
Happy New Year to you and your family! May you find 2021 very much to your liking and highly conducive to your learning, thinking and blogging!
讚讚
教授 您好:我是王振宇還記得我嗎?我也喜歡運動,或許長期保持運動習慣,靜心律由70多降到40多,目前維持在45上下,睡眠時會到41。我己75歲,2020年12月20日參加台北馬拉松全馬賽程,順利完賽,沒有任何不適,隔天仍到健身房做重訓。平日正常三餐,餐與餐間不再進食,從未吃任何營養品、補品,包括高效能的乳清蛋白。
說這些是想印証教授大力推廣想保健康,就是飲食均𧗽,常運動且要達一定強度與量,不要聽信保健食品及維生素的效能。
我與教授同一理念,運動目的是健康保持好體力,不是為了長壽。
讚Liked by 1 person
當然記得。事實上我對自己的體能一向是很自豪,但與您相比就差遠了。我在幾年前量過靜息心率是45。謝謝您長期的支持與信賴。
讚Liked by 1 person
好有趣又深入,感謝教授分析!
之前對心跳速度有點好奇,剛好看到解惑了
(長期默默關注您的部落格中)
讚Liked by 1 person
謝謝您的支持!
讚讚
拜讀教授文章,獲益良多。
讚Liked by 1 person
謝謝您的肯定。
讚讚
The following video amply shows that the correlation of heart rate and lifespan does not fit many animals at all:
讚讚
Lots of animals don’t even have heart, so it is nonsensical to say that the correlation of heart rate and lifespan does not fit many animals.
讚讚
Please look carefully. Most of these animals have hearts. Plot their respective lifespans against their heart rates and you will see that the correlation as shown in the graph of your post is spurious. No decent biologists worth their salt and have looked into this matter carefully will take the graph seriously at all.
讚讚
By the way, professorcslin, I would like to wish you and your family a very happy Chinese New Year with my extensive post entitled “🦅 SoundEagle in Chinese New Year Celebration, Spring Festival, Lion Dance, Food, Ornaments, Traditional Culture and Architecture 🏮🎋🦁🥗🎐㊗️⛩" published at https://soundeagle.wordpress.com/2020/02/02/soundeagle-in-chinese-new-year-celebration-spring-festival-lion-dance-food-ornaments-traditional-culture-and-architecture/
May all of you have a lovely weekend too!
讚讚
The graph is a classic case of cherry-picking data. There are so many issues with the graph, apart from those that I have already mentioned in my previous comments. Apart from excluding non-mammals (which should have been included), it includes only 15 different mammals, and even this is very problematic, as there are enormous ranges of lifespans in different species of monkeys, cetaceans (whales), the rodent families, the cat families and so on.
讚讚
If the data is trustworthy, why aren’t they published in a reputable science journal?
讚讚
There are plenty of problematic scientific research results and papers, and some have to be retracted from publications or even declared to be fraudulent. In fact, Two Thirds of Scientific Publications Retracted Are Fraudulent. You can find out more about this matter in one of my post entitled “Two Thirds of Scientific Publications Retracted Are Fraudulent“.
Here is just one of the many discussions and revelations about the pitfalls and caveats of scientific research:
讚讚
There is nothing surprising even if 100% of retracted publications are fraudulent.
讚讚
These problematic papers and results, whether fraudulent or not, can cause and/or have caused various harms (whether social, economic, health-wise, environmental and so on) can be very misleading, deceptive, disruptive and/or irresponsible. I don’t have time to list all of the negative impacts here.
Wishing you a lovely Chinese New Year! If you plan to visit my said post about Chinese New Year!
讚讚
About 45 minutes ago, I have also submitted two other comments to you about wishing you and your family a happy Chinese New Year, and they disappeared and probably were misidentified as spams.
You can resurrect my two said comments at https://professorlin.com/wp-admin/edit-comments.php?comment_status=spam
The comments need to be unspammed and also require your approval before they will show up properly.
讚讚
Yes, I found them in the spam folder.
Thank you for your kind wishes.
讚Liked by 1 person
You are very welcome.
讚讚
Dear professorcslin,
I would like to wish you and your family a very happy Chinese New Year with my extensive post entitled “🦅 SoundEagle in Chinese New Year Celebration, Spring Festival, Lion Dance, Food, Ornaments, Traditional Culture and Architecture 🏮🎋🦁🥗🎐㊗️⛩" published at http://soundeagle.wordpress.com/2020/02/02/soundeagle-in-chinese-new-year-celebration-spring-festival-lion-dance-food-ornaments-traditional-culture-and-architecture/
May all of you have a lovely weekend too!
讚讚