For a workable definition of a 'outlier' you can use a 49-yr-old 'type
A' bloke who drank loads, ate loads, had a stressful job and decided
to cycle to work one day.
My cardiologist offered no definition but it stands to reason that
they would be someone already at risk of a heart attack. His views on
'vigorous' exercise were arrived at from his viewpoint as a consultant
cardiologist in a busy teaching hospital. He tended to see a lot of
blokes (and, of course, a few women) arriving blue-faced from their
chosen exercise. Many of these people might present (much later?) with
chest pains as a result of chronically narrowed coronary arteries
rather than an acute 100% blockage die to unstable arterial plaque
dislodged by exercise.
Despite the other aspects of my then lifestyle I exercised fairly
regularly so my view is that any extra fitness will increase the
survivability of the event.
There is plenty of data on exercise vs improved cardiac capacity but
in the absence of any studies on differences in the outcome of
cardiac emergencies, my cardiologist and I have agreed to differ.
Pete
James Annan said:monotreme said:My cardiologist is sceptical of what he calls 'vigorous exercise'.
Essentially, his position is that the risk/benefit borderline will
vary from individual to individual and that the average statistics for
a group might tempt an 'outlier' into risky behaviour.Did he have a workable definition of what at "outlier" might look like
ab initio, or was this just a post-hoc pigeonholing of the unlucky ones?James