High pulse

Wed, 03 Dec 2003 16:04:01 -0500 in article
<[email hidden]> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"

Quoted message said:

Matti Narkia said:

Wed, 03 Dec 2003 15:26:28 -0500 in article
<[email hidden]> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"

Quoted message said:

The truth is that a heart rate between 50 and 100 is *defined* to be normal.

Definition which defines young physically active, fit persons with healthy
hearts as having "abnormal" resting heart rate is not satisfactory, IMHO.

Again, this is not a matter of opinion but one of definition.

Sure. But my opinion about the definition is that it's not satisfactory as
it is for the reasons I stated.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Either one should reduce the lower limit of the overall range or, IMHO
preferably, have different ranges for different subpopulations.

You are not running things, Matti.

No. But I have a right to opinion about how "things" are, especially if
there are reasons to think that "things" are somewhat less than
satisfactory now. Medical truths and definitions have limited lifetime.

Matti Narkia said:

Wed, 03 Dec 2003 16:00:06 -0500 in article
<[email hidden]> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"

Quoted message said:

Matti Narkia said:

Wed, 03 Dec 2003 15:26:28 -0500 in article
<[email hidden]> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
<[email hidden]> wrote:

>Matti Narkia wrote:
>
>You certainly may assert that the bradycardia in an athlete is secondary to athleticism rather than
>pathology but it will not change the fact there is bradycardia... and I would still want to see the EKG
>before agreeing with you about the former.

So it seems that I was right when I suspected that you are not familiar
with exercise induced physiological characteristics of top class endurance
athletes.

You are not correct.

Your posting behavior shows otherwise.

Hardly.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Check Medline or whatever reliable sources you wish, for the
start I've already provided you with references of two peer-reviewed
publications.

I am familiar with the sources you listed and more.

Now you are. If you were also earlier, it didn't come through in you
messages.

Perhaps you missed it being that English is your *fifth* language.

Respectfully, you remain out of your league on many levels, Matti.

Humbly,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/

Matti Narkia said:

Wed, 03 Dec 2003 16:04:01 -0500 in article
<[email hidden]> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"

Quoted message said:

Matti Narkia said:

Wed, 03 Dec 2003 15:26:28 -0500 in article
<[email hidden]> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
<[email hidden]> wrote:
>
>The truth is that a heart rate between 50 and 100 is *defined* to be normal.
>
Definition which defines young physically active, fit persons with healthy
hearts as having "abnormal" resting heart rate is not satisfactory, IMHO.

Again, this is not a matter of opinion but one of definition.

Sure. But my opinion about the definition is that it's not satisfactory as
it is for the reasons I stated.

Why is your opinion more important than anyone else's?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Either one should reduce the lower limit of the overall range or, IMHO
preferably, have different ranges for different subpopulations.

You are not running things, Matti.

No.

The correct and truthful answer is "yes."

Let it show in the archives that you remain out of your league on many levels.

Let everyone summon up this discourse when there is a question concerning your
credibility and authoritativeness.

Humbly,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/

Wed, 03 Dec 2003 16:25:00 -0500 in article
<[email hidden]> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"

Quoted message said:

Matti Narkia said:

Wed, 03 Dec 2003 16:04:01 -0500 in article
<[email hidden]> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"

Quoted message said:

Matti Narkia wrote:

> Wed, 03 Dec 2003 15:26:28 -0500 in article
> <[email hidden]> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
> <[email hidden]> wrote:
> >
> >The truth is that a heart rate between 50 and 100 is *defined* to be normal.
> >
> Definition which defines young physically active, fit persons with healthy
> hearts as having "abnormal" resting heart rate is not satisfactory, IMHO.

Again, this is not a matter of opinion but one of definition.

Sure. But my opinion about the definition is that it's not satisfactory as
it is for the reasons I stated.

Why is your opinion more important than anyone else's?

Could you kindly point me to the sentence in any of messages where I have
claimed that "my opinion is more important than anyone else's", as you put
it? Opinion is just that. You can prove it wrong, if you can, consider it,
if it has good arguments behind it, accept it, if the evidence provided is
satisfactory, or ignore it, if you there's nothing else you can do.

Based on above, it seems that you occasionally may have difficulties in
understanding written language. Is English your first language?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>
> Either one should reduce the lower limit of the overall range or, IMHO
> preferably, have different ranges for different subpopulations.

You are not running things, Matti.

No.

The correct and truthful answer is "yes."

The correct and truthful answer to what? That I'm running "things"? Is
that your opinion? If so, could you kindly specify what exactly are the
"things" I'm running ;-)?

Quoted message said:

Let it show in the archives that you remain out of your league on many levels.

Your opinion will be recorded. However, in your position I would give some
consideration to how it affects your perceived image ;-).

Quoted message said:

Let everyone summon up this discourse when there is a question concerning your
credibility and authoritativeness.

Your opinion about discussion seems to be that you say how the things are
and anyone questioning your statement is out of his league or lacking
credibility.

People, even you, regardless of how incredible that may seem, make
mistakes, that's acceptable unless caused by gross negligence or
arrogance. And medical truths are not eternal.

Wed, 03 Dec 2003 16:25:00 -0500 in article
<[email hidden]> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"

Quoted message said:

Matti Narkia said:

Wed, 03 Dec 2003 16:04:01 -0500 in article
<[email hidden]> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"

Quoted message said:

Matti Narkia wrote:

> Wed, 03 Dec 2003 15:26:28 -0500 in article
> <[email hidden]> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
> <[email hidden]> wrote:
> >
> >The truth is that a heart rate between 50 and 100 is *defined* to be normal.
> >
> Definition which defines young physically active, fit persons with healthy
> hearts as having "abnormal" resting heart rate is not satisfactory, IMHO.

Again, this is not a matter of opinion but one of definition.

Sure. But my opinion about the definition is that it's not satisfactory as
it is for the reasons I stated.

Why is your opinion more important than anyone else's?

Could you kindly point me to the sentence in any of messages where I have
claimed that "my opinion is more important than anyone else's", as you put
it? An opinion is just an opinion. You can prove it wrong, if you can,
consider it, if it has good arguments behind it, accept it, if the
evidence provided is satisfactory, or ignore it, if there's nothing else
you can do.

Based on above, it seems that may you occasionally have difficulties in
understanding written language. Is English your first language?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>
> Either one should reduce the lower limit of the overall range or, IMHO
> preferably, have different ranges for different subpopulations.

You are not running things, Matti.

No.

The correct and truthful answer is "yes."

The correct and truthful answer to what? That I'm running "things"? Is
that your opinion? If so, could you kindly specify what exactly are the
"things" I'm running ;-)?

Quoted message said:

Let it show in the archives that you remain out of your league on many levels.

Your opinion will be recorded. However, in your position I would give some
consideration to how it affects your perceived image ;-).

Quoted message said:

Let everyone summon up this discourse when there is a question concerning your
credibility and authoritativeness.

Your opinion about discussion seems to be that you say how the things are
and anyone questioning your statement is out of his league or lacking
credibility.

People, even you, regardless of how incredible that may seem, make
mistakes, that's acceptable unless caused by gross negligence or
arrogance. And medical truths are not eternal.

"Matti Narkia" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Wed, 03 Dec 2003 16:04:01 -0500 in article
<[email hidden]> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"

Quoted message said:

Matti Narkia said:

Wed, 03 Dec 2003 15:26:28 -0500 in article
<[email hidden]> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
<[email hidden]> wrote:
>
>The truth is that a heart rate between 50 and 100 is *defined* to be

normal.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>
Definition which defines young physically active, fit persons with

healthy

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

hearts as having "abnormal" resting heart rate is not satisfactory,

IMHO.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Again, this is not a matter of opinion but one of definition.

Sure. But my opinion about the definition is that it's not satisfactory as
it is for the reasons I stated.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Either one should reduce the lower limit of the overall range or, IMHO
preferably, have different ranges for different subpopulations.

You are not running things, Matti.

No. But I have a right to opinion about how "things" are, especially if
there are reasons to think that "things" are somewhat less than
satisfactory now. Medical truths and definitions have limited lifetime.

Pay no attention to Chung. He is an [censored].
Please continue to post. Most of us value your input and know Chung is an
idiot.
I think Chung is jealous of you and your knowledge. He is of inferrior
intelligence.
I belive the certifying board should be sent a google archive of his posts.

Wed, 03 Dec 2003 16:25:00 -0500 in article
<[email hidden]> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"

Quoted message said:

Matti Narkia said:

Wed, 03 Dec 2003 16:04:01 -0500 in article
<[email hidden]> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"

Quoted message said:

Matti Narkia wrote:

> Wed, 03 Dec 2003 15:26:28 -0500 in article
> <[email hidden]> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
> <[email hidden]> wrote:
> >
> >The truth is that a heart rate between 50 and 100 is *defined* to be normal.
> >
> Definition which defines young physically active, fit persons with healthy
> hearts as having "abnormal" resting heart rate is not satisfactory, IMHO.

Again, this is not a matter of opinion but one of definition.

Sure. But my opinion about the definition is that it's not satisfactory as
it is for the reasons I stated.

Why is your opinion more important than anyone else's?

Could you kindly point me to the sentence in any of messages where I have
claimed that "my opinion is more important than anyone else's", as you put
it? An opinion is just an opinion. You can prove it wrong, if you can,
consider it, if it has good arguments behind it, accept it, if the
evidence provided is satisfactory, or ignore it, if there's nothing else
you can do.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>
> Either one should reduce the lower limit of the overall range or, IMHO
> preferably, have different ranges for different subpopulations.

You are not running things, Matti.

No.

The correct and truthful answer is "yes."

The correct and truthful answer to what? That I'm running "things"? Is
that your opinion? If so, could you kindly specify what exactly are the
"things" I'm running ;-)?

Quoted message said:

Let it show in the archives that you remain out of your league on many levels.

Your opinion will be recorded. However, in your position I would give some
consideration to how it affects your perceived image ;-).

Quoted message said:

Let everyone summon up this discourse when there is a question concerning your
credibility and authoritativeness.

Your opinion about discussion seems to be that you say how the things are
and anyone questioning your statement is out of his league or lacking
credibility.

People, even you, regardless of how incredible that may seem, make
mistakes, that's acceptable unless caused by gross negligence or
arrogance. And medical truths are not eternal.

Wed, 03 Dec 2003 16:25:00 -0500 in article
<[email hidden]> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"

Quoted message said:

Humbly,

Andrew

Sometimes I wonder whether you understand the meaning of the words
"humbly" and "humble". Your writings are anything but humble. In fact if
anyone tried to find more arrogant messages than yours from this group's
recent history, my educated guess is that he/she would end up empty
handed.

"Matti Narkia" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Wed, 03 Dec 2003 16:25:00 -0500 in article
<[email hidden]> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"

Quoted message said:

Humbly,

Andrew

Sometimes I wonder whether you understand the meaning of the words
"humbly" and "humble". Your writings are anything but humble. In fact if
anyone tried to find more arrogant messages than yours from this group's
recent history, my educated guess is that he/she would end up empty
handed.

Chung is by far the most arrogant and egotistical person on this group. I
think he is feeling the pressure from REAL professionals. He can not
compete. I expect him to have a serious mental breakdown - soon. He does
not realize that HE is his own worst enemy.

Dr. Andrew B. Chung said:

Perhaps you missed it being that English is your *fifth* language.

Respectfully, you remain out of your league on many levels, Matti.

Humbly,

Based on Chung's apparent incapacity to understand English as
demonstrated in many exchanges with wiser posters, it would appear
that it isn't *any* of his languages.

The fraud Chung posts mocking and demeaning messages then
hypocritically characterizes himself as "humble."

It isn't Matti who doesn't know the meanings of words.

Pastorio

Paul E. Lehmann said:

<usual Lehmann hissing snipped>

You have my pity and my love, neighbor, for your obsessions.

Humbly,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com

Matti Narkia said:

Wed, 03 Dec 2003 16:25:00 -0500 in article
<[email hidden]> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"

Quoted message said:

Humbly,

Andrew

Sometimes I wonder whether you understand the meaning of the words
"humbly" and "humble".

I do. It is how I feel.

Quoted message said:

Your writings are anything but humble.

It remains how I feel. What you see in my writings is the power of God. It
is not my power. I remain God's humble bond-servant.

Quoted message said:

In fact if
anyone tried to find more arrogant messages

Truth appears arrogant to the untruthful.

Quoted message said:

than yours from this group's
recent history, my educated guess is that he/she would end up empty
handed.

That's about all you have contributed to these discussions: guesses.

Humbly,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com

Bob Pastorio said:

<Pastorio's usual hissing about his not having any wisdom snipped>

You have my pity and my love, neighbor, for your obsession.

Humbly,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com