4 ms·

> “Because coffee can quicken heart rate, some people worry that drinking it could trigger or worsen certain heart issues... We found coffee drinking had either

by adwi 5y ago

> “Because coffee can quicken heart rate, some people worry that drinking it could trigger or worsen certain heart issues... We found coffee drinking had either a neutral effect—meaning that it did no harm—or was associated with benefits to heart health.” I’ve often wondered this effect as it relates to widely prescribed prescription stimulants (ie adderrall)… is an artificially elevated heart rate damaging or strengthening the system?

caleb-allen 5y ago
My totally uneducated guess would be that whatever long term health effects that stimulants have on heart rate are minor compared to other stimulant effects (like blood pressure, appetite changes, etc)
hnuser123456 5y ago
I was on prescription stims for about 8 years. My heart rate was significantly higher in gym class than most, despite being relatively in-shape. However, I was apparently on them for so long that my RHR was permanently elevated. I almost never go below 85, over 10 years later. I doubt this was a net benefit for heart health.
stubish 5y ago
It seems plausible that the increase in heart rate, blood pressure slightly make up for our general lack of exercise. And when you are studying heart disease and end-of-life, pretty much everyone being studied has a lack of exercise by definition.
retrac 5y ago
Well, there's a reason a screening EKG and sometimes periodic monitoring is recommended for people taking stimulants. There seems to be a general medical opinion that stimulants tax an already-taxed heart. It seems more ambiguous for people with healthy hearts. And given that obesity and drug addiction are common consequences of untreated ADHD, even if they are mildly cardiotoxic, they may still reduce the risk of heart disease when properly prescribed. (I'm no doctor, FWIW.)
throw7 5y ago
Generally, I've been of the opinion of "use it or lose it" AND that natural > artificial... meaning that I think less of "pills" and more of exercising.
- feoren 5y ago
  People that claim "natural" is better than "artificial" have the burden of defining those terms and supporting with evidence why one should be better than the other. I have never seen anyone who uses those terms come close to doing this. Nobody can even define what those words mean, much less provide evidence for the claim. So I classify "natural > artificial" as pure BS and not-even-wrong until proven otherwise.

by adwi 5y ago

caleb-allen 5y ago

My totally uneducated guess would be that whatever long term health effects that stimulants have on heart rate are minor compared to other stimulant effects (like blood pressure, appetite changes, etc)

hnuser123456 5y ago

I was on prescription stims for about 8 years. My heart rate was significantly higher in gym class than most, despite being relatively in-shape. However, I was apparently on them for so long that my RHR was permanently elevated. I almost never go below 85, over 10 years later. I doubt this was a net benefit for heart health.

stubish 5y ago

It seems plausible that the increase in heart rate, blood pressure slightly make up for our general lack of exercise. And when you are studying heart disease and end-of-life, pretty much everyone being studied has a lack of exercise by definition.

retrac 5y ago

Well, there's a reason a screening EKG and sometimes periodic monitoring is recommended for people taking stimulants. There seems to be a general medical opinion that stimulants tax an already-taxed heart. It seems more ambiguous for people with healthy hearts. And given that obesity and drug addiction are common consequences of untreated ADHD, even if they are mildly cardiotoxic, they may still reduce the risk of heart disease when properly prescribed. (I'm no doctor, FWIW.)

throw7 5y ago

Generally, I've been of the opinion of "use it or lose it" AND that natural > artificial... meaning that I think less of "pills" and more of exercising.

feoren 5y ago
People that claim "natural" is better than "artificial" have the burden of defining those terms and supporting with evidence why one should be better than the other. I have never seen anyone who uses those terms come close to doing this. Nobody can even define what those words mean, much less provide evidence for the claim. So I classify "natural > artificial" as pure BS and not-even-wrong until proven otherwise.