Submitted by Alfred J. Lemire, Sep 4, 2007 20:11

An EKG only offers an instant's view of heart functioning. A stress test with heart monitoring provides more data and information and markedly increases cost. A further test, with a Holter monitor, adds another expense, but it could provide a view of a heart's functioning over a 24-hour period. And that could uncover otherwise unknown problems, like significant delays between beats not noticed in the shorter examinations. One ought also to keep in mind that those faster and more frequent speed bursts push up heartbeat rates to the levels of what may be the most demanding competitive sport, cross-country ski racing. As I recall, a few years ago, some of the U.S. women had their hearts tested, either during some competition or shortly after, and were found to have beats ranging in the 200 beats per minute level. That would kill most people. This writer may be described as an experienced patient. So I can't know what's best. But it's obvious that, at the least, EKGs should be mandatory for participants in school, college, and professional competitive sports teams.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.