Posted by King Vultan on July 9, 2004, at 14:32:58
In reply to Re: My marplan experience » John, posted by Just a little... on July 9, 2004, at 9:58:19
If Marplan is at all like Nardil (they are both hydrazine derivatives, while Parnate is not), you may actually have the opposite problem where your heart rate is too slow, as suggested by Questionmark. My experience, having experienced tachycardia on tricyclics and bradycardia on Nardil, is that the bradycardia is more of a problem in practice.
The tachycardia had no real effect on my workouts, but I do not do anything that is heartrate targeted; I occasionally monitor my heartrate while I'm running out of curiousity. At age 39 earlier this year on a tricyclic (desipramine), my pulse was running about 155 bpm on the flats and as high as 168 climbing hills at a moderately strenuous pace. This may seem high, but it was simply a natural result of the pace of the workout, which was not uncomfortable. My resting heart rate on desipramine was about 90 bpm.
However, on Nardil, with a resting heartrate of about 55, I am having problems even climbing the stairs without feeling faint, and I just cannot go as fast when I'm running. I've felt my pulse sometimes at the top of the stairs (when I've laid down to avoid fainting), and it's clear that it's not going fast enough to begin with and also can't accelerate fast enough to keep up with the needed increase in cardiovascular output. Better the reflex tachycardia I experienced on the tricyclics. BTW, both types of drugs caused me hypotension. My normal BP is 140/90; on the Nardil it is about 105/65, and on desipramine it was about 110/70.
The Marplan may be better than the Nardil in this way, but I thought I would share my experience. Good luck whatever you decide to do.
Todd
poster:King Vultan
thread:13117
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20040704/msgs/364449.html