oh please wrote:
Of course runners will have quite a bit more than that.
Actually, one theory for why runners might have better longevity is that they have *fewer* heartbeats by a given age. This is because although your HR is elevated while you are running, the better cardiovascular fitness you gain from running decreases your heart rate the rest of the time. And you spend a lot more time not running than running.
For example, Alice doesn't run at all. Her average HR throughout the day is 70 bpm. That's a total of 60*70*24 = 100,800 beats/day.
Brenda runs for 1 hour/day, during which her HR averages 150 bpm. Even if her average HR for the rest of the day only falls to 66 bpm, she is already doing slightly better than Alice! Because 60*150+23*60*66 = 100,080. If her average non-running HR falls to 60 bpm, she is down to 91,800 beats/day. If it falls to 50 bpm (which I don't think is unrealistic), she is down to 78,000 beats/day, a reduction of over 20%.
What these examples illustrate is that since you spend most of your time not running, the lower HR during non-running activities ends up having a bigger effect. If you were running like 5 hours per day or more, this dynamic may no longer hold (depending on the ratio of running to non-running HRs).
So runners probably experience less heart beats per year. In that sense, running might actually *save* some wear and tear on your heart, as counterintuitive as that is.