Is too much running unhealthy?

Need2Exerc1se

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-31095384

Interesting

I remember seeing something similar a year or more ago. Something about not running more than 30 min at a time. This article could actually be based on the same study I suppose, since it's a long running (no pun intended) study.

This suggests that there is a cap for both time and speed at which running loses it's health benefits. Of course, it doesn't actually so causation, but it is interesting. I suppose it could be that those that go longer and harder can afford more calories and have a poorer diet, thinking diet doesn't matter as long as fat is under control.

WhatMeRunning

I have an uncle who has been running marathons since he was a teenager. He is in his sixties now and still runs them. He always run mostly every day, and still does. There is a history of heart problems in his family, his father had a stent, his brother died of a heart attack in his fifties, and another brother died of a stroke in his forties.

I guess he's just lucky so far then. Or maybe he's like those grandma's we hear about who smoked cigarettes every day of their life and she lived to be 100 years old. Beats me.

dawnmcneil10

I'm pretty sure what I read a while back was that on average we should shoot for 30 minutes a day of "activity" for general well being.

I use running as a mind clearing activity, if I limited myself to 30 minutes I'd come back seriously angry at times because my mind wasn't done yet.

cheshirecatastrophe

This is not new info.

Endurance sports temporarily elevate all sorts of inflammation and muscle damage. If you don't rest adequately, the damage can be permanent. This is why you see some Ironman triathletes and marathoners age very prematurely. (Along with sun exposure.)

People who run a lot also often, not always, get hungry afterwards and eat what's available, including junk food. (Think about your local Tour de Donut or Run for Oysters.)

The research that interests *me* are the studies indicating moderate daily exercise helps depression, but above 30-60 minutes per day or a certain intensity threshold, you see vastly diminishing returns. I'm super fascinated by the physiological pathways for that...probably similar to the inflammation markers.

jhall260

I run more then 30 minutes a day - every day. I do it for mental well being as well as physical well being. Should you start by running that much? Probably not, but I have a solid base built up.

To me not everything in life is about extending it to its maximum. I enjoy running, I love running. So I am going to run.

sunnyside1213

I saw a show on tv today that said too much is as bad as none.

_Zardoz_

Ahh it's the time of year to start telling us runners we're going to drop dead if we run too much. This is a great piece that explains that the conclusions people are drawing from this study are well flawed at best

http://www.runnersworld.com/health/will-running-too-much-kill-you

cheshirecatastrophe

jhall260 wrote: »

I run more then 30 minutes a day - every day. I do it for mental well being as well as physical well being. Should you start by running that much? Probably not, but I have a solid base built up.

To me not everything in life is about extending it to its maximum. I enjoy running, I love running. So I am going to run.

Oh, no question I'd go nuts without as much physical activity as I do.

However, that's a very different kind of "nuts" (for me) than the severe depression I struggle with, that regular exercise doesn't help. (Or--oh, God, if it *is* helping, I am well and truly f#&ked.)

_Waffle_

I ran about an hour this morning and had Taco Bell for lunch. I'm pretty much dead already.

CupcakeCrusoe

In for how I'm dying.

ThickMcRunFast

Let me guess, one of the authors is O'Keefe.


/scurries to check.

Yup. That dude has been called out for using, um, "questionable" statistical analysis before. He's like the Lustig of running studies.

WhatMeRunning

_Waffle_ wrote: »

I ran about an hour this morning and had Taco Bell for lunch. I'm pretty much dead already.

Posts like this are the reason this place needs a "Like" button.

Chief_Rocka

Yes, hence the term "too much."

Need2Exerc1se

sunnyside1213 wrote: »

I saw a show on tv today that said too much is as bad as none.

That was likely discussing this same study.

glevinso

I would rather die in the middle of an Ironman than on my couch.

That said this article is utterly worthless. It doesn't describe anything regarding the cause of death of the long-endurance types.

It is about as good as the articles that say "Sugar is bad mmkay?"

Khukhullatus

Wow. pulling up the actual study in a medical journal, the thing is sort of junk.

The sub group that was considered extreme joggers was only 127 people with 28 out of a group of 1098 participants dying over the course of the study. That sounds like a lot, but doing a basic T test for statistical significance, you are looking at a distinction of only one or two deaths giving you the p value they considered sufficient for statistical significance.

This study wasn't even CLOSE to large enough to consider it anything but a pilot study.

They also did a pretty sub par job of controlling for other lifestyle factors. There doesn't seem to be much effort to control for people who were "overcompensating." Lots of people who over exercise do it in response to being overweight earlier in life, which could have been the original risk factor.

There also wasn't a lot of effort to control for current lifestyle, just current health. People who overdo one thing, tend to overdo lots of things. Controlling for lifestyle is extremely difficult in this type of research, it's not as though they didn't make the attempt, but that is why an extremely large sample size is necessary for anything to be considered probative, when you are dealing with a non interventional study.

It also looks as though the study was only double blinded, not triple blinded as is best practices these days. That isn't necessarily detrimental to the study, but it weakens it as a reliable source of information.

Take this with a MASSIVE grain of salt. It's not to say they are wrong, but I wouldn't adjust your practice based on any of this research.

Need2Exerc1se

_Zardoz_ wrote: »

Ahh it's the time of year to start telling us runners we're going to drop dead if we run too much. This is a great piece that explains that the conclusions people are drawing from this study are well flawed at best

http://www.runnersworld.com/health/will-running-too-much-kill-you

Are you sure this is the same study? The study the article references was published today, this link you provided almost a year ago.

cwolfman13

Oh...this again

Need2Exerc1se

cheshirecatastrophe wrote: »

This is not new info.

Endurance sports temporarily elevate all sorts of inflammation and muscle damage. If you don't rest adequately, the damage can be permanent. This is why you see some Ironman triathletes and marathoners age very prematurely. (Along with sun exposure.)

People who run a lot also often, not always, get hungry afterwards and eat what's available, including junk food. (Think about your local Tour de Donut or Run for Oysters.)

This study wasn't really about endurance at the triathalon level though. Speed OR length were associated with earlier death. Running for more than 35 min isn't always "endurance".

Need2Exerc1se

cwolfman13 wrote: »

Oh...this again

What do you mean?

glevinso

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

cwolfman13 wrote: »

Oh...this again

What do you mean?

Meaning this stupidity pops up every year or so around this time.