Evidence Against Excessive Cardio?

BeachIron

I hesitated to post this but it's from the WSJ and it discusses what appears to be growing (at least anecdotal) evidence against excessive endurance exercise. I run regularly so by no means is this an attack on running, but perhaps it's wise to think twice before deciding that marathons are the way to go if you are not currently a marathoner. The point is simply that there may be an upper limit to the amount of running that is beneficial, above which running may start to cause or exacerbate cardiovascular issues. That said, this does not have links to any underlying studies and that is a clear weakness in the article.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323975004578501150442565788.html?mod=trending_now_4

From the article:

"Research shows an association between endurance athletics and enlarged aortic roots.

Other recent studies suggest the significant mortality benefits of running may diminish or disappear at mileage exceeding 30 miles a week and other, very small studies have shown elevated levels of coronary plaque in serial marathoners—a problem that rigorous exercise theoretically could cause."

This is a very important caveat from the article:

"Yet sports-medicine specialists are sharply divided over whether any warning is warranted. For every American who exercises to extremes, after all, there are thousands who don't exercise at all—and who might embrace any exercise-related warnings as cause for staying sedentary. Moreover, the evidence for extreme-exercise hazards is far from conclusive —and is contradicted by other studies suggesting the health benefits of exercise may accrue to infinity." [emphasis added]

meredith1123

I LOVE Running....
but screw that marathon crap. I'm all about up to 10K. That's my final.

I do admit however that running becomes an addiction and for some folks, they just....keeep....runnnnaannnngggggg (*forest gump impression*)

davemunger

This is an old argument and is basically baloney. The ultimate takedown is here, written by an exercise physiologist for Runner's World:

http://www.runnersworld.com/health/too-much-running-myth-rises-again

Money quote:

"But here, from the actual abstract, is the part they never mention:

"Cox regression was used to quantify the association between running and mortality after adjusting for baseline age, sex, examination year, body mass index, current smoking, heavy alcohol drinking, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, parental CVD, and levels of other physical activities.

"What this means is that they used statistical methods to effectively “equalize” everyone’s weight, blood pressure, cholesterol, and so on. But this is absurd when you think about it. Why do we think running is good for health? In part because it plays a role in reducing weight, blood pressure, cholesterol, and so on (for more details on how this distorts the results, including evidence from other studies on how these statistical tricks hide real health benefits from much higher amounts of running, see my earlier blog entry). They’re effectively saying, 'If we ignore the known health benefits of greater amounts of aerobic exercise, then greater amounts of aerobic exercise don’t have any health benefits.'"

BeachIron

I have been trying to find the "right" amount of running for several years. I've been in a running group that was trying to convince me I was eating too much protein and lifting too much, and then with the lifting groups telling me that I was eating too many carbs and that running is going to destroy my lifting progress. We all have to find our own approaches but I'm seriously trying to find the sweet spot for the maximum health and appearance benefits.

SassyCalyGirl

I am a long distance runner. Love it and won't stop!

KeithAngilly

This is an old argument and is basically baloney. The ultimate takedown is here, written by an exercise physiologist for Runner's World:

http://www.runnersworld.com/health/too-much-running-myth-rises-again

Money quote:

"But here, from the actual abstract, is the part they never mention:

"Cox regression was used to quantify the association between running and mortality after adjusting for baseline age, sex, examination year, body mass index, current smoking, heavy alcohol drinking, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, parental CVD, and levels of other physical activities.

"What this means is that they used statistical methods to effectively “equalize” everyone’s weight, blood pressure, cholesterol, and so on. But this is absurd when you think about it. Why do we think running is good for health? In part because it plays a role in reducing weight, blood pressure, cholesterol, and so on (for more details on how this distorts the results, including evidence from other studies on how these statistical tricks hide real health benefits from much higher amounts of running, see my earlier blog entry). They’re effectively saying, 'If we ignore the known health benefits of greater amounts of aerobic exercise, then greater amounts of aerobic exercise don’t have any health benefits.'"

Good posting!

WillowBreeze

It's funny how there are such distinct lines drawn between cardio lovers and lifting lovers... I have heard both ends of it and decided to do my own thing. I eat a lot of protein like a lifter, but focus mostly on cardio and less on weight training like a runner. I think both ends of the argument would just tell me I'm all wrong

Mainebikerchick

I have been trying to find the "right" amount of running for several years. I've been in a running group that was trying to convince me I was eating too much protein and lifting too much, and then with the lifting groups telling me that I was eating too many carbs and that running is going to destroy my lifting progress. We all have to find our own approaches but I'm seriously trying to find the sweet spot for the maximum health and appearance benefits.

I'm also trying to find the happy medium. I LOVE Zumba but I really enjoy lifting now too and don't plan to stop either any time soon!

BeachIron

This is an old argument and is basically baloney. The ultimate takedown is here, written by an exercise physiologist for Runner's World:

http://www.runnersworld.com/health/too-much-running-myth-rises-again

Money quote:

"But here, from the actual abstract, is the part they never mention:

"Cox regression was used to quantify the association between running and mortality after adjusting for baseline age, sex, examination year, body mass index, current smoking, heavy alcohol drinking, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, parental CVD, and levels of other physical activities.

"What this means is that they used statistical methods to effectively “equalize” everyone’s weight, blood pressure, cholesterol, and so on. But this is absurd when you think about it. Why do we think running is good for health? In part because it plays a role in reducing weight, blood pressure, cholesterol, and so on (for more details on how this distorts the results, including evidence from other studies on how these statistical tricks hide real health benefits from much higher amounts of running, see my earlier blog entry). They’re effectively saying, 'If we ignore the known health benefits of greater amounts of aerobic exercise, then greater amounts of aerobic exercise don’t have any health benefits.'"

This isn't a question of whether people should be running or not, but a question of how much is the safe upper limit. I personally think that is a very legitimate question, and the author of the study you referenced seems to agree:

"To reiterate, I'm not flipping to the other extreme and arguing that there's no point of the diminishing returns for exercise, or even that there's no possibility of heart damage associated with extreme ultraendurance exercise. These are open and legitimate questions. But this scaremongering about relatively modest amounts of exercise in favor of "hunter-gatherer" exercise is silly. We can speculate all we want about "potential" risks and benefits, but the real-world epidemiology is crystal-clear: if you exercise for an hour a day, you're likely to live longer than if you exercise less than an hour a day."

There seems to be a bit too much positioning here from both sides and not enough good information.

Mainebikerchick

I have been trying to find the "right" amount of running for several years. I've been in a running group that was trying to convince me I was eating too much protein and lifting too much, and then with the lifting groups telling me that I was eating too many carbs and that running is going to destroy my lifting progress. We all have to find our own approaches but I'm seriously trying to find the sweet spot for the maximum health and appearance benefits.

I'm also trying to find the happy medium. I LOVE Zumba but I really enjoy lifting now too and don't plan to stop either any time soon!

bumblebums

This is an old argument and is basically baloney. The ultimate takedown is here, written by an exercise physiologist for Runner's World:

http://www.runnersworld.com/health/too-much-running-myth-rises-again

Money quote:

"But here, from the actual abstract, is the part they never mention:

"Cox regression was used to quantify the association between running and mortality after adjusting for baseline age, sex, examination year, body mass index, current smoking, heavy alcohol drinking, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, parental CVD, and levels of other physical activities.

"What this means is that they used statistical methods to effectively “equalize” everyone’s weight, blood pressure, cholesterol, and so on. But this is absurd when you think about it. Why do we think running is good for health? In part because it plays a role in reducing weight, blood pressure, cholesterol, and so on (for more details on how this distorts the results, including evidence from other studies on how these statistical tricks hide real health benefits from much higher amounts of running, see my earlier blog entry). They’re effectively saying, 'If we ignore the known health benefits of greater amounts of aerobic exercise, then greater amounts of aerobic exercise don’t have any health benefits.'"

I think either you or the author of that Runner's World article are misunderstanding what a statistical regression does. A multivariate regression models the variance in the data with respect to the dependent variable (here, mortality rates). Let me break this down.

Suppose you want to know whether mortality rates are affected in any way by running. You happen to know from prior research that "baseline age, sex, examination year, body mass index, current smoking, heavy alcohol drinking, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, parental CVD, and levels of other physical activities" (the other predictor variables mentioned in the abstract) contribute to mortality. There are two ways to answer your main research question: (1) match for all of these variables in the two populations you are studying, one of which runs and the other does not. This is going to be hard to impossible, given the number and nature of these variables. (2) Find out what the levels of these variables are in the population, and include them as predictors in your model. If, after including them as predictors, marathon running STILL accounts for some variation, then marathon running has an effect on mortality rates.

You might also be a bit confused about what it means when your predictor variables are correlated with each other. Runners may in fact be overall eat better, drink less, etc., etc. But they might not be. If you want to know the effect of running independent of the variables which are correlated with running, you have to regress running against these other variables and take the residuals and put them in your model as predictors.

What the study in question found was this (quote from the abstract):

"Running distances of 0.1-19.9 miles/week, speeds of 6-7 miles/hour, or frequencies of 2-5 days/week were associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality, whereas higher mileage, faster paces, and more frequent running were not associated with better survival."

What this means in plain English is that the study found no benefits to running more than 20 miles a week. It doesn't mean that there are no benefits, and it certainly does not mean that there are dangers.

55in13

I LOVE Running....
but screw that marathon crap. I'm all about up to 10K. That's my final.

I do admit however that running becomes an addiction and for some folks, they just....keeep....runnnnaannnngggggg (*forest gump impression*)

That is kinda where I am, but I am training toward doing a half so I can get the shirt, the car magnet and then run 5ks and 10ks without as much effort. I have gone past 10k a couple of times and it does become more about survival and quits being as much fun (to me).

davemunger

"To reiterate, I'm not flipping to the other extreme and arguing that there's no point of the diminishing returns for exercise, or even that there's no possibility of heart damage associated with extreme ultraendurance exercise. These are open and legitimate questions. But this scaremongering about relatively modest amounts of exercise in favor of "hunter-gatherer" exercise is silly. We can speculate all we want about "potential" risks and benefits, but the real-world epidemiology is crystal-clear: if you exercise for an hour a day, you're likely to live longer than if you exercise less than an hour a day."

There seems to be a bit too much positioning here from both sides and not enough good information.

I think you're missing the point of this a bit. What Hutchinson is saying is that obviously there is some point at which cardio becomes "too much," but that level almost certainly quite high. If I run an hour a day, that's 50 miles a week -- that's a lot of running! And that's much better than not running at all. If people are doing more than that -- 70, 100+ miles a week -- they are generally not doing it to optimize health, they're doing it because they love running and want to get better at it. Much like skydivers and rockclimbers don't do it for their health. True, we don't know the point at which cardio becomes "too much," but the warnings that 20-30 miles a week is the threshold are very likely wrong.

Make sure you read this post, where Hutchinson gives more information about the research behind the 30-mile myth:

http://www.runnersworld.com/running-tips/second-thoughts-too-much-running

BeachIron

"To reiterate, I'm not flipping to the other extreme and arguing that there's no point of the diminishing returns for exercise, or even that there's no possibility of heart damage associated with extreme ultraendurance exercise. These are open and legitimate questions. But this scaremongering about relatively modest amounts of exercise in favor of "hunter-gatherer" exercise is silly. We can speculate all we want about "potential" risks and benefits, but the real-world epidemiology is crystal-clear: if you exercise for an hour a day, you're likely to live longer than if you exercise less than an hour a day."

There seems to be a bit too much positioning here from both sides and not enough good information.

I think you're missing the point of this a bit. What Hutchinson is saying is that obviously there is some point at which cardio becomes "too much," but that level almost certainly quite high. If I run an hour a day, that's 50 miles a week -- that's a lot of running! And that's much better than not running at all. If people are doing more than that -- 70, 100+ miles a week -- they are generally not doing it to optimize health, they're doing it because they love running and want to get better at it. Much like skydivers and rockclimbers don't do it for their health. True, we don't know the point at which cardio becomes "too much," but the warnings that 20-30 miles a week is the threshold are very likely wrong.

Make sure you read this post, where Hutchinson gives more information about the research behind the 30-mile myth:

http://www.runnersworld.com/running-tips/second-thoughts-too-much-running

I'm certainly not missing the point, and if you run solely for the love of running, more power to you. I agree that the point at which it would be "too much" must be quite high. It's just a matter of where, way up there on the running scale, that point is. That's really the only point.

davemunger

I think either you or the author of that Runner's World article are misunderstanding what a statistical regression does. A multivariate regression models the variance in the data with respect to the dependent variable (here, mortality rates). Let me break this down.

Suppose you want to know whether mortality rates are affected in any way by running. You happen to know from prior research that "baseline age, sex, examination year, body mass index, current smoking, heavy alcohol drinking, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, parental CVD, and levels of other physical activities" (the other predictor variables mentioned in the abstract) contribute to mortality. There are two ways to answer your main research question: (1) match for all of these variables in the two populations you are studying, one of which runs and the other does not. This is going to be hard to impossible, given the number and nature of these variables. (2) Find out what the levels of these variables are in the population, and include them as predictors in your model. If, after including them as predictors, marathon running STILL accounts for some variation, then marathon running has an effect on mortality rates.

I can certainly understand why you would want to try to control as many unrelated factors as possible, but it's disingenuous to assume that factors such as BMI and blood pressure are unrelated to running. If a person is running 60 miles a week and still has high BMI and hypertension, I'm not surprised that they have high mortality -- but I'm not going to say that's due to the running!

What Hutchinson and I are saying is that it's very, very difficult to determine conclusively where the point of diminishing returns of cardio is, but ignoring positive effects of cardio such as lower BMI and lower blood pressure when measuring the returns of cardio is probably not going to help much in answering the question.

bumblebums

"To reiterate, I'm not flipping to the other extreme and arguing that there's no point of the diminishing returns for exercise, or even that there's no possibility of heart damage associated with extreme ultraendurance exercise. These are open and legitimate questions. But this scaremongering about relatively modest amounts of exercise in favor of "hunter-gatherer" exercise is silly. We can speculate all we want about "potential" risks and benefits, but the real-world epidemiology is crystal-clear: if you exercise for an hour a day, you're likely to live longer than if you exercise less than an hour a day."

There seems to be a bit too much positioning here from both sides and not enough good information.

I think you're missing the point of this a bit. What Hutchinson is saying is that obviously there is some point at which cardio becomes "too much," but that level almost certainly quite high. If I run an hour a day, that's 50 miles a week -- that's a lot of running! And that's much better than not running at all. If people are doing more than that -- 70, 100+ miles a week -- they are generally not doing it to optimize health, they're doing it because they love running and want to get better at it. Much like skydivers and rockclimbers don't do it for their health. True, we don't know the point at which cardio becomes "too much," but the warnings that 20-30 miles a week is the threshold are very likely wrong.

Make sure you read this post, where Hutchinson gives more information about the research behind the 30-mile myth:

http://www.runnersworld.com/running-tips/second-thoughts-too-much-running

Wow. Reading that second post makes it clear that Mr. Hutchinson does not understand how statistical analysis works.

HannahJDiaz25

I have SO MANY studies...each conflict with others. So I decided that everyone should just do the workout that makes you the happiest.

If you love runners high...run
If you love your big beefy muscles...lift
If you want like both...do both.
If you love Yoga but hate everything else...Do yoga!

My point is that everybody pretty much agrees that some exercise (no matter what kind) is better then none.
So do what you love :-)

I personally hate running and there is a horrible family history of knees dying young, so I try to keep it under 45 minutes if I jog.

Codefox

I LOVE Running....
but screw that marathon crap. I'm all about up to 10K. That's my final.

I do admit however that running becomes an addiction and for some folks, they just....keeep....runnnnaannnngggggg (*forest gump impression*)

Marathons are a bit crazy but definitely worth doing at least once if you love running. You'll get to run all day! If you enjoy 10ks though and you haven't tried a half marathon you should try working up to one. After a full marathon, even though I was well prepared for it...I was in pain. Just the training was pretty rough since its so many miles. But a half? Totally different beast. I feel as good after a half as I do after a 10k. I can go about my day after its done and you'd never know I ran 13.1 miles that morning 8)

dixiewhiskey

While research and studies are awesome and all that jazz.. I will just run whenever I feel like it. Running is addictive as is heavy lifting but I listen to my body. I think I've found the medium that works - it changes every week but I really don't listen to what the lifters or cardio bunnies say.. my doctor says I am healthy. I just do my own thing

bpotts44

As a younger guy I used to be interested in the marathon, but I've more recently been trying to increase my time in the shorter races which forces me to incorporate more high intensity intervals. I've found while this type of training is harder it is equally enjoyable and more personally rewarding and allows more time to incorporate resistance training, although the last month or two I haven't done much of that.

bumblebums

I think either you or the author of that Runner's World article are misunderstanding what a statistical regression does. A multivariate regression models the variance in the data with respect to the dependent variable (here, mortality rates). Let me break this down.

Suppose you want to know whether mortality rates are affected in any way by running. You happen to know from prior research that "baseline age, sex, examination year, body mass index, current smoking, heavy alcohol drinking, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, parental CVD, and levels of other physical activities" (the other predictor variables mentioned in the abstract) contribute to mortality. There are two ways to answer your main research question: (1) match for all of these variables in the two populations you are studying, one of which runs and the other does not. This is going to be hard to impossible, given the number and nature of these variables. (2) Find out what the levels of these variables are in the population, and include them as predictors in your model. If, after including them as predictors, marathon running STILL accounts for some variation, then marathon running has an effect on mortality rates.

I can certainly understand why you would want to try to control as many unrelated factors as possible, but it's disingenuous to assume that factors such as BMI and blood pressure are unrelated to running. If a person is running 60 miles a week and still has high BMI and hypertension, I'm not surprised that they have high mortality -- but I'm not going to say that's due to the running!

What Hutchinson and I are saying is that it's very, very difficult to determine conclusively where the point of diminishing returns of cardio is, but ignoring positive effects of cardio such as lower BMI and lower blood pressure when measuring the returns of cardio is probably not going to help much in answering the question.

I realize my post was in the TL;DR category, but if you read the second part of it, you'll see that I explain how statisticians deal with collinearity among predictor variables in regression analysis.

Hexahedra

I read a research that says the average person runs out of glycogen in 2-3 hours, which corresponds roughly to a half marathon. You all know what happens when you exercise past glycogen depletion: the body starts eating muscle for energy. This is why I think a half marathon is as far as I'm willing to go in a regular basis, in order to keep a balance between running and lifting. I would probably do a marathon someday just so I can say I have done it, but I would not make a habit out of it.

jonnythan

I thought it was obvious that extreme amounts of cardio are not good for you.

It's good to stress the body so that it becomes stronger and more efficient. It seems plain to me that excessive stress is counterproductive though.

Doodlewhopper

buh-bump-o

concordancia

How many people run more than thirty miles a week? For those who do, how many have cardiac health as their main reason? I am betting zero. That kind of dedication involves more motivation than that. Even if they started for the cardiac benefits, anyone running 30+ miles a week is doing it because they enjoy it and is probably not going to be concerned with diminishing cardiac returns. Or they are doing it because they enlisted and cardiac health is the least of their concerns.

jonnythan

How many people run more than thirty miles a week? For those who do, how many have cardiac health as their main reason? I am betting zero. That kind of dedication involves more motivation than that. Even if they started for the cardiac benefits, anyone running 30+ miles a week is doing it because they enjoy it and is probably not going to be concerned with diminishing cardiac returns. Or they are doing it because they enlisted and cardiac health is the least of their concerns.

I know people who spend 2 hours a day, every day, on a treadmill or elliptical for fitness and health. They don't enjoy it. They slave away because they think they have to to stay thin.

bcorbin34

I think you need to find what balace works for your body. We are not all the same and so what works for one person doesn't work for another. Also I think excercise is easier to keep doing it you enjoy it. Hope you find your balance

jagh09

We're all going to die of something. May as well be from running.

Anything "excessive" is bad for you. If you trade a food addiction for a running addiction it's still going to get you. Moderate.

mattschwartz01

I honestly think the moral of the story is living life in moderation, balance, and harmony. There is evidence for cardiovascular damage by overdoing it but "underdoing" it doesn't build heart strength.

skparker2

I have SO MANY studies...each conflict with others. So I decided that everyone should just do the workout that makes you the happiest.

If you love runners high...run
If you love your big beefy muscles...lift
If you want like both...do both.
If you love Yoga but hate everything else...Do yoga!

My point is that everybody pretty much agrees that some exercise (no matter what kind) is better then none.
So do what you love :-)

I personally hate running and there is a horrible family history of knees dying young, so I try to keep it under 45 minutes if I jog.

You are 100% correct in my book! Amen, sister!

Annette_rose

I have been trying to find the "right" amount of running for several years. I've been in a running group that was trying to convince me I was eating too much protein and lifting too much, and then with the lifting groups telling me that I was eating too many carbs and that running is going to destroy my lifting progress. We all have to find our own approaches but I'm seriously trying to find the sweet spot for the maximum health and appearance benefits.

I do think anything can be taken to the extreme and finding balance is a good thing. I have seen a couple of articles similar to the one you posted. I think that some people jump much too quickly into things instead of working up slowly to achieve what they desire. And, every person is unique and so often we all forget that. What works for one may not work for another. Anyway, I think you HAVE found the "sweet spot" as far as your appearance benefits, You look great!!