Evidence Against Excessive Cardio?
Replies
-
It is interesting. I tend to picture it as overlapping bell curves for heart health and weight and mortality etc. There are places on each line where as you increase the activity the marker improves, you go over the hump and you start to see other and potentially negative effects, and we are all (or should be) looking for the place where you get maximal returns on investment without the negatives. And I really do wish that there was more school training on statistical methods. Honestly, for the vast majority of the population it would be a great deal more useful than the higher maths being taught.
And to the people who discount things because they use fancy statistical analysis, think of it this way. There is no other choice unless you want to create giant labs where twins or clones are controlled all their lives and have everything exactly the same except for one factor. Since there are serious ethical dilemmas in capturing twins and forcing them to become either walkers or marathoners, statistical analysis is all we have.0 -
For every article like that, there is an article like this: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/29/is-it-better-to-walk-or-run/
Seems a recent study found that runners are better able to control their weight than walkers, and, as we all know well, excess weight is unhealthy.
So, does this one benefit outweigh the risks of changes in the heart, or vice-versa, or do they balance out.
Also, another recent study found the 50-year-old males who are in better cardiovascular shape have much less risk of developing lung and colon cancer, and are much more likely to survive if they do get it.
Personally, I would like to see the risks of weight lifting investigated. What if you drop it on your toe? Don't tell me it doesn't happen.
^ Absolutely irrelevant. The question has nothing to do with running vs. walking and everything to do with how much running is excessive. I'm a runner myself.
Completely relevant. You are saying running causes harm. This says running has benefit (forget the walking part of it). Don't you need to determine the risk you are going to get overweight and have a heart attack if you don't run versus the risk that running may stretch your aorta and it may burst in order to truly say: Don't run!
And isn't that really what we are trying to figure out here?
It is risk versus benefit. Not just risk. Heck, there is risk just getting up in the morning.
Sorry if I wasn't clear. I was trying to be brief and I thought the inferences were quite clear.0 -
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.
There have been some studies that suggested more of a dose/response relationship with cardio for lowering certain cardiovascular risk factors, but for all-cause mortality, those conclusions have been pretty consistent over the past 20-25 years. Ken Cooper took a lot of flack from distance runners back in the 1980s for saying that anyone who ran more than 20 miles per week was doing it for reasons other than health.
My brain starts to go foggy with too much statistical detail, so I can appreciate the job you did to explain it clearly.
Too often people try to fit everything into an "either/or" paradigm, instead of correctly seeing it as a continuum.0 -
Appearance benefits. Read the link I posted earlier http://www.t-nation.com/free_online_article/most_recent/the_final_nail_in_the_cardio_coffinI 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.
Cliffs:
Woman trains for Ironman for 7 months
Loses very little fat
Lost muscle and looked soft and flabby
Starts doing metabolic workouts
Loses 15lbs in 8 weeks
gets abs back
no longer looks like a flabby endurance athlete(her words, not mine)0 -
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 feel you on that bro! by the way, great break down of the article and the way you presented it. Kudos0 -
My doc (also a runner) casually cautioned me that marathon running may produce some temporary issues that our bodies could really do without, but she then strongly encouraged me to go out and do it. (Likely a one-and-done for me.) I'll probably stick with half marathons after this just because I think 13.1 is a great distance...challenging, but not impossible. And, the training is pretty easy for my schedule.
I'm gonna go out one day whether I run or not. Guess I'll run and let the chips fall where they may.0 -
For every article like that, there is an article like this: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/29/is-it-better-to-walk-or-run/
Seems a recent study found that runners are better able to control their weight than walkers, and, as we all know well, excess weight is unhealthy.
So, does this one benefit outweigh the risks of changes in the heart, or vice-versa, or do they balance out.
Also, another recent study found the 50-year-old males who are in better cardiovascular shape have much less risk of developing lung and colon cancer, and are much more likely to survive if they do get it.
Personally, I would like to see the risks of weight lifting investigated. What if you drop it on your toe? Don't tell me it doesn't happen.
^ Absolutely irrelevant. The question has nothing to do with running vs. walking and everything to do with how much running is excessive. I'm a runner myself.
Completely relevant. You are saying running causes harm. This says running has benefit. Don't you need to determine the risk you are going to get overweight and have a heart attack if you don't run versus the risk that running may stretch your aorta and it may burst in order to truly say: Don't run!
And isn't that really what we are trying to figure out here?
It is risk versus benefit. Not just risk. Heck, there is risk just getting up in the morning.
Sorry if I wasn't clear. I was trying to be brief and I thought the inferences were quite clear.
I honestly don't know what to so to you. You either have not, or simply cannot, read what I wrote. If you would like to read the thread in its entirety, perhaps peruse the articles referenced here within, and come back to discuss it, I am happy to engage with you. I am not here to have the "running is good vs. running is bad" discussion that you seem to desire.0 -
Appearance benefits. Read the link I posted earlier http://www.t-nation.com/free_online_article/most_recent/the_final_nail_in_the_cardio_coffinI 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.
Cliffs:
Woman trains for Ironman for 7 months
Loses very little fat
Lost muscle and looked soft and flabby
Starts doing metabolic workouts
Loses 15lbs in 8 weeks
gets abs back
no longer looks like a flabby endurance athlete(her words, not mine)
You better call Shalane Flanagan and tell her she is going to get fat. She runs a lot, I think.0 -
It is interesting. I tend to picture it as overlapping bell curves for heart health and weight and mortality etc. There are places on each line where as you increase the activity the marker improves, you go over the hump and you start to see other and potentially negative effects, and we are all (or should be) looking for the place where you get maximal returns on investment without the negatives. And I really do wish that there was more school training on statistical methods. Honestly, for the vast majority of the population it would be a great deal more useful than the higher maths being taught.
And to the people who discount things because they use fancy statistical analysis, think of it this way. There is no other choice unless you want to create giant labs where twins or clones are controlled all their lives and have everything exactly the same except for one factor. Since there are serious ethical dilemmas in capturing twins and forcing them to become either walkers or marathoners, statistical analysis is all we have.
You're absolutely right
As for the bolded part, it reminded me of this:
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/07/29/opinion/sunday/is-algebra-necessary.html
It was a lightbulb moment for me. I used to believe in math education for math's sake, since it "betters the mind". In day-to-day life, a solid understanding of statistics and probability would make ours a much better society. I like to imagine a world in which people don't throw money away on lottery tickets or worry about the dangers of air travel, and in which they can read a paper reporting on an exercise science study and both understand it and approach it critically.0 -
For every article like that, there is an article like this: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/29/is-it-better-to-walk-or-run/
Seems a recent study found that runners are better able to control their weight than walkers, and, as we all know well, excess weight is unhealthy.
So, does this one benefit outweigh the risks of changes in the heart, or vice-versa, or do they balance out.
Also, another recent study found the 50-year-old males who are in better cardiovascular shape have much less risk of developing lung and colon cancer, and are much more likely to survive if they do get it.
Personally, I would like to see the risks of weight lifting investigated. What if you drop it on your toe? Don't tell me it doesn't happen.
^ Absolutely irrelevant. The question has nothing to do with running vs. walking and everything to do with how much running is excessive. I'm a runner myself.
Completely relevant. You are saying running causes harm. This says running has benefit. Don't you need to determine the risk you are going to get overweight and have a heart attack if you don't run versus the risk that running may stretch your aorta and it may burst in order to truly say: Don't run!
And isn't that really what we are trying to figure out here?
It is risk versus benefit. Not just risk. Heck, there is risk just getting up in the morning.
Sorry if I wasn't clear. I was trying to be brief and I thought the inferences were quite clear.
I honestly don't know what to so to you. You either have not, or simply cannot, read what I wrote. If you would like to read the thread in its entirety, perhaps peruse the articles referenced here within, and come back to discuss it, I am happy to engage with you. I am not here to have the "running is good vs. running is bad" discussion that you seem to desire.
Really just trying to add perspective. Not trying to be irrelevant, ignorant of the discussion, or argumentative, each of which you appear to be accusing me of being. I'm out.0 -
Appearance benefits. Read the link I posted earlier http://www.t-nation.com/free_online_article/most_recent/the_final_nail_in_the_cardio_coffinI 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.
Cliffs:
Woman trains for Ironman for 7 months
Loses very little fat
Lost muscle and looked soft and flabby
Starts doing metabolic workouts
Loses 15lbs in 8 weeks
gets abs back
no longer looks like a flabby endurance athlete(her words, not mine)
Look, this is no more about body composition than it is about "running is good vs. running is bad." The articles have to do with the question of how much running is too much when it comes to health. For body composition, the number of miles is going to be fewer than the answer to this question. I'm more than familiar with that. If you and tufel want to duke it out feel free but the discussion has nothing to do with my OP.0 -
Just about everything adheres to the bell curve. Staying active --without a doubt-- is good for your health, but if you are active to the level where your body's regenerative capacity can't keep up, then it's bad. What reasonable non-pro people look for is the sweet spot, the highest amount of exercise you can do to gain maximum health over your life time.0
-
Just about everything adheres to the bell curve. Staying active --without a doubt-- is good for your health, but if you are active to the level where your body's regenerative capacity can't keep up, then it's bad. What reasonable non-pro people look for is the sweet spot, the highest amount of exercise you can do to gain maximum health over your life time.
I thought we were looking for the lowest amount we can do so we can go do stuff to enjoy that maximized life with the left over time. :bigsmile:0 -
I'll never run a marathon.
But i do hope to be able to swim the equivalent of an Olympic Marathon swim. 10KM.
My feet can't take the impact of running any distance.0 -
I want to maximize it because I want to look good and do the stuff well while I'm at itJust about everything adheres to the bell curve. Staying active --without a doubt-- is good for your health, but if you are active to the level where your body's regenerative capacity can't keep up, then it's bad. What reasonable non-pro people look for is the sweet spot, the highest amount of exercise you can do to gain maximum health over your life time.
I thought we were looking for the lowest amount we can do so we can go do stuff to enjoy that maximized life with the left over time. :bigsmile:
0 -
Thanks all. I'm going to track down the study that's mentioned in the WSJ article and see if I can make sense of the analysis and will report back--after I do some work that I actually get paid for!
Thank you. Your posts are quite helpful here. I also have an email in to author about this.
I hope the both of you share what you learn.0 -
Appearance benefits. Read the link I posted earlier http://www.t-nation.com/free_online_article/most_recent/the_final_nail_in_the_cardio_coffinI 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.
Cliffs:
Woman trains for Ironman for 7 months
Loses very little fat
Lost muscle and looked soft and flabby
Starts doing metabolic workouts
Loses 15lbs in 8 weeks
gets abs back
no longer looks like a flabby endurance athlete(her words, not mine)
Was doing some pretty crappy training and diet if those were her results from Ironman training. (Yes, I have read the entire article).0 -
everything in moderation. Nothing wrong with running.... better than sitting on your *kitten*0
-
Appearance benefits. Read the link I posted earlier http://www.t-nation.com/free_online_article/most_recent/the_final_nail_in_the_cardio_coffinI 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.
Cliffs:
Woman trains for Ironman for 7 months
Loses very little fat
Lost muscle and looked soft and flabby
Starts doing metabolic workouts
Loses 15lbs in 8 weeks
gets abs back
no longer looks like a flabby endurance athlete(her words, not mine)
Was doing some pretty crappy training and diet if those were her results from Ironman training. (Yes, I have read the entire article).
I would tend to agree with you. I've watched the Ironman on Hawaii (was there on location and also watched many of them training) and I have to say I didn't exactly seen a lot of skinny fat types. They were thinner, that is for sure, but most looked like they were made of steel wire. Then again, I wasn't touting triathlons as the optimal approach for body recomposition either.0 -
I think that the so called evidence against excessive cardio has many methodological problems...
Besides, very few people engage in excessive cardio exercise...
It is better and easier to deal with someone who is exercise too much rather than too little... At least that is my opinion...0 -
Okay, I had a look at some of the studies alluded to in the WSJ article. I couldn't find the study on which the WSJ article gives the most detail (the one described in the last paragraph)--I am guessing it hasn't been published yet, and the people who authored it do not seem to have academic websites where they keep manuscripts. They do publish a ton, though, so this should be out soon.
None of the studies specifically talk about the effects of weekly running distances--unlike the study discussed earlier in the thread. So if you want to know how much running is too much on a weekly basis, the research discussed below does not directly speak to this. But it does find that marathoners have anatomical changes in their cardiovascular systems of a kind usually associated with cardiovascular disease. The evidence for that seems solid, but this does not necessarily translate into clinical risk.
Some links to actual studies, with my comments:
############################
http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(12)00473-9/fulltext#abstract
Potential Adverse Cardiovascular Effects From Excessive Endurance Exercise, Mayo Clinic Proceedings 2012, James H. O'Keefe, MD, Harshal R. Patil, MD, Carl J. Lavie, MD, Anthony Magalski, MD, Robert A. Vogel, MD, Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH
This guy James O'Keefe does seem to have an axe to grind, as Mr. Hutchinson of Runner's World noted. As the cautious title suggests, the evidence for the adverse effects of hardcore endurance exercise (we're talking ultramarathons now) is not conclusive, although that article does cite some useful references on the minimum amount of exercise needed to see benefits (15 min a day) and the point at which additional benefits stop to accrue (60 min).
############################
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1106468#t=articleBackground
Cardiac Arrest during Long-Distance Running Races, Jonathan H. Kim, M.D., Rajeev Malhotra, M.D., George Chiampas, D.O., Pierre d'Hemecourt, M.D., Chris Troyanos, A.T.C., John Cianca, M.D., Rex N. Smith, M.D., Thomas J. Wang, M.D., William O. Roberts, M.D., Paul D. Thompson, M.D., and Aaron L. Baggish, M.D. for the Race Associated Cardiac Arrest Event Registry (RACER) Study Group. N Engl J Med 2012; 366:130-140 January 12, 2012. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1106468
First of all, I cannot believe an NEJM article was published with a pie chart in it. I thought it was a legit journal, and now I have my doubts.
Looked at heart attacks in marathoners and half-marathoners who just finished the race, by identifying them from internet coverage of races and then following through to get some clinical histories. Data on each person are correspondingly incomplete. The study uses mostly the length of race (full marathon, half-marathon, or shorter) and the sex of the runner as predictors because they didn't have access to other data for all the runners. The longer the race, the more likely the runner was to die from the cardiac arrest. Men were more likely to die than women.
There are many many methodological limitations here, which they honestly discuss towards the end.
############################
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/127/7/791.short
A Meta-Analysis of Aortic Root Size in Elite Athletes, Circulation 2013, Aline Iskandar, MD; Paul D. Thompson, MD
Mixed linear model analysis of studies that looked at aorta enlargement found that aorta roots are larger in "elite athletes" than in "nonathelic controls". But there does not seem to be any clinical dangers associated with this enlargement, at least none that these studies have conclusively identified. This echoes the "potential adverse effects" thing in the O'Keefe study mentioned earlier.
############################
http://radiology.rsna.org/content/251/1/3.full
Is Marathon Running Hazardous to Your Cardiovascular Health? The Jury Is Still Out. Radiology 2009, Kibar Yared, MD, FRCPC and Malissa J. Wood, MD
This is a reply to an article in the same issue that reports on a study of the cardiovascular health of older marathon runners (>50 yo). As the title suggests, the authors are not convinced. As a reply, the article does not include any original research, but if you are inclined to be skeptical of the research on endurance athletes' cardiovascular health, this might add some weapons to your arsenal.0 -
Pardon me, but these are not studies. The first is a review article. The others are surveys. They call them studies because that makes them sound more credible. But, they are surveys. They examined a bunch of runners, and, SURPRISE, they found running does not make one completely invulnerable to age or health related heart changes.
Such "studies" are by their very nature fatally flawed. If you looked at that many non-runners how many would have enlarged aortas? How many would have heart attacks.
If you did a similar survey of runners, and were looking at whether or not they get hit by cars, you would find some who did, and, if you were excitable, you might conclude that running was hazardous to your health.
The New England Journal survey is based on a group's reporting, which of course naturally would have become better over the years, perhaps compromising any conclusions one can make, and it found only 59 cases of heart-related deaths out of 10 million marathon participants.
I am not even going to bother to figure what the percentage of runners that is. I would suspect, however, that more people fell and hit their head, and died.
Should these findings be investigated? Sure. It is a thread. You gotta pull it. It might lead to something.
But, keep it in context, please. It does not deserve discussion at this point. There is an overwhelming amount of good data showing the anti-aging and anti-disease benefits of cardiovascular exercise.0 -
Okay, I had a look at some of the studies alluded to in the WSJ article. I couldn't find the study on which the WSJ article gives the most detail (the one described in the last paragraph)--I am guessing it hasn't been published yet, and the people who authored it do not seem to have academic websites where they keep manuscripts. They do publish a ton, though, so this should be out soon.
None of the studies specifically talk about the effects of weekly running distances--unlike the study discussed earlier in the thread. So if you want to know how much running is too much on a weekly basis, the research discussed below does not directly speak to this. But it does find that marathoners have anatomical changes in their cardiovascular systems of a kind usually associated with cardiovascular disease. The evidence for that seems solid, but this does not necessarily translate into clinical risk.
Some links to actual studies, with my comments:
############################
http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(12)00473-9/fulltext#abstract
Potential Adverse Cardiovascular Effects From Excessive Endurance Exercise, Mayo Clinic Proceedings 2012, James H. O'Keefe, MD, Harshal R. Patil, MD, Carl J. Lavie, MD, Anthony Magalski, MD, Robert A. Vogel, MD, Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH
This guy James O'Keefe does seem to have an axe to grind, as Mr. Hutchinson of Runner's World noted. As the cautious title suggests, the evidence for the adverse effects of hardcore endurance exercise (we're talking ultramarathons now) is not conclusive, although that article does cite some useful references on the minimum amount of exercise needed to see benefits (15 min a day) and the point at which additional benefits stop to accrue (60 min).
############################
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1106468#t=articleBackground
Cardiac Arrest during Long-Distance Running Races, Jonathan H. Kim, M.D., Rajeev Malhotra, M.D., George Chiampas, D.O., Pierre d'Hemecourt, M.D., Chris Troyanos, A.T.C., John Cianca, M.D., Rex N. Smith, M.D., Thomas J. Wang, M.D., William O. Roberts, M.D., Paul D. Thompson, M.D., and Aaron L. Baggish, M.D. for the Race Associated Cardiac Arrest Event Registry (RACER) Study Group. N Engl J Med 2012; 366:130-140 January 12, 2012. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1106468
First of all, I cannot believe an NEJM article was published with a pie chart in it. I thought it was a legit journal, and now I have my doubts.
Looked at heart attacks in marathoners and half-marathoners who just finished the race, by identifying them from internet coverage of races and then following through to get some clinical histories. Data on each person are correspondingly incomplete. The study uses mostly the length of race (full marathon, half-marathon, or shorter) and the sex of the runner as predictors because they didn't have access to other data for all the runners. The longer the race, the more likely the runner was to die from the cardiac arrest. Men were more likely to die than women.
There are many many methodological limitations here, which they honestly discuss towards the end.
############################
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/127/7/791.short
A Meta-Analysis of Aortic Root Size in Elite Athletes, Circulation 2013, Aline Iskandar, MD; Paul D. Thompson, MD
Mixed linear model analysis of studies that looked at aorta enlargement found that aorta roots are larger in "elite athletes" than in "nonathelic controls". But there does not seem to be any clinical dangers associated with this enlargement, at least none that these studies have conclusively identified. This echoes the "potential adverse effects" thing in the O'Keefe study mentioned earlier.
############################
http://radiology.rsna.org/content/251/1/3.full
Is Marathon Running Hazardous to Your Cardiovascular Health? The Jury Is Still Out. Radiology 2009, Kibar Yared, MD, FRCPC and Malissa J. Wood, MD
This is a reply to an article in the same issue that reports on a study of the cardiovascular health of older marathon runners (>50 yo). As the title suggests, the authors are not convinced. As a reply, the article does not include any original research, but if you are inclined to be skeptical of the research on endurance athletes' cardiovascular health, this might add some weapons to your arsenal.
Thank you very much for posting these. I have some reading to do.0 -
Pardon me, but these are not studies. The first is a review article. The others are surveys. They call them studies because that makes them sound more credible. But, they are surveys. They examined a bunch of runners, and, SURPRISE, they found running does not make one completely invulnerable to age or health related heart changes.
Such "studies" are by their very nature fatally flawed. If you looked at that many non-runners how many would have enlarged aortas? How many would have heart attacks.
If you did a similar survey of runners, and were looking at whether or not they get hit by cars, you would find some who did, and, if you were excitable, you might conclude that running was hazardous to your health.
The New England Journal survey is based on a group's reporting, which of course naturally would have become better over the years, perhaps compromising any conclusions one can make, and it found only 59 cases of heart-related deaths out of 10 million marathon participants.
I am not even going to bother to figure what the percentage of runners that is. I would suspect, however, that more people fell and hit their head, and died.
Should these findings be investigated? Sure. It is a thread. You gotta pull it. It might lead to something.
But, keep it in context, please. It does not deserve discussion at this point. There is an overwhelming amount of good data showing the anti-aging and anti-disease benefits of cardiovascular exercise.
I'm sorry, but once again, I have absolutely no clue how to respond to someone who refuses to read the words written in my OP and other posts in this thread, or who is bold enough to state that something "does not deserve discussion." If you are not intellectually curious about this subject that is fine, but I am.0 -
Pardon me, but these are not studies. The first is a review article. The others are surveys. They call them studies because that makes them sound more credible. But, they are surveys. They examined a bunch of runners, and, SURPRISE, they found running does not make one completely invulnerable to age or health related heart changes.
Such "studies" are by their very nature fatally flawed. If you looked at that many non-runners how many would have enlarged aortas? How many would have heart attacks.
If you did a similar survey of runners, and were looking at whether or not they get hit by cars, you would find some who did, and, if you were excitable, you might conclude that running was hazardous to your health.
The New England Journal survey is based on a group's reporting, which of course naturally would have become better over the years, perhaps compromising any conclusions one can make, and it found only 59 cases of heart-related deaths out of 10 million marathon participants.
I am not even going to bother to figure what the percentage of runners that is. I would suspect, however, that more people fell and hit their head, and died.
Should these findings be investigated? Sure. It is a thread. You gotta pull it. It might lead to something.
But, keep it in context, please. It does not deserve discussion at this point. There is an overwhelming amount of good data showing the anti-aging and anti-disease benefits of cardiovascular exercise.
I am not sure what exactly your criteria are for a publication to be classified as a "study". I think you mean "experiment". But surely you understand that a controlled experiment studying heart attacks in marathon runners would be both expensive to conduct and ethically problematic. Can you explain what your ideal study would be, and how large a sample would satisfy you? The sample for the NEJM paper pooled data from 10.9 million long-distance running event participants, and it does cite incidence statistics on cardiac arrests. Here is a quote from the key finding:
"The overall incidence of cardiac arrest was 1 per 184,000 participants (0.54 per 100,000; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41 to 0.70). The incidence was significantly higher during marathons (1.01 per 100,000; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.38) than during half-marathons (0.27; 95% CI, 0.17 to 0.43; P<0.001) and among men (0.90 per 100,000; 95% CI, 0.67 to 1.18) than among women (0.16; 95% CI, 0.07 to 0.31; P<0.001)."0 -
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.
Agree with this.0 -
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.
Agree with this.
Look, when science agrees with common sense, there isn't usually much reason for debate. There is a clear relationship between physical activity (not just running, but running is pretty damn good) and well-being. Doing cardio is good for your heart and blood vessels. But the question in this thread is more subtle--is the relationship linear and additive (the more cardio you do, the better), or is it something other than linear? There is more than one alternative to linear. The benefits could flatline after a certain point: you stay at some level of fitness, but don't get anything extra other than bragging rights for being an endurance runner. Or it could be a U-curve, as some posters suggested, where after a certain point, you are harming yourself as much as you would by doing nothing.
I honestly do not think anyone in this thread (including myself) knows the answer. But it's a valid and interesting question.0 -
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!!
Thank you. You're very kind! :blushing:0 -
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.
Agree with this.
Look, when science agrees with common sense, there isn't usually much reason for debate. There is a clear relationship between physical activity (not just running, but running is pretty damn good) and well-being. Doing cardio is good for your heart and blood vessels. But the question in this thread is more subtle--is the relationship linear and additive (the more cardio you do, the better), or is it something other than linear? There is more than one alternative to linear. The benefits could flatline after a certain point: you stay at some level of fitness, but don't get anything extra other than bragging rights for being an endurance runner. Or it could be a U-curve, as some posters suggested, where after a certain point, you are harming yourself as much as you would by doing nothing.
I honestly do not think anyone in this thread (including myself) knows the answer. But it's a valid and interesting question.
I agree about no one knowing the answer. We are all unique so what works for one does not for all.0 -
From previous post:
I am not sure what exactly your criteria are for a publication to be classified as a "study". I think you mean "experiment". But surely you understand that a controlled experiment studying heart attacks in marathon runners would be both expensive to conduct and ethically problematic. Can you explain what your ideal study would be, and how large a sample would satisfy you? The sample for the NEJM paper pooled data from 10.9 million long-distance running event participants, and it does cite incidence statistics on cardiac arrests. Here is a quote from the key finding:
"The overall incidence of cardiac arrest was 1 per 184,000 participants (0.54 per 100,000; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41 to 0.70). The incidence was significantly higher during marathons (1.01 per 100,000; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.38) than during half-marathons (0.27; 95% CI, 0.17 to 0.43; P<0.001) and among men (0.90 per 100,000; 95% CI, 0.67 to 1.18) than among women (0.16; 95% CI, 0.07 to 0.31; P<0.001)."
[/quote]
Sorry to bog this thread down with argument, but
Even if data gathered in this manner was not extremely problematic, even if it was fair and valid to compare data from a survey like this with population data acquired in a wholly different manner, the difference of 0.90 to 1.01 appears to me to be so negligible as to be completely meaningless.
And, don't at least two of their confidence intervals cross 1? Doesn't that in itself mean that these findings could easily be found just by chance?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions