Evidence Against Excessive Cardio?

erinsueburns

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.

GiddyupTim

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.

Azdak

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.

eric_sg61

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.

Appearance benefits. Read the link I posted earlier http://www.t-nation.com/free_online_article/most_recent/the_final_nail_in_the_cardio_coffin
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)

markymarrkk

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. Kudos

sevsmom

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.

BeachIron

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.

GiddyupTim

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.

Appearance benefits. Read the link I posted earlier http://www.t-nation.com/free_online_article/most_recent/the_final_nail_in_the_cardio_coffin
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.

bumblebums

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.

GiddyupTim

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.

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.

Appearance benefits. Read the link I posted earlier http://www.t-nation.com/free_online_article/most_recent/the_final_nail_in_the_cardio_coffin
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.

Hexahedra

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.

55in13

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:

fishgutzy

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.

Hexahedra

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:

I want to maximize it because I want to look good and do the stuff well while I'm at it

Doodlewhopper

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.

Azdak

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.

Appearance benefits. Read the link I posted earlier http://www.t-nation.com/free_online_article/most_recent/the_final_nail_in_the_cardio_coffin
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).

lisamarie1780

everything in moderation. Nothing wrong with running.... better than sitting on your *kitten*

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.

Appearance benefits. Read the link I posted earlier http://www.t-nation.com/free_online_article/most_recent/the_final_nail_in_the_cardio_coffin
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.

jjscholar

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...