Is too much running unhealthy?
Replies
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »FoCoAlphaNerd wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »Oh...this again
What do you mean?
Meaning this stupidity pops up every year or so around this time.
This study was published this month, what stupidity do you mean?
I think he meant studies like this. Exercise research can be a bit of an echo chamber. Studies like this have been performed over and over again, many of them coming to the exact opposite conclusion. The problem being "study shows, lots of exercise is good for you" doesn't play as well on the Today Show.
Do you have links to any of the studies showing that distance running is beneficial to health?
Runners have the lowest risk of arthritis of all studied athletes:
http://www.bmj.com/content/308/6923/231.full
long distance runners have a lower rate of OA than the general population:
http://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797(08)00353-X/abstract
lower disability and mortality among long distance runners:
http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=770349
0 -
ThickMcRunFast wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »ThickMcRunFast wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »Oh...this again
What do you mean?
Meaning this stupidity pops up every year or so around this time.
This study was published this month, what stupidity do you mean?
It is the same guy...with the same study, and the same flawed statistics with the same 'u-shaped curve'. He's been doing it for years. It doesn't hold up to even the tiniest of scrutiny.
Interesting. Why do you suppose the ACC chose to publish it, then?
Who knows. Because they sent it in and it was splashy. Science and Nature publish things all the time that are mostly BS. They get ripped apart in the comment-and-reply Their function is to start a conversation (and get views and money). Controversy sells, "studies show exercise is good for you" doesn't.
There's also the file drawer effect. Studies get published that show specific correlations/effects. It's rare for journals to publish studies that show "yup, nothing really came of this." Even institutions with solid reputations like ACC are guilty of it. Not necessarily out of malice, but literally out of physical space and time constraints. It's a bit iffy to consider a study as flawed as this one to be much more than a conversation starter, as ThickMcRunFast said.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »ThickMcRunFast wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »ThickMcRunFast wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »Oh...this again
What do you mean?
Meaning this stupidity pops up every year or so around this time.
This study was published this month, what stupidity do you mean?
It is the same guy...with the same study, and the same flawed statistics with the same 'u-shaped curve'. He's been doing it for years. It doesn't hold up to even the tiniest of scrutiny.
Interesting. Why do you suppose the ACC chose to publish it, then?
Who knows. Because they sent it in and it was splashy. Science and Nature publish things all the time that are mostly BS. They get ripped apart in the comment-and-reply Their function is to start a conversation (and get views and money). Controversy sells, "studies show exercise is good for you" doesn't.
I could understand that if we were talking about mainstream media or Dr. Oz. But what is the ACC trying to sell?
. . . subscriptions? You do realize that something is keeping the lights on down there. They are also buying "interest" in a way. If no one is reading you, your impact tends to go down.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »ThickMcRunFast wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »ThickMcRunFast wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »Oh...this again
What do you mean?
Meaning this stupidity pops up every year or so around this time.
This study was published this month, what stupidity do you mean?
It is the same guy...with the same study, and the same flawed statistics with the same 'u-shaped curve'. He's been doing it for years. It doesn't hold up to even the tiniest of scrutiny.
Interesting. Why do you suppose the ACC chose to publish it, then?
Who knows. Because they sent it in and it was splashy. Science and Nature publish things all the time that are mostly BS. They get ripped apart in the comment-and-reply Their function is to start a conversation (and get views and money). Controversy sells, "studies show exercise is good for you" doesn't.
I could understand that if we were talking about mainstream media or Dr. Oz. But what is the ACC trying to sell?
Sadly, even scientific journals are not non-profit organizations. It costs to publish in them, it costs to get a subscription. Universities pay a lot of money for access. If more scientists are accessing the article, for positive or negative reasons, they can charge more.
This doesn't mean that journals can't be trusted, but for the highest impact journals, you need to have the splashiest titles and most far-reaching conclusions. Otherwise you will get an auto-reject with the rationale that your manuscript would not generate enough 'broad interest'.0 -
ThickMcRunFast wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »FoCoAlphaNerd wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »Oh...this again
What do you mean?
Meaning this stupidity pops up every year or so around this time.
This study was published this month, what stupidity do you mean?
I think he meant studies like this. Exercise research can be a bit of an echo chamber. Studies like this have been performed over and over again, many of them coming to the exact opposite conclusion. The problem being "study shows, lots of exercise is good for you" doesn't play as well on the Today Show.
Do you have links to any of the studies showing that distance running is beneficial to health?
Runners have the lowest risk of arthritis of all studied athletes:
http://www.bmj.com/content/308/6923/231.full
long distance runners have a lower rate of OA than the general population:
http://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797(08)00353-X/abstract
lower disability and mortality among long distance runners:
http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=770349
That last study is interesting, though I wish it said how much running since in the article I posted it is specific to speed and time.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »ThickMcRunFast wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »FoCoAlphaNerd wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »Oh...this again
What do you mean?
Meaning this stupidity pops up every year or so around this time.
This study was published this month, what stupidity do you mean?
I think he meant studies like this. Exercise research can be a bit of an echo chamber. Studies like this have been performed over and over again, many of them coming to the exact opposite conclusion. The problem being "study shows, lots of exercise is good for you" doesn't play as well on the Today Show.
Do you have links to any of the studies showing that distance running is beneficial to health?
Runners have the lowest risk of arthritis of all studied athletes:
http://www.bmj.com/content/308/6923/231.full
long distance runners have a lower rate of OA than the general population:
http://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797(08)00353-X/abstract
lower disability and mortality among long distance runners:
http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=770349
That last study is interesting, though I wish it said how much running since in the article I posted it is specific to speed and time.
Wait, are just reading the abstracts and not using library or college access to get to the full studies?0 -
FoCoAlphaNerd wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »ThickMcRunFast wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »FoCoAlphaNerd wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »Oh...this again
What do you mean?
Meaning this stupidity pops up every year or so around this time.
This study was published this month, what stupidity do you mean?
I think he meant studies like this. Exercise research can be a bit of an echo chamber. Studies like this have been performed over and over again, many of them coming to the exact opposite conclusion. The problem being "study shows, lots of exercise is good for you" doesn't play as well on the Today Show.
Do you have links to any of the studies showing that distance running is beneficial to health?
Runners have the lowest risk of arthritis of all studied athletes:
http://www.bmj.com/content/308/6923/231.full
long distance runners have a lower rate of OA than the general population:
http://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797(08)00353-X/abstract
lower disability and mortality among long distance runners:
http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=770349
That last study is interesting, though I wish it said how much running since in the article I posted it is specific to speed and time.
Wait, are just reading the abstracts and not using library or college access to get to the full studies?
Yes.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »FoCoAlphaNerd wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »ThickMcRunFast wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »FoCoAlphaNerd wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »Oh...this again
What do you mean?
Meaning this stupidity pops up every year or so around this time.
This study was published this month, what stupidity do you mean?
I think he meant studies like this. Exercise research can be a bit of an echo chamber. Studies like this have been performed over and over again, many of them coming to the exact opposite conclusion. The problem being "study shows, lots of exercise is good for you" doesn't play as well on the Today Show.
Do you have links to any of the studies showing that distance running is beneficial to health?
Runners have the lowest risk of arthritis of all studied athletes:
http://www.bmj.com/content/308/6923/231.full
long distance runners have a lower rate of OA than the general population:
http://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797(08)00353-X/abstract
lower disability and mortality among long distance runners:
http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=770349
That last study is interesting, though I wish it said how much running since in the article I posted it is specific to speed and time.
Wait, are just reading the abstracts and not using library or college access to get to the full studies?
Yes.
Oh . . . *wanders off to go for a run*0 -
ThickMcRunFast wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »ThickMcRunFast wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »ThickMcRunFast wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »Oh...this again
What do you mean?
Meaning this stupidity pops up every year or so around this time.
This study was published this month, what stupidity do you mean?
It is the same guy...with the same study, and the same flawed statistics with the same 'u-shaped curve'. He's been doing it for years. It doesn't hold up to even the tiniest of scrutiny.
Interesting. Why do you suppose the ACC chose to publish it, then?
Who knows. Because they sent it in and it was splashy. Science and Nature publish things all the time that are mostly BS. They get ripped apart in the comment-and-reply Their function is to start a conversation (and get views and money). Controversy sells, "studies show exercise is good for you" doesn't.
I could understand that if we were talking about mainstream media or Dr. Oz. But what is the ACC trying to sell?
Sadly, even scientific journals are not non-profit organizations. It costs to publish in them, it costs to get a subscription. Universities pay a lot of money for access. If more scientists are accessing the article, for positive or negative reasons, they can charge more.
This doesn't mean that journals can't be trusted, but for the highest impact journals, you need to have the splashiest titles and most far-reaching conclusions. Otherwise you will get an auto-reject with the rationale that your manuscript would not generate enough 'broad interest'.
Interesting. Since the ACC sets standards that medical professionals must meet to stay accredited, I would think their readership was pretty solid.0 -
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.
^this0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »ThickMcRunFast wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »FoCoAlphaNerd wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »Oh...this again
What do you mean?
Meaning this stupidity pops up every year or so around this time.
This study was published this month, what stupidity do you mean?
I think he meant studies like this. Exercise research can be a bit of an echo chamber. Studies like this have been performed over and over again, many of them coming to the exact opposite conclusion. The problem being "study shows, lots of exercise is good for you" doesn't play as well on the Today Show.
Do you have links to any of the studies showing that distance running is beneficial to health?
Runners have the lowest risk of arthritis of all studied athletes:
http://www.bmj.com/content/308/6923/231.full
long distance runners have a lower rate of OA than the general population:
http://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797(08)00353-X/abstract
lower disability and mortality among long distance runners:
http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=770349
That last study is interesting, though I wish it said how much running since in the article I posted it is specific to speed and time.
The runners averaged 300+ minutes per week of 'vigorous exercise', with about 240 minutes of that being running.0 -
ThickMcRunFast wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »ThickMcRunFast wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »FoCoAlphaNerd wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »Oh...this again
What do you mean?
Meaning this stupidity pops up every year or so around this time.
This study was published this month, what stupidity do you mean?
I think he meant studies like this. Exercise research can be a bit of an echo chamber. Studies like this have been performed over and over again, many of them coming to the exact opposite conclusion. The problem being "study shows, lots of exercise is good for you" doesn't play as well on the Today Show.
Do you have links to any of the studies showing that distance running is beneficial to health?
Runners have the lowest risk of arthritis of all studied athletes:
http://www.bmj.com/content/308/6923/231.full
long distance runners have a lower rate of OA than the general population:
http://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797(08)00353-X/abstract
lower disability and mortality among long distance runners:
http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=770349
That last study is interesting, though I wish it said how much running since in the article I posted it is specific to speed and time.
The runners averaged 300+ minutes per week of 'vigorous exercise', with about 240 minutes of that being running.
Okay, yeah, that is more than the 150 shown in the study I posted about. The studies are pretty different, but still interesting difference.0 -
Too much of anything is bad for you. Even exercise. However, I'm doubting the veracity or predictive capability of this study.0
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »ThickMcRunFast wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »ThickMcRunFast wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »ThickMcRunFast wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »Oh...this again
What do you mean?
Meaning this stupidity pops up every year or so around this time.
This study was published this month, what stupidity do you mean?
It is the same guy...with the same study, and the same flawed statistics with the same 'u-shaped curve'. He's been doing it for years. It doesn't hold up to even the tiniest of scrutiny.
Interesting. Why do you suppose the ACC chose to publish it, then?
Who knows. Because they sent it in and it was splashy. Science and Nature publish things all the time that are mostly BS. They get ripped apart in the comment-and-reply Their function is to start a conversation (and get views and money). Controversy sells, "studies show exercise is good for you" doesn't.
I could understand that if we were talking about mainstream media or Dr. Oz. But what is the ACC trying to sell?
Sadly, even scientific journals are not non-profit organizations. It costs to publish in them, it costs to get a subscription. Universities pay a lot of money for access. If more scientists are accessing the article, for positive or negative reasons, they can charge more.
This doesn't mean that journals can't be trusted, but for the highest impact journals, you need to have the splashiest titles and most far-reaching conclusions. Otherwise you will get an auto-reject with the rationale that your manuscript would not generate enough 'broad interest'.
Interesting. Since the ACC sets standards that medical professionals must meet to stay accredited, I would think their readership was pretty solid.
It is. I'm sure there will be comments and replies to the article.
Just being a famous journal doesn't make it infallible though. I mean, the whole debacle over the "arsenic life" article in the Journal Science is an example. That is the very top tier of journals, but they still published something that was an outright fabrication, against the advice of reviewers. It made it into popular press, people heard about it, NASA had a news conference, and the entire thing made scientists rage because it was so very bad and wrong.
Anyhoo, a hard learned lesson for any young scientist is that these journals play their own games.0 -
Big yawn. I enjoy running. I enjoy being active. I am definitely active more than 300 minutes per week. And I will continue to do so for as long as I am physically able, because I enjoy it. Simple as that.0
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I remember seeing something similar a year or more ago.
As already observed, it's a hardy perrenial.
Meh.
Before I started running I was overweight, had high blood pressure and depression. Now I run lots and don't suffer those and my quality of life is much better. N=1 study I appreciate, but we make our own choices.
Still a higher risk of getting knocked down crossing the road.0 -
If that is the case then may I die wearing my Brooks.
Running gives me time to think, enjoy my surroundings and after completing races a sense of accomplishment. There was nothing like the feeling of finishing my marathon.
I could only hope to end up like Joy Johnson. Running the NY marathon at 86 years old and dies upon completion her 25th NY marathon in her hotel room or Sister Madonna Buder (Ironman finisher at 80+) she is still living!
But to each his own. This study will in no way make me reduce my running time, days or miles.0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I remember seeing something similar a year or more ago.
As already observed, it's a hardy perrenial.
Meh.
Before I started running I was overweight, had high blood pressure and depression. Now I run lots and don't suffer those and my quality of life is much better. N=1 study I appreciate, but we make our own choices.
Still a higher risk of getting knocked down crossing the road.
I actually wondered about that (road hazard) since it says 'all cause mortality'.
0 -
FoCoAlphaNerd wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »FoCoAlphaNerd wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »ThickMcRunFast wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »FoCoAlphaNerd wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »Oh...this again
What do you mean?
Meaning this stupidity pops up every year or so around this time.
This study was published this month, what stupidity do you mean?
I think he meant studies like this. Exercise research can be a bit of an echo chamber. Studies like this have been performed over and over again, many of them coming to the exact opposite conclusion. The problem being "study shows, lots of exercise is good for you" doesn't play as well on the Today Show.
Do you have links to any of the studies showing that distance running is beneficial to health?
Runners have the lowest risk of arthritis of all studied athletes:
http://www.bmj.com/content/308/6923/231.full
long distance runners have a lower rate of OA than the general population:
http://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797(08)00353-X/abstract
lower disability and mortality among long distance runners:
http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=770349
That last study is interesting, though I wish it said how much running since in the article I posted it is specific to speed and time.
Wait, are just reading the abstracts and not using library or college access to get to the full studies?
Yes.
Oh . . . *wanders off to go for a run*
Lol. Don't be too disappointed, at least PubMed has been mentioned in the thread. (Well, the spirit of it anyway.)0 -
There is inherent risk in nearly everything we do including getting involved in physical activity. But there are benefits that go along with exercise -physical, spiritual, social - all worthwhile reasons to do it. Specific to running there is a way to go about it intelligently, building up mileage and duration slowly, balancing intensity levels and so forth to avoid injury and more permanent damage. There's a very good site dedicated to running and runners' issues that publishes regular pieces referencing peer reviewed studies and journals. Here is a link to one specific article about whether ultra-marathoners (i.e. those who compete in 50+ mile running events) are at risk. The particular study referenced is a long term affair that will take years to make extended conclusions but within the first 3 years of the study tangible health benefits are seen in this unique running population. In this context running 30 minutes is quite a moderate effort indeed.
http://runnersconnect.net/running-injury-prevention/is-running-high-mileage-bad-for-your-health/
0 -
In terms of mechanism of action, this was suggested in one article:
"Your body is designed to deal with oxidative stress that comes from exercise for the first hour," says cardiologist James O'Keefe, MD, Director of Preventative Cardiology at the Saint Luke's Mid America Heart Institute in Kansas City, and author of the Heart editorial. "But prolonged intense exercise causes excessive oxidative stress, which basically burns through the antioxidants in your system and predisposes you to problems."
The theory is that free radicals resulting from excess exercise bind to cholesterol, and that leads to increased plaque formation.0 -
Interesting first hand account of the unhealthiness of chronic cardio from a former endurance athlete.
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/the-evidence-continues-to-mount-against-chronic-cardio/#axzz3QilgZU4w0 -
FoCoAlphaNerd wrote: »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.
Actually reading the study...no way! I think I'll just rely on someone else to report it to me. /sarcasm font/
On a serious note, we were always told to have a very healthy dose of skepticism in grad school whenever we read about a study about anything. A small research study is interesting, but hardly proof of something.
0 -
FoCoAlphaNerd wrote: »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.
Actually reading the study...no way! I think I'll just rely on someone else to report it to me. /sarcasm font/
On a serious note, we were always told to have a very healthy dose of skepticism in grad school whenever we read about a study about anything. A small research study is interesting, but hardly proof of something.
Which is why it is pretty awesome to know at least a bit about statistics and epidemiology. I know not everyone is fond of the latter, but if some group used a completely wrong project method, then the results are worth zero, no matter how flashy the wrapping. It always amuses me when people have "read" an article from start to finish in five minutes.0 -
I read a couple of articles on running too much today. It's definitely a trending topic of the moment. I think I stick to Salsa dancing for the time being.0
-
47Jacqueline wrote: »I read a couple of articles on running too much today. It's definitely a trending topic of the moment. I think I stick to Salsa dancing for the time being.
Who did the research, who funded the projects, and who published the stuff? Rhetorical questions in this case, but lack of critical thinking is abundant in general.0 -
FoCoAlphaNerd wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »FoCoAlphaNerd wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »ThickMcRunFast wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »FoCoAlphaNerd wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »Oh...this again
What do you mean?
Meaning this stupidity pops up every year or so around this time.
This study was published this month, what stupidity do you mean?
I think he meant studies like this. Exercise research can be a bit of an echo chamber. Studies like this have been performed over and over again, many of them coming to the exact opposite conclusion. The problem being "study shows, lots of exercise is good for you" doesn't play as well on the Today Show.
Do you have links to any of the studies showing that distance running is beneficial to health?
Runners have the lowest risk of arthritis of all studied athletes:
http://www.bmj.com/content/308/6923/231.full
long distance runners have a lower rate of OA than the general population:
http://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797(08)00353-X/abstract
lower disability and mortality among long distance runners:
http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=770349
That last study is interesting, though I wish it said how much running since in the article I posted it is specific to speed and time.
Wait, are just reading the abstracts and not using library or college access to get to the full studies?
Yes.
Oh . . . *wanders off to go for a run*
Lol. Don't be too disappointed, at least PubMed has been mentioned in the thread. (Well, the spirit of it anyway.)
That would be much more uplifting if I wasn't the one who suggested it. I want a basic class in high school called "here's how to tell if a study is nonsense, and here are locations you can find legit ones." Maybe not the world's most catchy title, but we'll throw a "101" after it, make it mandatory, and soon threads like these will be much less painful.0 -
Who has time to determine if any given study is bogus? That's why I only pay attention to metastudies, and my ears only really perk up when there's a viable mechanism of action proposed.0
-
Who has time to determine if any given study is bogus? That's why I only pay attention to metastudies, and my ears only really perk up when there's a viable mechanism of action proposed.
Metastudies take time (research studies), and in the meantime we shouldn't think at all but trust blindly?0 -
ThickMcRunFast wrote: »
Runners have the lowest risk of arthritis of all studied athletes:
http://www.bmj.com/content/308/6923/231.full
long distance runners have a lower rate of OA than the general population:
http://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797(08)00353-X/abstract
lower disability and mortality among long distance runners:
http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=770349
An association doesn't prove causation. Maybe the rigors of long-distance running weeds out those who are unable to run.
Also, the 1st study doesn't specify running, and 2nd one doesn't say runners have a lower rate than others.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions