interesting article on distance running

1234usmc

http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/pt365/2015/06/19/new-running-research-adds-to-age-old-distance-debate/28916317/

As a Marine, I have run a lot. Distance, speed, intervals, you name it. This article really has me thinking though. I am trying to get back in shape with a goal of running a 10 k again. Maybe a 5 is enough.

Not trying to start a big debate, just putting the info out there.

lporter229

I guess it really depends on why you run. Increasing my life expectancy has very little to do with my direct motivation for running.

WhatMeRunning

I've seen these articles for a while now. I've seen a lot of critics debunk it fairly easily. However, research is research, and I tend to listen to my doctor.

I have a history of diabetes and also early (and mild) coronary artery disease. I was at my doctor just this Monday for a follow up appointment where we discussed the half marathons I ran this year, and my marathon training plans. He couldn't have been more thrilled, saying this long distance running is exactly what will help keep these issues at bay. He is well read on current research.

So, I am good with keeping on with my running plans.

dougii

I agree with both of the above posts. Lots of these articles coming out lately (or maybe it is the same one in different venues as this seemed very familiar to me). When my doctor tells me that my uncontrolled BP seems to be under perfect control and perhaps we should start lowering the BP med dosage with the intent of getting off of it entirely I really don't need any other reason to run less. Also like above my doc is well read, current, and says I should run as much as I want as long as my body is able to handle the stresses (i.e. ankles, knees, etc.). Besides, I actually like to run........

scottb81

mmmmmmmm, from the article,

"The study's findings suggest that hard-charging, mile-pounding modern-day Pheidippides-types tend to die at the same rate as sedentary slackers and channel-surfing couch potatoes."

Now, if I'm not mistaken the rate of death for both groups is right at 100%.

1234usmc

Now that's funny, they are both 100%

I'm not saying I agree, I was just putting it out there. Being diagnosed a diabetic back in October is what really woke me up. With a family history or diabetes and heart disease, it shouldn't have taken that much to get my attention but it is what it is. I plan to continue with my running plan. Many reasons with diabetes , BP and losing weight at the top. I go to see my dr. Next monday and I am hoping he tells me I can stop my BP medicine completely and that my untreated diabetes is under control. I have lost 25lbs since oct. Not earth shattering but I'm happy. Under 200 for the first time in 10 years. Still hope to run 5 without walking by end of summer and 10 k without walking at some point.

People say you can't out train a bad diet and there is a lot of truth to that but exercise is a big part of it for me and a lot of people. Even if this particular study is right, I feel better and look better exercising. This article couldn't possibly account for diabetes, bcuz a couch potato will not be anywhere near as healthy as an athlete.

scottb81

The truth is that the amount of running required to compete at a high or semi high level in the marathon or probably even the half marathon isn't ideal for your health. It is stressful and even ideal training runs a very fine line with overwork and overstress.

Ideally, for health and general fitness and for running a decent race 4 times a week running is probably enough. Most of it run easy with only a little bit hard. (That last part is actually ideal training no matter how much you run.)

People usually get into trouble with injuries and overtraining not from running too often but from running too hard too often.

Azdak

There is absolutely nothing new in this study that hasn't been known for over 20 years. In the earlier days of the running boom--lasting from Frank Shorter's 1972 marathon gold to the death of Jim Fixx--there were many exaggerated claims made by running aficionados. The most (in)famous being Dr Thomas Bassler's statement that no one who runs marathons would ever die of a heart attack. (I think much of the hype also came from the fact that the runners in those days were relatively young and filled with the hubris of youth).

However, data from large lifestyle studies --such as the Framingham Study--strongly suggested that there was an upper limit to the dose/response relationship being exercise and health, somewhere in the 1500-2000 kcal/wk range. Dr Ken Cooper created a controversy in the late 1980s when he stated that no one should run more than 10-12 miles a week. Again, it wasn't that greater volumes of exercise were unhealthy, it just meant that they conferred no additional health benefit. Marathon running should be viewed more as a hobby than as a "health" activity.

At the time, I did a lot of lectures on fitness and health, and spent a lot of time reading these studies. It became clear to me that exercise was more about QUALITY of life vs longevity, ie running might not make you live longer, but it would allow you to have greater physical and mental capacity in those later years. That's something that is not really accounted for in these studiesamd, to me, represents the true "health" benefit of exercise.