WTF? Study: Too much jogging can lead to early death

jonnythan

It's a total BS study that get's trotted out by the media about twice a year.

http://sciencebasedrunning.com/2013/05/omg-were-all-gonna-dieeleventy/
http://www.runnersworld.com/health/too-much-running-myth-rises-again

Money quote:

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.... 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.”

Thanks to DaveMunger for the links and quote.

The implication here is that the more you run, the better your weight, blood pressure, and cholesterol will be. I assert that this is not necessarily true and your criticism is invalid.

I haven't looked at this study yet, but there is significant evidence indicating that extreme amounts of exercise can indeed cause a deterioration of health or premature mortality. It makes sense intuitively; a moderate or even high amount of stress to the body's systems create a response by which it becomes stronger and more efficient. Too much stress can overwhelm it.

I haven't seen enough research to conclude how much exercise is definitely too much, but we can't just throw the idea out the window. More is not necessarily better. Achieving extremely high levels of performance does not necessarily improve health or decrease mortality.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021915096059503

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3055708/

http://www.unm.edu/~lkravitz/Article folder/hypertension.html

Yes, exercise is good for blood pressure. That does not address the bolded statement.

likitisplit

It's a total BS study that get's trotted out by the media about twice a year.

http://sciencebasedrunning.com/2013/05/omg-were-all-gonna-dieeleventy/
http://www.runnersworld.com/health/too-much-running-myth-rises-again

Money quote:

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.... 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.”

Thanks to DaveMunger for the links and quote.

The implication here is that the more you run, the better your weight, blood pressure, and cholesterol will be. I assert that this is not necessarily true and your criticism is invalid.

I haven't looked at this study yet, but there is significant evidence indicating that extreme amounts of exercise can indeed cause a deterioration of health or premature mortality. It makes sense intuitively; a moderate or even high amount of stress to the body's systems create a response by which it becomes stronger and more efficient. Too much stress can overwhelm it.

I haven't seen enough research to conclude how much exercise is definitely too much, but we can't just throw the idea out the window. More is not necessarily better. Achieving extremely high levels of performance does not necessarily improve health or decrease mortality.

Most of the studies I've read on health issues caused by overtraining (which admittedly was a long time ago, I haven't read more recent studies) the majority of cases of overtraining were actually cases of undereating and the problems went away by increasing the amount of food the athletes ate. Reducing the amount of training also helped, but it seemed only because that also reduced the calorie deficit that the athlete was in (i.e. exercise was reduced but food wasn't)

While it is true that there must be some point at which the human body can't take greater amounts of exercise without there being a health cost, I'd guess that increased morbidity and mortality in cohort studies comparing runners to non runners would be the result of undereating. It's unfortunately common for people to do a lot of cardio on an inadequate diet. People with eating/exercise disorders in particular, but also in misinformed people who have a health relationship with food but just have no idea of how much extra they need to eat to fuel regular long runs.

Also, death from insufficient salt/too much plain water while doing long runs is another risk that people tend not to be clued up about. Some people eat very low levels of sodium in their diet because that's what they're told is healthier, without realising that they're sweating out a lot of electrolytes while running and so need to eat more sodium and maybe use a sports drink that contains electrolytes to compensate. Most people know that too much salt is bad but many don't know that you can die from too little salt.

I'd be concerned from cohort studies like this as to whether runners are dying from the above things because they are preventable with proper information about nutrition, hydration and electrolytes. Some causes of mortality in runners like undiagnosed heart problems are hard to prevent, but if runners have an increased mortality because of preventable issues then blaming running itself is counterproductive. While I agree with you that the human body can only take so much... I think most runners are not pushing themselves to that point.

This is a fine post and I can't argue with any of it. This isn't a topic I've researched exhaustively. All I can say is that the small amount of research I've read has been compelling, and conceptually the idea makes sense to me.

The Runner's World article agrees with you.

neandermagnon

It's a total BS study that get's trotted out by the media about twice a year.

http://sciencebasedrunning.com/2013/05/omg-were-all-gonna-dieeleventy/
http://www.runnersworld.com/health/too-much-running-myth-rises-again

Money quote:

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.... 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.”

Thanks to DaveMunger for the links and quote.

The implication here is that the more you run, the better your weight, blood pressure, and cholesterol will be. I assert that this is not necessarily true and your criticism is invalid.

I haven't looked at this study yet, but there is significant evidence indicating that extreme amounts of exercise can indeed cause a deterioration of health or premature mortality. It makes sense intuitively; a moderate or even high amount of stress to the body's systems create a response by which it becomes stronger and more efficient. Too much stress can overwhelm it.

I haven't seen enough research to conclude how much exercise is definitely too much, but we can't just throw the idea out the window. More is not necessarily better. Achieving extremely high levels of performance does not necessarily improve health or decrease mortality.

Most of the studies I've read on health issues caused by overtraining (which admittedly was a long time ago, I haven't read more recent studies) the majority of cases of overtraining were actually cases of undereating and the problems went away by increasing the amount of food the athletes ate. Reducing the amount of training also helped, but it seemed only because that also reduced the calorie deficit that the athlete was in (i.e. exercise was reduced but food wasn't)

While it is true that there must be some point at which the human body can't take greater amounts of exercise without there being a health cost, I'd guess that increased morbidity and mortality in cohort studies comparing runners to non runners would be the result of undereating. It's unfortunately common for people to do a lot of cardio on an inadequate diet. People with eating/exercise disorders in particular, but also in misinformed people who have a health relationship with food but just have no idea of how much extra they need to eat to fuel regular long runs.

Also, death from insufficient salt/too much plain water while doing long runs is another risk that people tend not to be clued up about. Some people eat very low levels of sodium in their diet because that's what they're told is healthier, without realising that they're sweating out a lot of electrolytes while running and so need to eat more sodium and maybe use a sports drink that contains electrolytes to compensate. Most people know that too much salt is bad but many don't know that you can die from too little salt.

I'd be concerned from cohort studies like this as to whether runners are dying from the above things because they are preventable with proper information about nutrition, hydration and electrolytes. Some causes of mortality in runners like undiagnosed heart problems are hard to prevent, but if runners have an increased mortality because of preventable issues then blaming running itself is counterproductive. While I agree with you that the human body can only take so much... I think most runners are not pushing themselves to that point.

I think the majority of runners who are running marathon and beyond are pretty smart about the needs for hydration and probably incorporate fueling during their run. I would be concerned with general calories consumed however. Some of the ideal racing weights I've seen thrown around are really low.

@ clued up runners - except that joggers are not all marathon runners. What about all the cardio junkies doing 2+ hrs running a day on 1200 cals/day? And some of the people doing marathons will be undereating and doing marathons for the purpose of losing weight. And half marathons and so on... it only takes a small number of those people to drop dead to totally skew the statistics for everyone....

@ low race weights - that's probably going to encourage some people to undereat while marathon running, thus increasing their risk of dropping dead.

3dogsrunning

It's a total BS study that get's trotted out by the media about twice a year.

http://sciencebasedrunning.com/2013/05/omg-were-all-gonna-dieeleventy/
http://www.runnersworld.com/health/too-much-running-myth-rises-again

Money quote:

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.... 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.”

Thanks to DaveMunger for the links and quote.

The implication here is that the more you run, the better your weight, blood pressure, and cholesterol will be. I assert that this is not necessarily true and your criticism is invalid.

I haven't looked at this study yet, but there is significant evidence indicating that extreme amounts of exercise can indeed cause a deterioration of health or premature mortality. It makes sense intuitively; a moderate or even high amount of stress to the body's systems create a response by which it becomes stronger and more efficient. Too much stress can overwhelm it.

I haven't seen enough research to conclude how much exercise is definitely too much, but we can't just throw the idea out the window. More is not necessarily better. Achieving extremely high levels of performance does not necessarily improve health or decrease mortality.

Most of the studies I've read on health issues caused by overtraining (which admittedly was a long time ago, I haven't read more recent studies) the majority of cases of overtraining were actually cases of undereating and the problems went away by increasing the amount of food the athletes ate. Reducing the amount of training also helped, but it seemed only because that also reduced the calorie deficit that the athlete was in (i.e. exercise was reduced but food wasn't)

While it is true that there must be some point at which the human body can't take greater amounts of exercise without there being a health cost, I'd guess that increased morbidity and mortality in cohort studies comparing runners to non runners would be the result of undereating. It's unfortunately common for people to do a lot of cardio on an inadequate diet. People with eating/exercise disorders in particular, but also in misinformed people who have a health relationship with food but just have no idea of how much extra they need to eat to fuel regular long runs.

Also, death from insufficient salt/too much plain water while doing long runs is another risk that people tend not to be clued up about. Some people eat very low levels of sodium in their diet because that's what they're told is healthier, without realising that they're sweating out a lot of electrolytes while running and so need to eat more sodium and maybe use a sports drink that contains electrolytes to compensate. Most people know that too much salt is bad but many don't know that you can die from too little salt.

I'd be concerned from cohort studies like this as to whether runners are dying from the above things because they are preventable with proper information about nutrition, hydration and electrolytes. Some causes of mortality in runners like undiagnosed heart problems are hard to prevent, but if runners have an increased mortality because of preventable issues then blaming running itself is counterproductive. While I agree with you that the human body can only take so much... I think most runners are not pushing themselves to that point.

This is a fine post and I can't argue with any of it. This isn't a topic I've researched exhaustively. All I can say is that the small amount of research I've read has been compelling, and conceptually the idea makes sense to me.

Like i said earlier on, the explanation given to me by a doctor friend who has reviewed the study was that there was a slightly lower life expectancy in high mileage runners as compared to those who were moderate runners. Even with the shorter life, which was only slightly so, they still had were ahead of the non-exercisers.
I think one of the articles linked in the original article stated it suggests there is a point of diminishing return. I don't disagree with that theory. My problem with is how much it is overstated.

jonnythan

Like i said earlier on, the explanation given to me by a doctor friend who has reviewed the study was that there was a slightly lower life expectancy in high mileage runners as compared to those who were moderate runners. Even with the shorter life, which was only slightly so, they still had were ahead of the non-exercisers.
I think one of the articles linked in the original article stated it suggests there is a point of diminishing return. I don't disagree with that theory. My problem with is how much it is overstated.

It's possible that it's overstated. But, then again, pretty much every study conclusion is vastly overstated when it gets reported in the popular media.

Galatea_Stone

It's a total BS study that get's trotted out by the media about twice a year.

http://sciencebasedrunning.com/2013/05/omg-were-all-gonna-dieeleventy/
http://www.runnersworld.com/health/too-much-running-myth-rises-again

Money quote:

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.... 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.”

Thanks to DaveMunger for the links and quote.

The implication here is that the more you run, the better your weight, blood pressure, and cholesterol will be. I assert that this is not necessarily true and your criticism is invalid.

I haven't looked at this study yet, but there is significant evidence indicating that extreme amounts of exercise can indeed cause a deterioration of health or premature mortality. It makes sense intuitively; a moderate or even high amount of stress to the body's systems create a response by which it becomes stronger and more efficient. Too much stress can overwhelm it.

I haven't seen enough research to conclude how much exercise is definitely too much, but we can't just throw the idea out the window. More is not necessarily better. Achieving extremely high levels of performance does not necessarily improve health or decrease mortality.

Most of the studies I've read on health issues caused by overtraining (which admittedly was a long time ago, I haven't read more recent studies) the majority of cases of overtraining were actually cases of undereating and the problems went away by increasing the amount of food the athletes ate. Reducing the amount of training also helped, but it seemed only because that also reduced the calorie deficit that the athlete was in (i.e. exercise was reduced but food wasn't)

While it is true that there must be some point at which the human body can't take greater amounts of exercise without there being a health cost, I'd guess that increased morbidity and mortality in cohort studies comparing runners to non runners would be the result of undereating. It's unfortunately common for people to do a lot of cardio on an inadequate diet. People with eating/exercise disorders in particular, but also in misinformed people who have a health relationship with food but just have no idea of how much extra they need to eat to fuel regular long runs.

Also, death from insufficient salt/too much plain water while doing long runs is another risk that people tend not to be clued up about. Some people eat very low levels of sodium in their diet because that's what they're told is healthier, without realising that they're sweating out a lot of electrolytes while running and so need to eat more sodium and maybe use a sports drink that contains electrolytes to compensate. Most people know that too much salt is bad but many don't know that you can die from too little salt.

I'd be concerned from cohort studies like this as to whether runners are dying from the above things because they are preventable with proper information about nutrition, hydration and electrolytes. Some causes of mortality in runners like undiagnosed heart problems are hard to prevent, but if runners have an increased mortality because of preventable issues then blaming running itself is counterproductive. While I agree with you that the human body can only take so much... I think most runners are not pushing themselves to that point.

Particularly agree with the last sentence. How many people on MFP, much less the general population, are really in danger of falling into these extreme or ultra categories? The biggest fear with these studies is that the recreational exerciser sees these and cuts back when there is no need.

I think with anything, how people choose to fuel their body can have negative impacts. If someone is under fueling, then damage to the heart could very likely be akin to the type of damage seen in anorexics. On the other end of the spectrum, as suggested in a recent study, fueling these runs with lots and lots of high calorie, low nutrient foods might also be a contributor to plaque build-up. In the end, learning how to properly fuel the body to participate in these events would be beneficial.

It just keeps coming back to "moderation."

Prettymisssparkles

The point is not to go into your grave "perfectly intact" with little to no wear on your body.

That sounds boring as hell.

I'd rather go into the next life having worn this body out entirely and knowing I lived every moment and experienced life without fear.


Just my two cents.

^ I really like this :flowerforyou: