Is too much running unhealthy?

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-31095384

Interesting

I remember seeing something similar a year or more ago. Something about not running more than 30 min at a time. This article could actually be based on the same study I suppose, since it's a long running (no pun intended) study.

This suggests that there is a cap for both time and speed at which running loses it's health benefits. Of course, it doesn't actually so causation, but it is interesting. I suppose it could be that those that go longer and harder can afford more calories and have a poorer diet, thinking diet doesn't matter as long as fat is under control.
«13

Replies

  • WhatMeRunning
    WhatMeRunning Posts: 3,538 Member
    I have an uncle who has been running marathons since he was a teenager. He is in his sixties now and still runs them. He always run mostly every day, and still does. There is a history of heart problems in his family, his father had a stent, his brother died of a heart attack in his fifties, and another brother died of a stroke in his forties.

    I guess he's just lucky so far then. Or maybe he's like those grandma's we hear about who smoked cigarettes every day of their life and she lived to be 100 years old. Beats me.
  • dawnmcneil10
    dawnmcneil10 Posts: 638 Member
    I'm pretty sure what I read a while back was that on average we should shoot for 30 minutes a day of "activity" for general well being.

    I use running as a mind clearing activity, if I limited myself to 30 minutes I'd come back seriously angry at times because my mind wasn't done yet.
  • cheshirecatastrophe
    cheshirecatastrophe Posts: 1,395 Member
    This is not new info.

    Endurance sports temporarily elevate all sorts of inflammation and muscle damage. If you don't rest adequately, the damage can be permanent. This is why you see some Ironman triathletes and marathoners age very prematurely. (Along with sun exposure.)

    People who run a lot also often, not always, get hungry afterwards and eat what's available, including junk food. (Think about your local Tour de Donut or Run for Oysters.)

    The research that interests *me* are the studies indicating moderate daily exercise helps depression, but above 30-60 minutes per day or a certain intensity threshold, you see vastly diminishing returns. I'm super fascinated by the physiological pathways for that...probably similar to the inflammation markers.
  • jhall260
    jhall260 Posts: 111 Member
    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.
  • sunnyside1213
    sunnyside1213 Posts: 1,205 Member
    I saw a show on tv today that said too much is as bad as none.
  • _Zardoz_
    _Zardoz_ Posts: 3,987 Member
    Ahh it's the time of year to start telling us runners we're going to drop dead if we run too much. This is a great piece that explains that the conclusions people are drawing from this study are well flawed at best

    http://www.runnersworld.com/health/will-running-too-much-kill-you
  • cheshirecatastrophe
    cheshirecatastrophe Posts: 1,395 Member
    jhall260 wrote: »
    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.

    Oh, no question I'd go nuts without as much physical activity as I do.

    However, that's a very different kind of "nuts" (for me) than the severe depression I struggle with, that regular exercise doesn't help. (Or--oh, God, if it *is* helping, I am well and truly f#&ked.)
  • _Waffle_
    _Waffle_ Posts: 13,049 Member
    I ran about an hour this morning and had Taco Bell for lunch. I'm pretty much dead already.
  • CupcakeCrusoe
    CupcakeCrusoe Posts: 1,409 Member
    In for how I'm dying.
  • ThickMcRunFast
    ThickMcRunFast Posts: 22,511 Member
    Let me guess, one of the authors is O'Keefe.


    /scurries to check.

    Yup. That dude has been called out for using, um, "questionable" statistical analysis before. He's like the Lustig of running studies.
  • WhatMeRunning
    WhatMeRunning Posts: 3,538 Member
    _Waffle_ wrote: »
    I ran about an hour this morning and had Taco Bell for lunch. I'm pretty much dead already.
    Posts like this are the reason this place needs a "Like" button.
  • Chief_Rocka
    Chief_Rocka Posts: 4,710 Member
    Yes, hence the term "too much."
  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,575 Member
    I saw a show on tv today that said too much is as bad as none.

    That was likely discussing this same study.
  • glevinso
    glevinso Posts: 1,895 Member
    I would rather die in the middle of an Ironman than on my couch.

    That said this article is utterly worthless. It doesn't describe anything regarding the cause of death of the long-endurance types.

    It is about as good as the articles that say "Sugar is bad mmkay?"
  • Khukhullatus
    Khukhullatus Posts: 361 Member
    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.
  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,575 Member
    _Zardoz_ wrote: »
    Ahh it's the time of year to start telling us runners we're going to drop dead if we run too much. This is a great piece that explains that the conclusions people are drawing from this study are well flawed at best

    http://www.runnersworld.com/health/will-running-too-much-kill-you

    Are you sure this is the same study? The study the article references was published today, this link you provided almost a year ago.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,865 Member
    Oh...this again
  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,575 Member
    This is not new info.

    Endurance sports temporarily elevate all sorts of inflammation and muscle damage. If you don't rest adequately, the damage can be permanent. This is why you see some Ironman triathletes and marathoners age very prematurely. (Along with sun exposure.)

    People who run a lot also often, not always, get hungry afterwards and eat what's available, including junk food. (Think about your local Tour de Donut or Run for Oysters.)

    This study wasn't really about endurance at the triathalon level though. Speed OR length were associated with earlier death. Running for more than 35 min isn't always "endurance".
  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,575 Member
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    Oh...this again

    What do you mean?
  • glevinso
    glevinso Posts: 1,895 Member
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    Oh...this again

    What do you mean?

    Meaning this stupidity pops up every year or so around this time.
  • DymonNdaRgh40
    DymonNdaRgh40 Posts: 661 Member
    jhall260 wrote: »
    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.

    Here, here!
  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,575 Member
    glevinso 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?
  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,575 Member
    jhall260 wrote: »
    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.

    Sorry if you misunderstood. I wasn't suggesting anyone should not run.
  • Khukhullatus
    Khukhullatus Posts: 361 Member
    glevinso 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.
  • ThickMcRunFast
    ThickMcRunFast Posts: 22,511 Member
    glevinso 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.
  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,575 Member
    glevinso 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?
  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,575 Member
    glevinso 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?
  • ThickMcRunFast
    ThickMcRunFast Posts: 22,511 Member
    glevinso 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.
  • Khukhullatus
    Khukhullatus Posts: 361 Member
    glevinso 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?

    I'll give you the Pub Med link if you like ^_^ and you can comb through and assess them yourself. I have a couple examples in mind, but the truth is throwing out a bunch of things without personally reading the entire breakdowns is what SOOO many people are guilty of on this website, and I'd prefer not do that.

    It takes a fair amount of time to assess research like this, and I apologize, but I took the time to go over this study and point out a few flaws (above), going through dozens to find ones I specifically believe in to link on this thread is just more work than I'm willing to put into a MFP thread.
  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,575 Member
    glevinso 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?