Too much cardio?
Options
Replies
-
Cardiovascular Damage Resulting from Chronic Excessive Endurance Exercise
Here is a paper on it. http://www.msma.org/docs/communications/momed/Excessive_Endurance_Exercise_and_Heart_Disease_MOMED_JulyAug2012.pdf
It doesn't look discredited but neither does it say all marathoners damage their heart. It's a more complicated issue.0 -
It doesn't look discredited but neither does it say all marathoners damage their heart. It's a more complicated issue.
"Which puts a 55 year old male at higher risk for early death due to heart disease: sitting on my *kitten* eating ice cream and buttered popcorn (my two weaknesses) or getting off my *kitten* and swimming, riding and/or running, sometimes for well over an hour, and maybe someday entering an endurance event that will take many hours to finish? "
I will say that 6 hrs a week is a light week. 8-12 more like it. Pros are 18-24 hrs/week.
And running 9 min/mile with an HR less than 110 is pretty awesome too. Some people have that sitting on the couch.
0 -
I agree which is why I'm headed out for my third run today in a few minutes.It doesn't look discredited but neither does it say all marathoners damage their heart. It's a more complicated issue.
"Which puts a 55 year old male at higher risk for early death due to heart disease: sitting on my *kitten* eating ice cream and buttered popcorn (my two weaknesses) or getting off my *kitten* and swimming, riding and/or running, sometimes for well over an hour, and maybe someday entering an endurance event that will take many hours to finish? "
I will say that 6 hrs a week is a light week. 8-12 more like it. Pros are 18-24 hrs/week.
And running 9 min/mile with an HR less than 110 is pretty awesome too. Some people have that sitting on the couch.
My quick scan of the study leads me to believe that a big part of the problem is people running too hard all the time rather than simply running a lot. If people train intelligently they can probably avoid most or all of the problems.
And I like being able to walk around at a lower heart rate than most people get when sleeping.0 -
Cardiovascular Damage Resulting from Chronic Excessive Endurance Exercise
Here is a paper on it. http://www.msma.org/docs/communications/momed/Excessive_Endurance_Exercise_and_Heart_Disease_MOMED_JulyAug2012.pdf
It doesn't look discredited but neither does it say all marathoners damage their heart. It's a more complicated issue.
Thanks I've had a quick scan an it looks a lot more reasonable plus put things into context. Deffo worth a read.0 -
For a discussion and link to a study that had a much larger sample and did not find the U-shaped curve, see this post from Alex Hutchinson's Sweat Science blog:
http://www.runnersworld.com/sweat-science/does-greater-fitness-increase-or-decrease-longevity
The takeaway: more exercise was associated with a decrease in mortality (i.e. lower chance of dying) at any fitness level. Now, they weren't looking at volume of fitness but peak MET output, but there's such a strong correlation between volume of training and fitness level that the results are highly suggestive.
BTW, here's Hutchinson's take on the earlier paper using the Copenhagen City Heart Study:
http://www.runnersworld.com/sweat-science/the-supposed-dangers-of-running-too-much
The key sentences: "Yes, the conclusion of the study (that "strenuous" jogging is as bad as being sedentary) is based on two deaths over more than a decade of follow-up. (Thank goodness a third person didn't die, or public health authorities would be banning jogging.)"0 -
Cardiovascular Damage Resulting from Chronic Excessive Endurance Exercise
Here is a paper on it. http://www.msma.org/docs/communications/momed/Excessive_Endurance_Exercise_and_Heart_Disease_MOMED_JulyAug2012.pdf
It doesn't look discredited but neither does it say all marathoners damage their heart. It's a more complicated issue.
Essentially the statistical normalisation required to demonstrate that the whole life mortality risk doubled was extensive: http://www.runnersworld.com/sweat-science/the-too-much-running-myth-rises-again
There are several variants, given that the O'Keefe paper appears pretty much every year.
Also: http://www.outsideonline.com/1922301/nope-running-isnt-going-shorten-your-lifespan0 -
The study I cited wasn't about whole life mortality at all but rather detremental heart and cardiovasular irregularities.0
-
shortone100 wrote: »I've heard that doing too much cardio will result in not burning as many calories during workouts...
Ummm...no.
You run 5k, you're running 5k.
At extreme levels of fitness, there might a 2-3% improvement in "efficiency" (ie, 10-15 calories on a 500 calorie burn), but unless you're fit enough to ride the Tour de France, it's not something that needs to be considered.0 -
ScubaSteve1962 wrote: »Guess I'm doing to much 5 hrs of vigorous cardio a week. But still trying to figure out what is too much.
It's not "too much" unless you aren't fit enough to do it.
The idea that an hour a day of cardio could possibly be "too much" is straight out of Generation Slacker.0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »
The better rationale for limiting CV time is diminishing returns for the casual exerciser. The gains from 6 hours upwards aren't great enough to justify the dedicated effort.
Diminishing returns in what sense?
If one is looking for improved CV capacity, then that's largely going to come from lots of long easy sessions in the aerobic range. Clearly working in the threshold range and anaerobic range have different effects, but both of them depend on an aerobic base.
But the level of improvement becomes negligible, so for simple health improvement not much worth it. One will get more from combining the CV work with resistance work, rather than just thrashing out more CV.
OTOH if one is looking at improving performance, whether running, cycling, rowing etc, then there is a lot of benefit in lots of miles.
0 -
The study I cited wasn't about whole life mortality at all but rather detremental heart and cardiovasular irregularities.
The work that O'Keefe derives his conclusions from does demonstrate that there is an increase in whole life mortality risk as a result of detrimental heart and CV irregularities. O'Keefe has had to get fairly creative and makes some big leaps of faith to get to his conclusions.
Essentially persistent, long term, long duration endurance athletes lose some of the improvements to mortality from moderate exercise, and revert to much the same mortality risk as the sedentary non-exerciser.
The snag is, the reason for that isn't known.
0 -
My theory is that the conclusion relies on data from the old days, where putting in lots of miles meant spending a significant amount of time out of reach of 911, relative to a couch potato.
0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »
Essentially persistent, long term, long duration endurance athletes lose some of the improvements to mortality from moderate exercise, and revert to much the same mortality risk as the sedentary non-exerciser.The study I cited wasn't about whole life mortality at all but rather detremental heart and cardiovasular irregularities.
See and this is the leap. Let's suppose the risk for an ultra-ironman-15+ hr/week guy of developing a-fib is %2 higher than a casual moderate exerciser. You can claim that his risk of that type of death is higher (by a tiny amount). Ok. But you have to take into account the other 10 reduced risks of mortality (weight, diabetes, stroke, attacks etc) that the elite crazy guy enjoys.
The point is NONE of this applies to anyone posting on myfitnesspal. Maybe for some elite, olympic, world champ, lunatic OCD type-As but the average soccer mom is NOT going to over-cardio herself to the point where she's anywhere near being worse off.
I'll just leave this here:Our major finding is that repeated very intense exercise prolongs life span in well trained practitioners. Our findings underpin the importance of exercising without the fear that becoming exhausted might be bad for one's health.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21618162
0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »
The better rationale for limiting CV time is diminishing returns for the casual exerciser. The gains from 6 hours upwards aren't great enough to justify the dedicated effort.
Diminishing returns in what sense?
If one is looking for improved CV capacity, then that's largely going to come from lots of long easy sessions in the aerobic range. Clearly working in the threshold range and anaerobic range have different effects, but both of them depend on an aerobic base.
But the level of improvement becomes negligible, so for simple health improvement not much worth it. One will get more from combining the CV work with resistance work, rather than just thrashing out more CV.
OTOH if one is looking at improving performance, whether running, cycling, rowing etc, then there is a lot of benefit in lots of miles.
Think they are more interested in calorie burn return.
0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »
Essentially persistent, long term, long duration endurance athletes lose some of the improvements to mortality from moderate exercise, and revert to much the same mortality risk as the sedentary non-exerciser.The study I cited wasn't about whole life mortality at all but rather detremental heart and cardiovasular irregularities.
See and this is the leap. Let's suppose the risk for an ultra-ironman-15+ hr/week guy of developing a-fib is %2 higher than a casual moderate exerciser. You can claim that his risk of that type of death is higher (by a tiny amount). Ok. But you have to take into account the other 10 reduced risks of mortality (weight, diabetes, stroke, attacks etc) that the elite crazy guy enjoys.
The point is NONE of this applies to anyone posting on myfitnesspal. Maybe for some elite, olympic, world champ, lunatic OCD type-As but the average soccer mom is NOT going to over-cardio herself to the point where she's anywhere near being worse off.
I'll just leave this here:Our major finding is that repeated very intense exercise prolongs life span in well trained practitioners. Our findings underpin the importance of exercising without the fear that becoming exhausted might be bad for one's health.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21618162
pretty much...0 -
Tbf its luttlezebra that brough it up and shes the one making the claims. 5 hours cardio isnt hard to exceed.0
-
MeanderingMammal wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »
The better rationale for limiting CV time is diminishing returns for the casual exerciser. The gains from 6 hours upwards aren't great enough to justify the dedicated effort.
Diminishing returns in what sense?
If one is looking for improved CV capacity, then that's largely going to come from lots of long easy sessions in the aerobic range. Clearly working in the threshold range and anaerobic range have different effects, but both of them depend on an aerobic base.
But the level of improvement becomes negligible, so for simple health improvement not much worth it. One will get more from combining the CV work with resistance work, rather than just thrashing out more CV.
OTOH if one is looking at improving performance, whether running, cycling, rowing etc, then there is a lot of benefit in lots of miles.
Think they are more interested in calorie burn return.
So running gives me 600-700 cals per hour.
At 7 hours per week, say middle third of a half marathon cycle, I can't physically consume enough food to compensate.
I acknowledge that an elliptihell will give 50-70% of that consumption, but the extra burn really isn't worth it.
0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »
Essentially persistent, long term, long duration endurance athletes lose some of the improvements to mortality from moderate exercise, and revert to much the same mortality risk as the sedentary non-exerciser.The study I cited wasn't about whole life mortality at all but rather detremental heart and cardiovasular irregularities.
See and this is the leap. Let's suppose the risk for an ultra-ironman-15+ hr/week guy of developing a-fib is %2 higher than a casual moderate exerciser. You can claim that his risk of that type of death is higher (by a tiny amount). Ok. But you have to take into account the other 10 reduced risks of mortality (weight, diabetes, stroke, attacks etc) that the elite crazy guy enjoys.
Indeed. I'll continue pounding the miles out, for the quality of life benefits, rather than worry about negligible increases in risk. I'm more likely to get knocked over by a car whilst out running anyway.
0 -
Anecdotally I did run myself into a 3 day bout of cardiac arrhythmia through some stupid training decisions a couple of years ago. I self treated it and finally got it to stop by going for another run, LOL. Not that I would recommend that course of action to anybody else.
I've been to the Dr. For physicals and such a couple of times since then and it's all back to normal.0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »
So running gives me 600-700 cals per hour.
At 7 hours per week, say middle third of a half marathon cycle, I can't physically consume enough food to compensate.
I acknowledge that an elliptihell will give 50-70% of that consumption, but the extra burn really isn't worth it.
[/quote]
I am talking about the OP and someone trying to lose weight. All things being equal if I have achieved a certain level of fitness, then im less bothered about increasing my VO2 and more interested in burning as many calories as I can. It might not be worth it for you, but might be for them.
Back to the original argument of 5h a week max, then anyone who cares to read the articles or do some research can see how thats taken out of context or there are all sorts of taking things out of context and provisos about intensity and duration of those 5hrs and who it applies to. People will either read the articles or they will not, they are either capable of objectively analysing and appreciating what the articles are saying or they are not. The articles are informative enough. Think ill carry on doing as I am and the risks from being run over are far higher.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 934 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions