12345

Here we go again: marathons and extreme endurance events are BAD for you (Read 1000 times)

jimmyb


    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2154267/Excess-exercise-hurts-heart-cause-dangerous-long-term-harm-say-scientists.html

     

    excerpt from the article:

     

    "Extreme exercise such as marathons may permanently damage the heart and trigger rhythm abnormalities, warn researchers. They say the safe ‘upper limit’ for heart health is a maximum of an hour a day - after which there is little benefit to the individual. A review of research evidence by US physicians says intensive training schedules and extreme endurance competitions can cause long-term harm to people’s hearts."

    Log    PRs


    A Sweetheart

      Once every two weeks one of these studies comes out and we all point out that they are wrong and then everyone goes on about their lazy, lard-butt co-worker/friend/family member who just doesn't understand.  So what?  I know running makes me healthier, I also know 19 hours into a race that it is well past the point of being a healthy and that I am hurting myself.  Doesn't change one damn thing.

       

      I don't give a crap about these studies or what anyone thinks about running.  If my heart (or knees) give out tomorrow, 20 years from now, or 40 years from now, it has all been worth it.  

      I want to do it because I want to do it.  -Amelia Earhart

      qwerty85


        Yeah, I was going to say - can we get a show of hands for who does marathon or longer distances for the health of it?

          I don't doubt that the heart health benefits of running probably top out at around an hour a day and beyond that there are diminishing returns.  But most of us running more than that aren't doing it for health reasons anyway.

           

          And when two thirds of Americans are overweight and nearly a third clinically obese, spending time studying the downside of exercising too much seems like misdirected energy.

           

          Basically big whoop.

          Runners run.

            It's funny because those of us who love running will dismiss most of these studies , and those that are overweight, out of shape couch dwellers will use this information to justify their lack of exercise. As in " see, all those runners are killing their hearts! Better to sit here and watch TV and shove some more twinkies in my face."

             

             

             


            I'm back!

              I'll be honest -- there's a sense in which I do run just for the health of it. Don't get me wrong, I love it. But there is a substantial cost in time, especially counting time thinking about running or hanging out in running forums.

               

              I put new running challenges on the calendar to keep it interesting, because if it weren't interesting, I wouldn't run at all, and I'd be fat and out of shape, and die young. So to a certain degree, arranging my life so that I'm excited about running is just a mind game I play with myself to keep me healthy and prolong my life. I judge that the time taken from other pursuits is worth it.

               

              If I really believed the new challenges were harmful? I don't want to think about that.


              Feeling the growl again

                "Dr O’Keefe said lifelong vigorous exercisers generally have lower death and disability rates compared with non-exercisers, but it was becoming important to detect intense exercisers whose regime might put them at risk "

                 

                But by all means, Dr O'Keefe, brush your own comment aside and get lost in the hype over the very small % of people for whom such exercise does cause problems.

                 

                By his own admission, such exercise is more likely to do you good than harm.

                 

                However, don't fool yourself folks.  I think there is pretty good evidence than anything more than about an hour a day is not for your health.  Whether it be for performance or personal enjoyment fine, but it's not likely to make you any healthier, that part is true.  This doesn't stop me from trying to get in an hour or more a day.

                "If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does.  There's your pep talk for today.  Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

                 

                  An hour a day would put most of us in the 45-55 mile/week range, and is probably good enough to hobby jog a marathon, for those with loftier goals, don't think the Heart benefits are really what drives them.  

                   

                  There is a definite mental and social benefits to running and being competetive, not sure if there is ever a way to quantify those.


                  I'm back!

                    Spaniel, what do you think of this study?

                     

                    More exercise better in long run, study finds

                     

                    A scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Williams has put together the world's largest study on runners, and the evidence found over 20 years of research points to an important conclusion: When it comes to exercise, more is almost always better.


                    "When I started my study, everybody sort of knew exercise was beneficial. The government was saying you get benefits by walking three or four times a week. My data has shown the more you do, the greater the benefits," Williams said. "I've had people doing 100 miles a week of running, and you could see benefits up to that level."

                    jimmyb


                      I agree with the replies here.

                       

                      Studies like that don't take a lot of things into account. Like the life stress levels of the individual, diet, and genetics. There will always be runners who develop heart problems and/or die that has nothing to do with running. ALl I know is that every 70+ year old that I know that's been running for 10-40 years looks great. They have matured, but don't look old. Move well. Compare that with some people I know who are in their seventies who never exercise that can barely move, and who have a low quality of life.

                       

                      And in the end....we're all food for the worms or ash in the wind....so live it up. Running is an adventure, a passion---- not an exercise in safety.Cool

                      THough it pays off to train smartly.

                      Log    PRs

                        I haven't read the article - but my default position with the Daily Wail is that they have pretty much everything exactly wrong.


                        just a simple cat

                          I'll be honest -- there's a sense in which I do run just for the health of it. Don't get me wrong, I love it. But there is a substantial cost in time, especially counting time thinking about running or hanging out in running forums.

                           

                          ........

                           

                           

                          Have studies been done about the unhealthful effects of running forums?   Black eye

                           

                          I  guess as you get more bodacious, you begin to lose more brain cells, because there is a limit to how much magnificence your body can house


                          Closed for repairs

                            Why the "hour-a-day" cutoff for health reasons?  I mean, if an hour burns 500 calories, and 2 hours burns 1000, doesn't that make 2 hours "healthier" than one?  Or are you saying there is a cost health-wise that offsets this calorie burning?  I read the article and what he said, but curious why you people are using the hour-a-day rule.   

                             

                            and this:

                             

                            Activities such as marathons, iron man distance triathlons, and very long distance bicycle races may cause structural changes to the heart and large arteries, leading to lasting injury.

                            Are they areguing it's the events themselves that cause the damage by their sheer length, or the training for those races?  That would seem like very different things, sort of an acute vs. chronic thing.  GD help DB, WG, et al running in circles for 12 and 24 hours at a time. 

                             

                            In a related item, Mrs. Train doesn't seem to mind me running marathons, other than the pain in the ass that I become.  But she finds discussions of 50 milers and 100 milers and such to be so unnatural that it worries her. 

                             


                            Feeling the growl again

                              Why the "hour-a-day" cutoff for health reasons?  I mean, if an hour burns 500 calories, and 2 hours burns 1000, doesn't that make 2 hours "healthier" than one?  Or are you saying there is a cost health-wise that offsets this calorie burning?  I read the article and what he said, but curious why you people are using the hour-a-day rule.   

                               

                              "Health" is more than burning calories.

                               

                              A number of studies have shown that benefits taper off at abour an hour a day.  This does not mean more is not better, but that you've reached the point of diminishing returns and health benefits really aren't worth the extra time and effort above that.

                              "If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does.  There's your pep talk for today.  Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

                               


                              Feeling the growl again

                                Spaniel, what do you think of this study?

                                 

                                More exercise better in long run, study finds

                                 

                                A scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Williams has put together the world's largest study on runners, and the evidence found over 20 years of research points to an important conclusion: When it comes to exercise, more is almost always better.


                                "When I started my study, everybody sort of knew exercise was beneficial. The government was saying you get benefits by walking three or four times a week. My data has shown the more you do, the greater the benefits," Williams said. "I've had people doing 100 miles a week of running, and you could see benefits up to that level."

                                 

                                Do you have a link to the actual study?  I would like to read it.

                                 

                                Offhand, I would think a) it's one study, and b) it probably shows diminishing returns past a certain point.  "Health" is a nebulous term, small increases likely get hard to quantify.  I don't save a list of links but I've read several other studies which showed diminishing returned that got pretty small based on several different measures past an hour a day, more or less.

                                 

                                An hour a day is 7 hours a week.  If we could get 10% of the population to do that it would be a HUGE change in our culture.

                                "If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does.  There's your pep talk for today.  Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

                                 

                                12345