12345

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


Feeling the growl again

     

    On the 2nd page of the paper, it read dramatically different from the "news" headline.

     

    FIFY  Wink

     

    Yes, this is why I inquired for a link to the article.  I once had CNN come in and interview a scientist I worked for about some findings in the lab.  I was very excited to tune in that night to see it all on national television...until their medical "expert" got it all completely wrong.  Apparently the truth was not exciting enough so they spruced it up some.

    "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

     

    jdais


      Swim , Bike, and Run A LOT

      JimR


        I like this article better: RUN MORE

        http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/01/31/MNFC1BID8F.DTL

         

        This one was already referenced back on page 1.

         

        Note that the author also settles on roughly an hour a day as best for fitness and only speculates on effects beyond that citing a lack of enough subjects above the 50 mpw level to give a reliable analysis.


        I'm back!

          Half marathons...twice the fun with 10% of the pain...

           

          Or 10% of the fun with twice the pain, in my book!

          jimmyb


            Sometime I think articles like this are propaganda pieces. Part of a conspiracy to keep people unhealthy. I can't prove it. Just a hunch. I mean, WE all know here that what we do has been really good for us. Sure, sometimes we overdo it, but overall it's good for us. We can feel it, we can see it in others. But these "scientists" keep telling us it's not real, an illusion. That the  70+ year olds I know that still run marathons and look and move better than people half their age are really NOT healthy. Someone close to me who was on 5 medications, never exercised, and ate horribly could barely walk by the time he was 73. I know things would have turned out differently if he chose this path. But they want me to think that is the reality I should accept. Not the one I see and know to be true. These scientists are trying to put doubt in our minds. That what we are seeing is an illusion.  Their warning to anyone considering endurance sports: don't, it might be bad for you. Stay on the couch. Stay on your medications. Get on MORE medications to control the side effects of your other medications. Let the the pharma companies be the source of your health from birth to death.

             

            ANd they always bring up Jim Fixx in the comments......See! Running's bad for you!

            Log    PRs

              Sometime I think articles like this are propaganda pieces. Part of a conspiracy to keep people unhealthy. I can't prove it. Just a hunch. I mean, WE all know here that what we do has been really good for us. Sure, sometimes we overdo it, but overall it's good for us. We can feel it, we can see it in others. But these "scientists" keep telling us it's not real, an illusion. That the  70+ year olds I know that still run marathons and look and move better than people half their age are really NOT healthy. Someone close to me who was on 5 medications, never exercised, and ate horribly could barely walk by the time he was 73. I know things would have turned out differently if he chose this path. But they want me to think that is the reality I should accept. Not the one I see and know to be true. These scientists are trying to put doubt in our minds. That what we are seeing is an illusion.  Their warning to anyone considering endurance sports: don't, it might be bad for you. Stay on the couch. Stay on your medications. Get on MORE medications to control the side effects of your other medications. Let the the pharma companies be the source of your health from birth to death.

               

              ANd they always bring up Jim Fixx in the comments......See! Running's bad for you!

               

               

              AMEN

                  Wing, thanks for the link, I couldnt find the paper myself.

                   

                  The central tenet here is that there exists an "exercise threshold for potential toxicity", which is about an hour.  The footnotes show that earlier this year O'Keefe asked this question to the authors of the referenced Lancet study (Wen et al), who published a response which suggests they did not share this concern:

                   

                  James O'Keefe and colleagues raise an interesting question as to whether excessive strenuous exercise can become deleterious. We showed graphically that the benefits of mortality reduction peaked at 50 min with a hazard ratio of 0·60, without showing that it continues beyond 70 min. By 120 min, the hazard ratio for all-cause mortality was around 0·55, with even better hazard ratios for cardiovascular diseases (although less than 0·3% did daily vigorous exercise at this level). The adverse effects of strenuous exercise for incremental efforts for more than an hour a day did not seem to outweigh the benefits. We were not able to identify an upper limit of physical activity, either moderate or vigorous, above which more harm than good will occur in terms of long-term life expectancy benefits—an observation similarly made by the 2008 Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans. -The Lancet, Volume 379, Issue 9818, Pages 800 - 801, 3 March 2012  doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60342-0

                   

                  For me, the missed opportunity here is the dearth of insight in the section which probably matters most to me...risk stratification.  The paper says to some effect that its too expensive to do much about it.  (The only other paragraph in this section says runners are crazy.)  If long distance runners have ischemic cardiac changes which increase mortality, wouldn't it be more reasonable to try to establish a registry, or set up a well controlled prospective study?

                   

                  And to the comments about scientists driving propaganda...yes, there may be some truthiness to this, but its kinda like watching the 5 o'clock news and saying that people have become zombies. 

                  xor


                    What?

                     


                    A Dance with Monkeys

                      I'm a scientist. I work off the federal dime. I appreciate your support.

                       

                      Now, finally, I know my purpose in life. As a scientist, my purpose is to push drug company agendas.


                      Thanks! Your tax dollars will now be well spent.


                      Feeling the growl again

                        James O'Keefe and colleagues raise an interesting question as to whether excessive strenuous exercise can become deleterious. We showed graphically that the benefits of mortality reduction peaked at 50 min with a hazard ratio of 0·60, without showing that it continues beyond 70 min. By 120 min, the hazard ratio for all-cause mortality was around 0·55, with even better hazard ratios for cardiovascular diseases (although less than 0·3% did daily vigorous exercise at this level). The adverse effects of strenuous exercise for incremental efforts for more than an hour a day did not seem to outweigh the benefits. We were not able to identify an upper limit of physical activity, either moderate or vigorous, above which more harm than good will occur in terms of long-term life expectancy benefits—an observation similarly made by the 2008 Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans. -The Lancet, Volume 379, Issue 9818, Pages 800 - 801, 3 March 2012  doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60342-0

                         

                        For me, the missed oppor

                         

                         

                        FWIW, regarding the HR of 0.55 for 120min of exercise, when a cancer therapy achieves a HR of only0.6- 0.7ish it is enough to make national headlines.  To be able to achieve that type of HR without spending $100+/yr is...well..economical.

                        "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

                          I'm a scientist. I work off the federal dime. I appreciate your support.

                           

                          Now, finally, I know my purpose in life. As a scientist, my purpose is to push drug company agendas.


                          Thanks! Your tax dollars will now be well spent.

                           

                           

                          I'm confused.  I thought I shunned more lucrative job offers in management consulting and consumer packaged goods to wake up every day knowing I was going  to work to help save or extend the lives of people with potentially fatal disease(s).  Apparently I did not get the memo about the agenda, could you forward?  'Prec.

                          "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

                           


                          HobbyJogger & HobbyRacer

                            ...

                             

                            And to the comments about scientists driving propaganda...yes, there may be some truthiness to this, but its kinda like watching the 5 o'clock news and saying that people have become zombies. 

                             

                            I only saw the item about one zombie (brain-eating lunatic) recently -- you say "people" -- how many have there been?

                             

                            MTA: Hm, ok, here's another zombie.

                            It's a 5k. It hurt like hell...then I tried to pick it up. The end.

                            jimmyb


                              I'm confused.  I thought I shunned more lucrative job offers in management consulting and consumer packaged goods to wake up every day knowing I was going  to work to help save or extend the lives of people with potentially fatal disease(s).  Apparently I did not get the memo about the agenda, could you forward?  'Prec.

                               

                               

                              And to the comments about scientists driving propaganda...yes, there may be some truthiness to this, but its kinda like watching the 5 o'clock news and saying that people have become zombies. 

                               

                              I didn't make a blanket statement about all scientists. There have been documented cases of scientists fudging, making up, or suppressing data for economical and political reasons. There have been studies by corporations that have been tainted by conflict of interest and used to create a false impression about their product, which is propaganda. 

                               

                              I believe the great majority of scientists are not corrupt, stay true to the scientific method, and are doing important work.

                               

                              My comment on drugs was blanket and should be withdrawn. It was really an expression of residual anger of seeing someone I know be put on a cascading amount of pills (up to 7 in his last year), each to control the side effects of the others. They ravaged his body and destroyed his quality of life. But that's my crap, and should have been left at the door of this thread, and not used to make a blanket statement about all pharmaceuticals. Some do increase quality of life for some people.

                              Log    PRs


                              A Dance with Monkeys

                                As in all walks of life, not all scientists or healthcare providers are as good or unbiased as others. Can't judge an entire profession based on a few bad apples. And most conflict of interest is nonintentional and nonnefarious. Bias is a deeply rooted human flaw, based in the numerous cognitive heuristics with which our brain is wired.

                                 

                                And the cause of cascading medications is very often multifactorial, often with many people and issues contributing, including the patient.

                                12345