Here we go again... (Read 1235 times)

"...some types of high-intensity exercise may actually be bad for the heart..."

Personally, once I get in a good shape, I wouldn't necessarily consider going for a nice hour's running being "high-intensity" exercise.  In fact, any "researchers" who bundle up any "marathon training" as "high-intensity" exercise don't know anything about training.  On the other hand, it was as early as late 1940s when Dr. Ernst van Aaken warned that too much of "high-intensity" training where your heart rate goes beyond 160~180 range, which would happen if you engage yourself in high-speed intervals or repetition workout, can harm your heart.

Here's a piece I've written about recent death incidences assocciated with running: http://www.lydiardfoundation.org/blog/EntryDisplay.aspx?EntryID=106

We've been doing this business of "jogging" since 1960s and, in general, we are getting healthier and fitter.  One concern that I have had all along is this "maraton craze".  You check this RA message board and see how many threads we can find related to something like; "I've started running 2 months ago and I've signed up for a marathon in 2 months..." or "I've started running last fall and now I NEED to run such-and-such time for 1.5 miles in 4 weeks..."  All these involves pushing the body beyond its adaptation ability without building the adequate "base". 

I've spent all this weekend picking up some popular marathon training program and I'm actually quite amazed how most of them so very quickly push the "customers" to move from somewhere around 4 or 5 miles all the way to running 20+ miles, which, in most cases, involves running upward or 3-hours and beyond, in mere 12~16 weeks.  Even more startling to me is the fact a lot of these programs require a lot of repeats, or so-called "Marathon Pace" workout right from the beginning.  I feel I've dealt with meny people in the past to know that, I'd say, 90% of these "runners" would pick up the bogus number as their "target marathon time" ("Oh, I know our neighbor ran a marathon in 3:58...  I should be able to run a 4-hour marathon, right?") and use THAT as their starting point and set out to do the training.  Coming from the Lydiard school, we believe you need to build a good base first before you play around with "intervals" or "repeats".  One program I found had so many "repetitions" right from the beginning, I thought I time-slipped and went back to 1950s when majority of runners did repetitions as their main training--and now we're talking about a program for people who might expect to "run" a 4:00 marathon!!!

The last "race" I ran was on Thanksgiving Day 5k.  I went there rather stiff...  At the gun, I could see so many young men sprinting out so fast....I got left in the dust...only to find myself passing majority of these paople in less than a mile.  Like I wrote in my blog, I hardly see guys "training" (while I see so many ladies "training") and these are the guys who sprint out WITHOUT proper preparation...  And when they step out and do the training, they think they'd have to train hard...  When you look at some of the popular training program, some of them chase quality so much, completely ignoring this business of "base-building".  Think of a program like FIRST where it requires (only) 3 days of high quality days a week plus a few days of "high intensity" cross training... (Wait.  Isn't this the same as the concept of "Power Running"???)   I was watching one of those TV informercial things and this particular one talks about very high intensity workout with very little recovery.  "It works your body harder than anything you've ever done before..."  Yeah, that's a great way to start!  And of course, there's this Tabata method of training.  VERY high intensity with very short rest in between and it claims that you can improve your VO2Max better in only 4 minutes a day than "traditional" hour's low intensity aerobic exercise.  I don't doubt that; but there must also be consequences if you try to build a castle on the sand. 

Yes, I would very much like to read more details of this research but, in fact, I don't doubt there are some risks of damaging yourself IF you do this business of running wrongly.  I've read another piece, done by some Norwegian doctors who said something like "You should drop traditional approach to training immediately and do high intensity interval training even as a beginner..."  Some people actually follow such advice; and we'll continue to read articles like this one keep coming out.  Arthur Lydiard, of shoes, used to say; "We play baseball, we play football, we play basketball...  We never used to have all these leg/foot injuries; all of a sudden we started running and we all started to get injured...  A common sense tells you; there's something wrong with shoes, not you."  Same thing.  We've been "jogging" since 1961.  Lydiard "coached" these 20 obese business people who couldn't run 200m without stopping and turn them into a marathon runner in 8 months.  He never killed anyone.  Bill Bowerman started a jogging program in this country in 1963; he "coached" thousands of ordinary people based on his booklet, "Jogging"...  He never killed anybody.  All of a sudden everybody started to run a marathon and we hear all those tragedies and these "researches" saying that running is bad for you...  What leads me to believe is that there's something wrong with the programs that many people follow; not in the act of running.

I dont know all the details but believe there were 49 in control and 49 in endurance group.  While there probably no statistical power, it is enough to make me want to know details.  The data was presented at ACC (Cardiology conference in U.S.) and must have some merit given the scrutiny at said venue.  I imagine this will lead to additional studies....

Once again Nobby was able to articulate what I was thinking. If you take 49 marathoners out of the estimated 400,000 + people who run marathons each year I wonder if you are getting an accurate representation. I do agree that it is worth paying attention to but my fear is that these studies are interpreted by some as a justification to  a sedentary lifestyle. That type of lifestyle leads to a far greater risk of heart disease then any amount of running.

As my wife said last night, "Your love of running makes you happy and we are quality people not quantity people."  She always knows just what I need to be reminded of.

Well, it took longer than I thought but my mother just posted a link to the article on my Facebook page. I find it somewhat ironic because her heart attack was some of the motivation that helped me to discover my love of running.

 Spaniel- I think that is an excellent point that I had not even considered. So then the real question is does this change have a detrimental effect on those who are active?