12345

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

    Not trolling here, actually curious - is that an hour a day of any aerobic exercise, or running specifically?  If I run for an hour and bike for an hour, would that be considered superior health-wise to running for two hours, or am I still seeing those diminishing returns? 

     

      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.  

       

      yep.

        A number of studies have shown that benefits taper off at about 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.

         

        "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"

         

         

        The first part of the sentence suggests that after an hour a day, it may become unsafe; but the 2nd half the sentence claims diminishing return of benefits. Being unsafe vs being less beneficial means 2 very different things to me, so I am confused as to what the author was trying to claim...

          What percentage of runners run for over 7 hours a week for a sustained period of time--say 5+ years?

            Northernman found the following abstract when we discussed this same topic in another thread:

             

             

            I would respond with these direct quotes from the Mayo Clinic Proceedings article your family member referred you to:

             

            From the abstract:

            long-term excessive sustained exercise may be associated with coronary artery calcification, diastolic dysfunction, and large-artery wall stiffening. However, this concept is still hypothetical and there is some inconsistency in the reported findings. Furthermore, lifelong vigorous exercisers generally have low mortality rates and excellent functional capacity.

             

            Also, from the abstract:

            the hypothesis that long-term excessive endurance exercise may induce adverse CV remodeling warrants further investigation to identify at-risk individuals and formulate physical fitness regimens for conferring optimal CV health and longevity.

             

            And, one of the article highlights:

             

            People who exercise regularly have markedly lower rates of disability and a mean life expectancy that is 7 years longer than that of their physically inactive contemporaries. However, a safe upper-dose limit potentially exists, beyond which the adverse effects of exercise may outweigh its benefits.

             

             

             

            All of the "badness" is hypothetical. The epidemiology that is solid is still in favor of exercise.

            xor


              Right now, running marathons is The Big Thing.

               

              And it is The American Way to find stuff with which to cut down the current Big Thing.

               

              Anyway, I don't think marathons and ultras and ironman are all that healthy when you factor in training risks, sacrifices to other real life things, etc etc.  Healthier THAN SOME THINGS, but that's not why you do it.  (heck, Ironman?  That thing started as a measuring contest.  Seriously, there is no better example of a he-man pull-out-the-ruler activity than the origin of Ironman.  It was NEVER about "health".)

               

              (I am being sincere) I am truly concerned for the big wave of maniacs... lots of folks signing up and running a ton of events without much experience nor training. 

               

              But I don't really want to talk about that.

               

              It's time to retire.  2 DNFs, 2 shoulda-DNFed, and 1 DNS in the first 5 months of the year.

               


              Feeling the growl again

                "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"

                 

                 

                The first part of the sentence suggests that after an hour a day, it may become unsafe; but the 2nd half the sentence claims diminishing return of benefits. Being unsafe vs being less beneficial means 2 very different things to me, so I am confused as to what the author was trying to claim...

                 

                I caught that too but forgot to include it in my post. 

                 

                An hour is also a nice, round number to be data-generated, isn't it?

                "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

                  What percentage of runners run for over 7 hours a week for a sustained period of time--say 5+ years?

                   

                  Not many at all.  You're basically talking what, 2500-2700+ miles per year?  Depending on speed of course.

                  "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

                   


                  I'm back!

                    I run more hours and fewer miles; 95% of today's marathon runners are slower.

                      I run more hours and fewer miles; 95% of today's marathon runners are slower.

                       

                      Sure, and 99.9% of today's marathon runners run fewer hours than you.


                      I'm back!

                        Which means I suck, if I have to work that much harder to be in the top 5%? But my point was just that 7 hours / week is a lot less than 2500-2700 miles / year for most runners.

                        xor


                          I suck the most.  Ha!

                           

                            "It is extremely important to keep in mind that the occurrence of SCD during marathons, triathlons, and collegiate athletic events is rare and should not deter individuals from participating in vigorous ET; the benefits of regular PA to the individual and to society as a whole far outweigh potential risks."

                             

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

                              Which means I suck, if I have to work that much harder to be in the top 5%? But my point was just that 7 hours / week is a lot less than 2500-2700 miles / year for most runners.

                               

                              True.

                               

                              Didn't mean to imply that you sucked, just that most runners--even batshit crazy runner runners like most of us--won't even meet the article's hour a day bar for "dangerousness." Those of us who do may do it for a stretch of 3 or 4 or even 8 or 9 years, but for the rest of life (which is the vast majority of it) won't meet that bar.

                              12345