Dangerous Hardcore Jogging (Read 384 times)

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-02/light-joggers-can-outlast-the-ironmen-over-long-term

This is why I switched to hardcore Running.

I will take my chances and keep running more than the 'recommended' amount. Live dangerously... I have also taken the tags off my mattresses on occasion....

I most likely won't live to be 90 anyway, so I'm going to jog as far and as fast as I can, while I still can. This study and it's author(s) can go take a flying leap.

Whew! My average over the course of 16,000 miles is only 6.966 mph, so I'm good. By the skin of my teeth. I'll just have to find something else to worry about. Like how long it will be before the damn Patriots win another Super Bowl.

m: spelling

By the way, this is the same nutty James O'Keefe that we have discussed before. Multiple times. Again and again. He's good at generating a lot of discussion if nothing else. Discussion is probably not the right word. Exposure?

I do agree that if one is always pushing themselves during exercise (not just running), then you are doing more damage than good; we do need some time of just moderate stress in order to recover. However, we also need times where we are pushing ourselves, i.e. HIT. It's just as important to develop one's anaerobic capability as their aerobic conditioning.

However, what I don't like about the article is how they set an arbitrary level of intensity in which they say: "Vigorous running -- faster than 7 miles an hour...".

You just can't establish a perfect zone on this type of thing. What determines a perfect zone depends on the person and that person's zone will change as they progress in their chosen activity.

 they excluded people with pre-existing conditions, justifying it by saying they were excluding selection bias.  But what it did was throw out bad actors, who I guarantee were heavily weighted towards the sedentary people.

^^^^^^^

This is what O'Keefe always does.

The main data of the study are cited below.  To me, a critical limitation of the study is the low number of deaths in the small sample size of "strenuous" joggers, which led to a rather large 95% confidence interval  (0.48 to 8.18).

Until a sufficiently large prospective controlled study is done, I fear we are going to be left with a lot of literature that isn't going to be able to answer the question.

One pretty obvious statistic is that adjusting out for smoking, alcohol intake, education and diabetes makes the study a winner.

That knocked out 19 of the participants from the sedentary group and 8 deaths. That's a 50% death rate.  Seems like we might should focus on staying away from some of those things rather than strenuous jogging!!

Taking those same things out of the joggers resulted in several participants being removed by not a single death rate.

The clear conclusion is that if you are a jogger of any kind that you can smoke, drink a lot of alcohol, have a poor education and even have diabetes and it won't matter!