Another "Science" publication intimates that ultras are unhealthy

This reminds me of a line in Jeff Galloway's "Book on Running" describing runners: "If scientists announced tomorrow that running was harmful, you'd read the news with interest and go out on your daily run."

all that article means to me is not to underestimate the importance of recovery days and proper nutrition.

Funny how media presents scientific articles. "hours and hours of intense training..."

I don't know many people that can keep a high intensity of training for hours and hours.

"And over time and with repeated exposure, these compounds can lead to scarring of the heart and its main arteries as well as to enlarged ventricles—all of which can in turn lead to dangerous irregular heart beats (arrhythmia) and possibly sudden cardiac death."

This is the problem with all of the exercise research. Too much epidemiology and too little hard data makes for fluffy statements like the one above. Sure, when someone finishes a marathon, they are full of all kinds of stress and bad chemical reactions. But do we really know whether these events actually are sufficient to cause arrhythmia? No. But, in epidemiology you are allowed to make the conclusion that it can without finding that it actually did.

It wasn't a real study. They reread other studies and somehow extrapolated their conclusions. "But after reviewing the literature on extreme-endurance event "

They must be awful if you run like the douchejoker in the first picture. Look at that footstrike!

bumbojumbo wrote:

They must be awful if you run like the douchejoker in the first picture. Look at that footstrike!

Opened the article after reading that. Best laugh Ive had all day!

Look at that footstrike!

What else ya gonna strike with?

Frankly, why is this shocking news?

Most of us who run "excessively", run for reasons other than to stay in shape.

The reality is that just like in any other aspect of life, too much of anything is not good for you, including lots and lots of running.

Yikes! I have so many free marathon shots that show me with a similar footstrike! That's why I started wearing minimalist shoes to try to get more of a midfoot strike.

As for what else are you going to strike with, there's always that Japanese guy that I read about thanks to a link from Runner's World who runs on all fours.

Y'all may appreciate ripping this guy's comment

"I have run more 50-100 milers than I can remember. Few ultra runners show up with only a one hour per day of training in the last month. That is a formula for serious problems and you’re not going to get a buckle or finishers T-shirt. Most who play at this level have base weekly training mileage of 50 miles or more."

Tommy2Nuttz wrote:

Frankly, why is this shocking news?

Most of us who run "excessively", run for reasons other than to stay in shape.

The reality is that just like in any other aspect of life, too much of anything is not good for you, including lots and lots of running.

Bingo!

How many of you took more than 2 terms of science courses in college?

A lot of people on here are engineers actually, so quite a few.

salmon fish wrote:

A lot of people on here are engineers actually, so quite a few.

Actually, I bet a lot of people on here enjoyed high school physics and so they like to think of themselves as engineers.

But I agree with Tommy2Nuttz. A reasonable amount of running and exercise is good for you. The amount that dedicated runners do is good for competition, not necessarily good for your overall health.

No one would argue that a little bit of weight lifting is good for you, but a lot may not be. People on here are just so blinded they can't see the same for running.

For general health, there's really no reason to run more than something like 30-35 mpw, mix up paces, do some sprinting every now and then, hit some trails, lift heavy objects occasionally, and every now and then play a sport that involves kicking or throwing a ball.

I've never felt healthier than when I ran 4-5 miles on trails 5-6 times a week, with some strides and pushups/pullups/situps. Felt great. Maybe not race fit, but I was still awfully damn fit, and felt great, not worn down.

actual truth wrote:

Actually, I bet a lot of people on here enjoyed high school physics and so they like to think of themselves as engineers...

I kind of doubt it.

Remember the airplane on a treadmill thread? The circular pool thread? All the threads about whether the fact that you are not gaining altitude/momentum makes treadmill incline running different than hill running...

I really do doubt it.

Actuallyer Truthier wrote:

actual truth wrote:

Actually, I bet a lot of people on here enjoyed high school physics and so they like to think of themselves as engineers...

I kind of doubt it.

Remember the airplane on a treadmill thread? The circular pool thread? All the threads about whether the fact that you are not gaining altitude/momentum makes treadmill incline running different than hill running...

I really do doubt it.

There are any number of ridiculous thread on here about distance running, and everyone is a runner.

Do we really need a "Science" publication to tell us that ultras and marathons may be unhealthy? What ever happened to common sense?

Hello, McFly! wrote:

Do we really need a "Science" publication to tell us that ultras and marathons may be unhealthy? What ever happened to common sense?

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."