Study: Marathoners have more artery plaque

Eating too much Gu has consequences.

50 people. huh?

The article ends with this:

"He says he doesn't think casual runners need to worry. And for now, it's too early to tell hard core marathon runners to slow down."

So what we have here, is another narrow, useless study.

gfds wrote:

So what we have here, is another narrow, useless study.

One that has been peer reviewed and published in a scholarly journal. But I'm sure you are a better judge of the methodology and results. LMAO

Cox regression is not relevant to the study linked in the OP.

Hmmm, we all know...or should know, that the increased O2 used with running leads to free radicals. We should also know that oxidation of polyunsaturated FA's causes increased cholesterol deposits. This is further complicated by prolonged exposure to high blood pressure during exercise which can damage blood vessel walls allowing the oxidized FA's to stick to the artery walls. This is not surprising at all. You all can deny it if you want to, or say the study is crap, but you will be ignoring reality.

ramses wrote:

One that has been peer reviewed and published in a scholarly journal. But I'm sure you are a better judge of the methodology and results. LMAO

Peer reviewed or not, 75 people isn't nearly enough to come to the conclusion that running marathons leads to plaque buildup. I'm a middle aged marathoner and got my cholesterol about a year ago and both were good. I'm not saying running marathons is necessarily good for the heart, but a group of 50 and a group of 25!? Even I know better.

Yes. A study of one is much better. LMAO

Why!? wrote:

ramses wrote:

One that has been peer reviewed and published in a scholarly journal. But I'm sure you are a better judge of the methodology and results. LMAO

Peer reviewed or not, 75 people isn't nearly enough to come to the conclusion that running marathons leads to plaque buildup. I'm a middle aged marathoner and got my cholesterol about a year ago and both were good. I'm not saying running marathons is necessarily good for the heart, but a group of 50 and a group of 25!? Even I know better.

Unfortunately, you can't extrapolate someone's plaque build up by looking at their instantaneous cholesterol levels.

Why!? wrote:

ramses wrote:

One that has been peer reviewed and published in a scholarly journal. But I'm sure you are a better judge of the methodology and results. LMAO

Peer reviewed or not, 75 people isn't nearly enough to come to the conclusion that running marathons leads to plaque buildup. I'm a middle aged marathoner and got my cholesterol about a year ago and both were good. I'm not saying running marathons is necessarily good for the heart, but a group of 50 and a group of 25!? Even I know better.

I think this has more to do with the historical diets of marathons runners than the marathons themselves. Correlation does not equal causation. Runners are increasingly going away from the "I run 40-50 miles/week therefore I can eat what I want" diet. I think this is the key.

say whattt??? wrote:

Unfortunately, you can't extrapolate someone's plaque build up by looking at their instantaneous cholesterol levels.

For what it's worth, I'm not doing a study on myself nor am I saying that running marathons prevents plaque buildup. Either way, it doesn't matter. 75 people is not nearly enough.

There is some truth to that, but it is far from the whole story. When you look at the level of inflammation a lot of runners deal with, it isn't surprising. It isn't the marathon itself, but the hours and hours of long runs. Discussions have been had on her before about heart disease, and it truly is multi-factorial, but inflammation, hypertension, genetics, and oxidation of polyunsaturated FA's are the biggest issues related to plaque build up. It won't happen to every chronic marathoner, but it can make them more susceptible.

It is that O'Keefe guy again. He did the study on endurance exercise that got a lot of buzz after the WSJ reported on it. He is convinced that endurance training and racing into middle age and later causes heart problems. But he is not a big time cardiologist and has not been able to get the kind of funding needed to really study the issue seriously. So, he did a goofy regression analysis in the 2012 study that got cited by the WSJ and did a very small scale study with 50 marathoners who were on the pretty extreme end of the distance running spectrum (25 consecutive marathon finishes).

There may be something there. It is only logical that as you age, your ability to recover from heavy distance running training is compromised. But, I find it very interesting that the recent study did not look at diet at all in the group of 50 marathoners. That information should have been easy to collect with such a small sample size. It may very well be that runners who have a poor diet that is heavy in animal fats and highly processed sugars and grains are getting significantly different outcomes than runners who maintain a good diet. If that is the case, then all they have done is shown that the "oven is hot enough" theory is BS. But, I think that should not be news to anyone at this point.

ramses wrote:

gfds wrote:

So what we have here, is another narrow, useless study.

One that has been peer reviewed and published in a scholarly journal. But I'm sure you are a better judge of the methodology and results. LMAO

When you stop laughing, can you tell me if the participants in this study all ran the same training mileage and had similar diets? I must have missed that part.

Or is the one marathon they share enough to draw this conclusion?

why I it so damn hard for runners to admit that too much running can have negative physiological consequences?

What is "too much running"?

What does that mean?

You tell me since, based on your assertions, have already read the full study. lolFace it. Running is bad for you...running marathons is VERY bad for you. This has been shown again and again.

gfds wrote:

ramses wrote:

One that has been peer reviewed and published in a scholarly journal. But I'm sure you are a better judge of the methodology and results. LMAO

When you stop laughing, can you tell me if the participants in this study all ran the same training mileage and had similar diets? I must have missed that part.

Or is the one marathon they share enough to draw this conclusion?

fncx wrote:

What is "too much running"?

What does that mean?

The study referenced "the Copenhagen Study" which apparently showed a U-shaped outcome in mortality and was much larger. That is, moderate exercisers lived longer than sedentary persons, but over-exercisers at some level had worse outcomes. I haven't looked for that study, but it might suggest an answer.

Because it probably doesn't.

The recent Boston Marathon study normalized for lifestyle and found that there was no correlation between the amount of running and increased heart disease risk.

When you take a complete look at a runner (mileage AND diet), the picture is quite clear. Running does not negate a bad diet. But there is no evidence that running is harmful when you have a good diet.