You can stop straining now: Scentific study "4 to 5 miles a week" is enough to help you live way longer

I'd need to see the whole article. My strong suspicion is that they had a very small N of 25+ mpw runners. A large national survey finds that the average core/committed runner in the US runs about 20 miles per week, averaging 4 days of running. However, other studies find that only 7% of Americans run. And so I suspect that this recent research caught too few 25+ runners in its net. Here's the correct research design: compare only runners to each other, short mileage vs longer mileage, with the dependent variable being not mortality from all causes but a battery of ailments, including cardiac-related, obesity,diabetes, cancer. And create a model that also includes diet. I'd strongly suspect that short distance people rely more on the injurious western diet than longs. The reason we need to have only runners in the sample is because it is a trivial finding that runners are healthier than non-runners.

These guys have not really found that a mere 20 miles a week convey fewer advantages than jogging a few minutes every so often. My basic model of longevity and vitality assigns the non-western diet, such as vegan or Okinowan, somewhat more explanatory weight than exercise, but that each is necessary but insufficient. Noakes indicates that very high mileage, over time, may be deleterious, but the number of people who do this for long is miniscule. High mileage is self-limiting. I'm 62 and I feel best on 30 to 40 a week, but occasionally doing 50 or 60 is helpful, depending on my training goal.

rojo has a job other than letsrun.com? Who knew??!

runner who professes wrote: I'm 62 and I feel best on 30 to 40 a week, but occasionally doing 50 or 60 is helpful, depending on my training goal.

I think you're misreading the purpose of the article. Compared to sedentary, going from that to 4-5 miles per week will a large jump in longevity. I assume the premise is you DON'T have to run 30-40 to receive benefit. I know this is counter to letsrun.com gospel, which is if you can't run 100 miles per week you might as well shoot yourself.

We have to bracket the benefit they're talking about, which is longevity, not speed. Essentially the slope from 0 to 4-5 is substantial and then the slope reduces, and you see benefit (in longevity) well before the 30-40 MPW mark.

Now I'm sure someone's going to chime in an say that proves CrossFit is the way to go, but I put them in the same group as the "must do 100+ per week or shoot yourself" crowd.

Link to the abstract: http://www.abstractsonline.com/Plan/ViewAbstract.aspx?sKey=32617aef-b494-41b8-b2bc-3d49357a8976&cKey=984e0396-f663-4068-bbf3-1dc4023c17e1&mKey=%7bFCDB1C1C-280A-4DF1-95F8-2DAA9AB6A8BE%7d

Runners had 19% lower risk of all-cause mortality compared with non-runners, with U-shaped mortality curves for distance, speed, and frequency. The hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) of all-cause mortality were 0.78 (0.64-0.96), 0.85 (0.73-0.99), 0.73 (0.60-0.89), 0.75 (0.57-0.97), 0.90 (0.67-1.22), and 0.95 (0.73-1.24) in 0.1-4.9, 5.0-9.9, 10.0-14.9, 15.0-19.9, 20.0-24.9, and ≥25.0 miles/week of running distance; 0.90 (0.75-1.08), 0.79 (0.68-0.91), 0.73 (0.61-0.86), and 0.93 (0.73-1.19) in 1-5, 6, 7, and ≥8 miles/hour of running speed; and 0.81 (0.49-1.32), 0.65 (0.46-0.92), 0.81 (0.65-0.997), 0.82 (0.71-0.94), 0.81 (0.66-0.99), 0.86 (0.65-1.14), and 0.95 (0.69-1.33) in 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7days/week of running frequency, respectively, compared with no running after adjusting for confounders including levels of other physical activities.

This study seems to suffer from the same issue as that "running more is bad" study - they're adjusting for "confounders", but some of the confounders are a direct result of more running. The fact that people who are even mediocre at running (as shown by running speed) seems to lose the benefits of exercise shows you how silly this is.

I'd like to see what happens to the U-shaped curve when you don't adjust for BMI, cholesterol, and blood pressure.

I think we need to be mindful of the intende audience here. The mileage offered is barely a warmup for many here. But the beneficial effects of very low (to us) mileage as measured by improvements from baseline of sedentary folk is really quite astonishing. Even the eldery, who have been sedentary for 60+ years, can achieve drastic, multi-systemal improvements after just three months of light cardio, paired with stength programs which are vital for the elderly.

Speaking for myself, as a sedentary, smoking, salt-gobbling 30yo my BP was 180/120 and my cholesterol was through the roof. I was headed for a heart attack at 50. After six months of gentle, beginner mileage my BP was under control with no medication and my HDL and LDL cholesterol ratios had reversed.

Well done Rojo for putting the findings up for discussion.

How is running 1.8 miles 4 times a week equal to 10 miles?

correct. The goal in later life is to be healthy, and the geezer who wins his age group in the local 5k in 18:00 and runs 50mpw is not any healthier or going to live any longer than the guy who runs 22:00 and runs 10-15mpw.When you are older i.e. 45 and up, the marginal benefit of additional exercise is minimal. So doing enough to put you in the top decile of health/weight is more than enough. Genetics and luck take over from there.

LRC is now using Runners World as a source for scientific information about running? My world has suddenly turned upside down.

rojo wrote:

The study says:

“Running, even 5-10 minutes a day, at slow speeds, even slower than 6 miles per hour [10:00 minute pace], is associated with markedly reduced risks of death from all causes and cardiovascular disease.”

So people who run are less likely to die than people who don't?

Here is a good link that includes a chart showing how risk changes with mileage.

http://content.onlinejacc.org/article.aspx?articleID=1891600

Basically, risk of death drops dramatically from zero to six miles a week, stays level to 20 miles per week, and then ticks up very slightly over 20 mpw. It's not a U-shaped curve. It's more like a mirror image of a J-curve.

In other words, risk of death is still dramatically lower for >20mpw runners than for nonrunners; it's just not quite as low as the 6-19mpw group.

Thanks, that makes much more sense than what the original was saying -- they found that your risk of dying increases the better you are at running, compared to other runners. But I suspect that's almost entirely due to the fact that they adjusted for BMI + hypertension + cholesterol, while the study you linked didn't.

Einseinium wrote:

How is running 1.8 miles 4 times a week equal to 10 miles?

This. I demand an explanation.

Seconded wrote:

Einseinium wrote:

How is running 1.8 miles 4 times a week equal to 10 miles?

This. I demand an explanation.

We need to get to the bottom of this.

"My office is 1.8 miles from the house so now if I just don't drive twice a week, i'm set as that's 10 mpw."

Where is the last 3.8 miles coming from?

Ivy League math.

These studies are so misleading.

Just to simplify it: People who run x hours a week have a lower risk of death due to cardio problems than those who don't. Is it because running is causing this, or is it because typically a 280lb person who is high risk, doesn't run and a slim person who is low risk is more likely to run?

Star wrote:

Seconded wrote:

This. I demand an explanation.

We need to get to the bottom of this.

"My office is 1.8 miles from the house so now if I just don't drive twice a week, i'm set as that's 10 mpw."

Where is the last 3.8 miles coming from?

An Ivy League education......

this study is so flawed. If someone identifies themselves "as a runner" they are probably white-middle class-professional.

That means they have access to health care, time for recreational sports/activity and see their health as a priority. i.e they don't over eat or smoke.

I don't think running has as much to do with their longevity as their social class and lifestyle.

Are you saying people who run more mileage in a large population study will live longer? That is total BS.

I run to live, not to avoid death.

Exclusive

A Norwegian study (they're always Norwegian) has identified a link between smoking and heart disease.