Wall Street Journal: Don't run more than 35 mpw

Interesting, but unpublished so hard to read much out of it. I'm curious if they adjusted for risk factors, or are just telling us raw calcium scores. Would be much more interested in the raw scores than some stats mumbojumbo.

Why can't they just put a brush on the end of a flexible wire and thread it in there and brush away all the plaque? If it's too tough a dentist's pick could work. Or they could invent a chemical to dissolve it. Or saw-wielding nanorobots. Or maybe there's some kind of tiny aquatic insect that could be trained to eat the stuff.

Doesn't the WSJ do this every single year, the running community get riled up every single year, and then someone shows why the study is flawed every single year? This is no different. Run on.

Back burn wrote:

Doesn't the WSJ do this every single year, the running community get riled up every single year, and then someone shows why the study is flawed every single year? This is no different. Run on.

Last year it was 20 mpw. Progress!

Better yet: show us the testing methods and we'll determine if they're flawed (they probably were).

Wish not so much to live long as to live well.

I don't know about all of you but I do not run for "health." I like competing and seeing how much I can improve. If running improves my health, great; if running more than 35 mpw decreases my health, I don't really care. Training makes me feel good and I tend to do other "healthy" things when I'm running (more sleep, no/very minimal alcohol, better quality food, resistance training, etc.). Articles like these are all about fear mongering and justify the laziness of everyone in this country. I have a hunch that if everyone in this country ran 50 mpw, overall health would not be as bad as it is now.

Speka da truf wrote:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-potential-cardiac-dangers-of-extreme-exercise-1446681536?mod=e2fb

Discus

I don't doubt that somewhere between 35-40 mpw is the sweet spot for general health and longevity. But that's no fun.

When I'm 72, I don't want to be the guy who is still toeing the line at races because I ran 35mpw when I was 30. At that age, I want to be comfy in a recliner, telling my grand kids that I went for it when I was younger and got the most out of my potential.

Maybe the results of the study suggest that a lot of people over train? Which is not really about mileage so much as how you recover? Maybe our lives are becoming more stressful in the digital age?

another garbage useless study in the "war on fit people".

On a related note, saw a video on the news of Chris Christie talking about a friend of his who became addicted to painkillers after getting a back Injury when he was 42 years old and running 10-12 miles a week (not respecting his age, Christie said). I love how the general fat American's idea of overtraining at the age of 42 is 10-12 miles of running a week!

The real question posed by the WSJ story is what does Rupert Murdoch gain by convincing people that running is bad for you?

I just turned 61. After 45 years of high mileage and hard racing, but body finally said no mas. I am now one of those who run only 35 miles a week for health (mentally and physically). Most of my contemporaries I know either cannot run anymore or don't want to. I love to run and want to still be running when I'm 72. I am happy and content to run only 35 a week and thankful to still be able to do so.

Never stop training wrote:

On a related note, saw a video on the news of Chris Christie talking about a friend of his who became addicted to painkillers after getting a back Injury when he was 42 years old and running 10-12 miles a week (not respecting his age, Christie said). I love how the general fat American's idea of overtraining at the age of 42 is 10-12 miles of running a week!

The real question posed by the WSJ story is what does Rupert Murdoch gain by convincing people that running is bad for you?

You are really misconstruing what Christie said. His point wasn't that his friend was overtraining. His point was that his friend was a generally fit and healthy guy. He was explaining addiction can happen to anyone by showing that his fit, smart, educated friend who had a beautiful family became an addict.

kw1954 wrote:

I just turned 61. After 45 years of high mileage and hard racing, but body finally said no mas. I am now one of those who run only 35 miles a week for health (mentally and physically). Most of my contemporaries I know either cannot run anymore or don't want to. I love to run and want to still be running when I'm 72. I am happy and content to run only 35 a week and thankful to still be able to do so.

I second this. Running 35 mpw will allow you to keep running for very long.

That being said, I think this WSJ article is BS and say run as much as you'd like.

I ran my fastest times in a few years this summer at 50 yrs old. Averaged exactly 35 miles per week.

Last year I averaged 60 for the whole year.

the study cited plaque buildup in arteries as the issue - I wonder if they controlled for food.

When I run 60 mpw I crave fat and meat - I guzzle the ice cream - no idea how to eat enough healthy food to pay for 60 mpw.

But when I run 30 I can eat more healthy.

Maybe the high mileage poeple just eat badly.

35 is the number...... wrote:

I ran my fastest times in a few years this summer at 50 yrs old. Averaged exactly 35 miles per week.

Last year I averaged 60 for the whole year.

But your summer's success might as well come from the aerobic base you had built off 60 mpw.

Just because the runners at higher mileage had higher calcium scores does not mean that it is a cause and effect relationship, merely an association. Perhaps the high mileage runners had lousy diets, and were genetically predisposed to higher LDL and lower HDL. They did not report the extent of any coronary artery stenosis presence or absence which is the major determinant of cardiac ischemia during exercise. It would have been interesting if they had reported results of exercise stress testing, which apparently they did not.

Speka da truf wrote:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-potential-cardiac-dangers-of-extreme-exercise-1446681536?mod=e2fb

Discus

Lot of truth to this comment about the correlation of diet and high mileage. And probably a good reason for the higher incidence of heart disease in (some) high mileage (older) runners. When I ran 60 mpw I too craved fat and red meat... and much more beer. Justified it by telling myself I needed to feed the engine and it was just fuel and could eat and drink whatever I wanted. Now that I'm running 30 I eat better and drink less. My blood pressure is lower and so is my cholesterol. Each individual needs to listen to their own body and heed what it tells you.