Marathoning and Long-Term Heart Health

arenner100 wrote:

-Is there any definitive research to suggest that marathoning is somehow MORE damaging than shorter, more intense distances like the half marathon?

I haven't done any serious research, but I did find this on a quick search:

Marathon running is fine. Ultra-distance running is a whole different story:

https://www.cardiosmart.org/News-and-Events/2017/07/Extreme-Long-Distance-Running-Has-Questionable-Impact-on-Heart

Let's Get To The Bottom Of This wrote:

Marathon running is fine. Ultra-distance running is a whole different story:

https://www.cardiosmart.org/News-and-Events/2017/07/Extreme-Long-Distance-Running-Has-Questionable-Impact-on-Heart

Very limited study, not representative of ultrarunning. They didn’t have time to recover running long distances every day...

Not sure what’s worse: a 3 hour marathon at 89-90% maxHR effort or a 9 hour ultra at 70-75% maxHR???

I am suspecting that the ‘red-line’ marathon might be more damaging to he heart than the ‘easier’ but longer ultra... No research just saying;)

I have also read about how after a marathon, your blood tests will reveal the presence of the same enzymes that are present after a heart attack. Those articles seemed to indicate that this was evidence of true health risks, but they also went on to state that the enzyme levels dropped pretty significantly after the race.

I recently had blood work done in the middle of my (eventually aborted) Boston training cycle and those enzymes were present at somewhat high levels. So I poked around a bit by way of Dr. Google, and found that those enzymes are indicative of muscle breaking down and the by-products being present in your blood stream.

My sense was that the enzymes could result from damage to any muscle, not just the heart. So while the "heart attack" or "heart scarring" enzymes were present, they were not necessarily present from damage to the heart. They could also be present because at 90 miles per week with 14 or more of those miles often being at tempo pace or faster, there was inevitably damage to my leg muscles that resulted in those enzymes being present.

Would like a doctor to weigh in here, because I have no idea if that theory makes sense.

jewbacca wrote:

arenner100 wrote:

-Is there any definitive research to suggest that marathoning is somehow MORE damaging than shorter, more intense distances like the half marathon?

I haven't done any serious research, but I did find this on a quick search:

I think the entire health benefits from running and exercise are over blown. There's no headlines or money to be made telling people that if they eat reasonably, avoid excessive alcohol, and don't smoke they will live about as long as their parents. Family history will dictate your life span and what disease you will die from.

Smoove wrote:

My sense was that the enzymes could result from damage to any muscle, not just the heart. So while the "heart attack" or "heart scarring" enzymes were present, they were not necessarily present from damage to the heart.

Interesting. I had an echo done on my heart last year. There was no evidence of scarring at that time, though I wouldn't be surprised if my blood results would show the same enzymes.

quickndirty wrote:

I think the entire health benefits from running and exercise are over blown. There's no headlines or money to be made telling people that if they eat reasonably, avoid excessive alcohol, and don't smoke they will live about as long as their parents. Family history will dictate your life span and what disease you will die from.

Agreed. Maintain a healthy weight, eat well, and avoid smoking and alcohol, and you'll likely live about as long as your parents and grandparents.

I run because it's my hobby and I enjoy it, not because I think it will make me live forever.

Your theory definitely makes sense, although I do agree that few professional opinions would be needed to corroborate it. I suppose the heart is still susceptible to some of the same wear and tear other muscles suffer from racing long and hard.

But the thing you said that really makes me think is the similarities between marathoning and high-volume, high-intensity training. Even though marathons are harder than anything you'll do in your training, I've done so many hard training runs on little to no fuel, often on the back of weeks of high mileage, that I can't imagine there is much difference between that stress and the stress of a marathon. Unless there is an unhealthy threshold that only gets reached during a marathon, peak training would likely cause the same long-term damage, if any. If that's the case, then I may as well keep marathoning twice per year, because there's no way I'm cutting back on my training. This isn't like fighting where we KNOW we're causing long-term damage. Just some speculative research that may or may not be pertinent to our individual health.

I worry a lot more about how running will impact my JOINT HEALTH as we age.

Pain, stiffness, muscle imbalances.

My energy levels and cardiovascular system are better off while seriously training. I do not, however, run as many marathons as other friends of mine. I think one marathon every 2 years takes a big enough toll on my body.

some guy the fake one wrote:

quickndirty wrote:

I think the entire health benefits from running and exercise are over blown. There's no headlines or money to be made telling people that if they eat reasonably, avoid excessive alcohol, and don't smoke they will live about as long as their parents. Family history will dictate your life span and what disease you will die from.

Agreed. Maintain a healthy weight, eat well, and avoid smoking and alcohol, and you'll likely live about as long as your parents and grandparents.

I run because it's my hobby and I enjoy it, not because I think it will make me live forever.

yeah that's always been make take on running. I do it because I enjoy the competition, and I actually enjoy the hard workouts and stuff. I don't try and justify it by saying I'll live longer or avoid some terrible disease.

I wonder if a lot of the stuff showing exercise helps prolong life is just BS. Could it be that people that exercise CAN do it because they do not have some bad disease, not because the activity itself is prevent the disease? Regardless I think it makes a minuscule difference in overall life expectancy or disease prevention.

The only healthy race is an 800 run on Pure Hate.

A 400 in an Absolute Rage is a close second.

From what I've read, racing long distances (and probably shorter maximal efforts as well) DOES in fact cause some micro-trauma to the heart. These enzymes in the blood are specific to heart tissue so laboratory tests can differentiate these from other organ/muscle specific enzymes. This isn't necessarily a bad thing as the heart tissue does heal but repeated (and excessive) maximal efforts over the long term would probably cause some scarring. You can tell you've experience some type of micro-trauma to the heart because some of these compounds released into the bloodstream act as diuretics. You will notice excessive urination that may even be clear in color after the hard effort. This goes counter-intuitive to the dehydrating effects of exercise where you would think your urine would be more concentrated and in smaller amounts.

There is no question that genetics is the biggest factor in longevity, followed by avoiding certain lifestyle choices like alcohol, drugs, overeating and processed foods.

But there is also a fair amount of evidence that regular exercise reduces the likelihood of certain diseases. Not just diseases that can be generally avoided by a good diet and avoiding bad things like type 2 diabetes and hypertension, but also diseases that have genetic links, like Alzheimer's and cancer, which may be genetically or environmentally driven.

I don't run specifically for those reasons, but I do like the idea that I am getting that benefit.

Fat burns clean, sugar burns dirty. LCHF and easy pace + sprints is the most healthful combo. High-carb + chronic training above aerobic threshold is where the trouble starts.

My N=1 is five A-Fib cardioconversions before 2010, none thereafter. Still running 40-50 miles/week, but mostly below AeT with strength and sprint training. Slowed easy runs from 8:00 pace to 10:00. Keep most sprinting under 10 sec bouts with full recovery. Hoping to run my age in the 400m sometime in the net few years.

I should add that maybe even better than my heart health improvements have been my music-skeletal health. I almost never experience DOMS or "creakiness" as I did in my 40s and 50s. I used to hobble around (but "Hey! I am 'fit!'"), now a nice easy stride throughout the day.

I think it goes without saying that any excessive stress on the heart will cause some form of trauma, scar tissue, hypertrophy, remodeling etc.

I do wonder with some regularity, and I haven't seen any medical literature on this per se, about how different 'build ups' and especially, on the flip side of the coin, 'build downs' (decreasing mileage/intensity) over the years affects this heart 'reconstruction'. These are probably difficult, long studies to do.

Take the hypothetical former HS runner, now in mid twenties, who decides to relive some glory days and see how fast he can run a marathon before hitting their 30's and goes couch to 3:15 marathon in one year with very focused/intensity/high volume training. Would/how much 'safer' on heart heart would it have been for him to take 3 years to attain this, versus 1 year?

Similarly, say a runner's goal is to BQ. They work consistently at a high level for 2 to 3 years to attain this. Is it detrimental for them to just stop running cold-turkey after running Boston? Should they spend the next several months 'tapering' down to couch potato? Intuitively, if they go cold-turkey, is a mismatch is rapidly changing peripheral resistance with slowly adapting heart 'bad'? I understand the body is great at maintaining homeostasis, but I'm talking significant swings at either extremes.