Running for health vs running for competition is the difference in this study. Health and fitness are not equivalent terms.
When I was 6-1 / 138lbs, I was very fit for competition, but I was not healthy.
Running for health vs running for competition is the difference in this study. Health and fitness are not equivalent terms.
When I was 6-1 / 138lbs, I was very fit for competition, but I was not healthy.
I'm a 30 - 40 / week guy so even if it's true I am not worrying.
I'm eyeing a first marathon, looking to get up to 60 / week in the service of this. I sincerely doubt that a four month period of increase mileage will make me have a heart attack.
100>0 wrote:
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.
You get it. It is incredible that in this country where 2/3 of the population are disgusting fat-asses, that we get sensationalized reports admonishing people to avoid "overdoing it." This simply encourages the fatties to say, "see, I tol' ya it was no good to exercise. Back to the TV...pass the chips."
Great point on the 50 mpw. Have the government force everyone in the country to run 50 mpw INSTEAD of forcing us to give money to for-profit insurance companies, and I'd wager we'd be much better off.
Never stop training wrote:
The real question posed by the WSJ story is what does Rupert Murdoch gain by convincing people that running is bad for you?
Exactly. That was my thought as well. Our media want us to stay fat, tired, sore, and ready to buy more pills. For shame.
same, but will go to 70 to perform well and break 2:59.
diet for high mileage clearly a factor.
Many high mileage ultra runners overwait with bear guts. Did they control for that?
Couple of recent articles from Velonews that I found sensible:
http://velonews.competitor.com/cycling-extremes
Age and individual history are the biggest factors.
For the young: go for it.
For those approaching (or past) 50, a reasonable person considers his own history and the available information. And does not dismiss warning signals because "they could be nothing."
first wave wrote:
same, but will go to 70 to perform well and break 2:59.
diet for high mileage clearly a factor.
Many high mileage ultra runners overwait with bear guts. Did they control for that?
Yes, despite having lower BMI, cholesterol, and blood pressure, runners had more plaque.
first wave wrote:
Many high mileage ultra runners overwait with bear guts. Did they control for that?
Did the ultra runner get those bear guts by sticking his arm down the bear's throat and yanking them out? I would overwait too if I was holding on to a bunch of bear guts.
I'd like to thank the poster who said (s)he ran better on 35 mpw at age 50. I'm 45 and building up my mileage to 23 miles a week this season. Next year I want to aim for 25 miles a week. I prefer concentrating on the 800m though partly because of the mileage and partly because some here say if you don't use it, you lose it. I'd rather try to keep my speed than train for a marathon. lol
LRC staff, what do you think of all the "studies" coming out to discredit mileage?
It's like some cardiologists have an agenda against runners and have dedicated their lives to finding every bad thing about running.
Maybe LRC and the running industry needs to lobby and stand up to these guys.
Extreme runners are also extreme eaters and sometimes extreme drinkers. While I don't consider 35 miles a week "extreme" I know people who run that mileage and then down growlers of craft beer and 3000 calories in burgers in fries because they feel they deserve it, or that the mileage will take care of the unhealthiness.This study may correlate running with arteriosclerosis, but it does not imply causation. I know I sound like a broken record, but I wish news outlets would exercise caution when publishing these types of pieces.
Speka da truf wrote:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-potential-cardiac-dangers-of-extreme-exercise-1446681536?mod=e2fbDiscus
that article on 35mpw wrote:
LRC staff, what do you think of all the "studies" coming out to discredit mileage?
It's like some cardiologists have an agenda against runners and have dedicated their lives to finding every bad thing about running.
Maybe LRC and the running industry needs to lobby and stand up to these guys.
Typically the anti-running studies are headed up by James O'Keefe, but this one did not include him.
My thoughts:
- This is not the first study to find higher levels of calcification in older runners who have run high mileage.
- The more you exercise, the longer you live, up to and including 150 minutes per day of vigorous exercise. Vigorous exercise is better than non vigorous. So why does it matter what our coronary arteries look like if we're living longer?
Running a lot causes plaque build-up in your coronary arteries. But doctors STILL DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS GOOD OR BAD. Conventional thinking is that this is bad, because a 50 year old fat slob who dies of a heart attack has plaque build up in his or her arteries. But it's a different kind of plaque.. It's not as dense.
My personal theory is that since runner's plaque is dense, and endurance exercise causes your arteries to widen, this is your body's way of "making the pipes bigger and stronger." Exercise causes adaptations to handle exercise better.
Didn't we decide that we run because we like running, not because of any effects it may have on our health?
Just a month ago, we heard about this study.
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/early/2015/09/18/CIRCULATIONAHA.115.015853.abstract
People who engaged in 2.5hr/wk of physical activities reduced heart failure risk by 10%. Those who did twice that amount (5hr/wk) reduced the risk by 19%. With 10hr/wk, the risk went down by 35%.
So 10hr/wk is better than 5hr/wk, which is better than 2.5hr/wk, which is still better than nothing.
agip wrote:
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.
When I did 120mpw it was pasta 3 times a day, veggies, and massive bowl of granola with 1% milk before bed, and 12 hours of sleep per night.
High mileage has an addictive element to it.
He's not in the study, but they got a quote from him.
wingading wrote:
I'd like to thank the poster who said (s)he ran better on 35 mpw at age 50.ol
Actually my response had two meanings. As an earlier poster noted, that 60 mpw base for a whole year was the reason I could train and race as hard as I did at 35 mpw without getting injured.
The other was that mileage means very little without knowing frequency and intensity. To just pick a number like 35 mpw shows the flaw in the study.
Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:
Just a month ago, we heard about this study.
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/early/2015/09/18/CIRCULATIONAHA.115.015853.abstractPeople who engaged in 2.5hr/wk of physical activities reduced heart failure risk by 10%. Those who did twice that amount (5hr/wk) reduced the risk by 19%. With 10hr/wk, the risk went down by 35%.
So 10hr/wk is better than 5hr/wk, which is better than 2.5hr/wk, which is still better than nothing.
Maybe, but there definitely is a link between heart rhythm issues and long racing for masters. Not only can that kill you, but it will also ruin your ability to run. I know enough people with the problem that I wouldn't do more than a couple marathons after 40.
Excellent post.