i think running is actually bad for one's heart

If blood pressure is any indication of heart health, sweating out a bunch of salt running/hiking always lowers my bp significantly. A sunna or hot soak also works.

Projection much?

Well for what is considered a “natural” ( and straightforward) activity running does have one of the highest annual injury rates when it stacks up against other sports.

The thing is there is generally a high correlation between increased intensity / volume and injury rate, even when that intensity / volume has been gradually implemented. And even shoes, with their various guises over the years have been shown to make no difference.

So maybe it is the body trying to tell people something… ( some people have more resilient bodies and / or better running mechanics than others…hence why their body stays quieter for longer)…and people just don’t listen. They up that mileage beyond what is safe for them believing that, “it can’t happen to me…it’s only running after all.”

Water drowns people. People choke and die on food. Sunlight causes cancer. Nothing is healthy and everything is actively trying to kill us. Some more than others. Pick your battles wisely

Another thing to consider is that A fib and other heart issues seem to be more prevalent among the cycling and x country skiing populations than runners.
This is probably due to the lack of impact and eccentric damage in those sports, which in turn enables those athletes to train for far longer than a runner does, covering more miles, without the same danger of “chronic” injury from doing so.

Maybe the potential for injury from going too long and / or too intense in running is the body’s “natural” defence, or way of saying to you,

“I’m going to stop you now, with an injury to your IT band / knee / Achilles etc, before you can do damage to somewhere even more important ( your heart).
With the advent of bikes and skis ( relatively) modern man has found a way to circumvent this “safety valve”.

Those who's hearts have developed complications via running, have either

a) pushed through injuries and carried on

b) come back from successive injuries and continued to repeat the process ( modern sports medicine is a wonderful thing and far more advanced than years before…enabling athletes to carry on far longer, and come back far quicker than their earlier counterparts)

c) had weaknesses in their cardiovascular systems that were too frail to even outlast any deficiencies in their skeletal and muscular systems or the opposite…skeletal and muscular systems that were just way too robust. People in this last category are a rare breed…probably.

Anyway…just a thought on this issue. I have nothing to actually back it up with, except probably some stats on heart issues in cyclists runners and x country skiers…

just musing on the topic.

Unfortunately a lot of runners consume a high carb diet with vegetable oils. Running improves the heart but it does not stop the effects of a bad diet.

I believe Trump has said he doesn't exercise, because he feels like we have a finite number of heartbeats in a lifetime. So another vote in favor of not running.

Unless you have a heart condition or go to extremes like most pros do running is great for your heart.

I think the key is moderation, but I also think that most runners here aren't moderate in their training. We are competitive. We're not running solely for its health benefits.

Distance running and high intensity workouts break down muscle tissue that should come back stronger, but it also has some downsides. It floods the body with cortisol and byproducts of energy production like free radicals and also creates inflammation in the damaged tissue.

When you're young this is usually no problem, but with age, the body loses its ability to repair itself rapidly. The result can be a chronic state of inflammation, high cortisol levels, and an impaired immune system.

For some runners this is no problem, but for others, it can create conditions related to inflammation and impaired immune systems, such as heart disease and cancer.

Yet the benefits of running far outweigh these lower risks, but the idea of approach would be to reduce these risks as much as possible while continuing to train at a high level. I believe the keys to remaining healthy with high levels of competition at an advanced age include a healthy diet, adequate recovery, sleep, and supplements to ensure the body has a surplus of raw materials to rebuild these damaged tissues. To me, it just makes sense that if you train at a very high level your body needs more of these raw materials than you're sedentary peers.

A true ketonut will find a way to inject keto into just about any topic, for example:

“Hey, did you see that movie Oppenheimer?

No, but you know what’s more toxic than nuclear waste? Carbohydrates. Those going on and on about the power of the atom have no idea of the potent destructive power of The Molecule containing linked carbon-water units.”

Interesting thought. But let me just say, as i have gotten older, running, although shorter in duration than XC skiing and cycling, is brutal! You have to not run for a few years to get the effect, but running is hard. I can cycle all day, lift weights, but running is the truth serum. Its fricking hard on the ticker at lower efforts. When I biked for years and would go for run once in a blue moon, I felt like I was going to die running. The opposite, which I did a lot, is not true for me. I could cycle all day during my running career as long as my rear end was fine. Never been (overuse) injured in cycling. So I dont know. Everything in moderation as mom said. The body knows when we sit all day and knows when we run 2 hours a day. Both are extremes and from a homeostasis standpoint, I can see both being bad.

A New York Times article today referenced studies and the advice of several medical professionals to conclude that running and walking are both good for health outcomes but that running is better (take that with a grain of salt if you wish).

I had a heart attack at age 62. I had no risk factors, no family history, and had been a runner for just shy of 50 years at that point, closing in on 100,000 lifetime miles. I did a bunch of research and found the studies that suggested extreme cardio exercise could lead to calcium deposits, making those athletes more likely to suffer heart attacks (and to survive them). It helped me feel less confused about why it had happened to me.

I'm still running. If you ask me if I regret running as many miles when I was younger -- putting me at higher risk -- I'd say I'm only sorry I didn't run more. The health benefits far outweigh the health risks, but, more importantly, I'd rather live shorter but running than longer but not running.

I max out around 50mpw and my annual average is just over 30mpw. It’s enough to get me a couple marathons per year and I’m trying to dip below 3 hours for the first time in a decade (I’m 45).

The mental and physical benefits of moderate cardiovascular exercise is well documented. Also, my body fat is about 10%. When I stopped running due to injury and work stress, I gained about 12 lbs in a year (all in the midsection). Took me 6 months of training to get back to my ideal weight.

I’ll accept any risks of over-exercising, which I think are very low unless you’re doing 100mpw with a full time job or competing in Ultras every couple of months.

I think 1955 makes a good point. I'm no doctor, but as I understand the data, intense exercise over long periods of time, does increase the risk of certain heart dangers. One is more likely, for example, to suffer from Afib.

That said, in the best studies---particularly of cross-country skiers in Europe---intense exercise over long periods of time, decreases the risks of all-cause mortality. Run for ten hours a week for years and you might increase your odds of dying of a heart attack as well as the odds that you die from getting hit by a car. But you decrease the odds you die from all other risks.

See this for example:

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Cross-country skiing is associated with lower all-cause mortality: A population-based follow-up study - PubMed

The prospective relationship between leisure-time cross-country skiing and any fatal events is uncertain. We aimed to assess the associations of leisure-time cross-country skiing habits with the risk of all-cause mortality in...

Link:pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28921697/#:~:t...

Obviously this is incredibly hard to study precisely. Maybe running marathons year after year is good and running ultras is bad. Maybe running fast marathons year after year is bad, but running slow ultras is good. I haven't seen any studies that are that granular. But I think directionally more running and more running faster is likely to give you a better chance of living longer.

My grandfather ran a lot during his life, exercised a lot, was also a boxer in his youth. Did 70+ mile weeks for decades, ran many marathons from 2:50 - 4:00+ in his 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s.

He's 94 years old and only in the past year or so has it seemed that his age has caught up to him. So I see that and figure I am fine. But genetics may play a part, which allows me to be more confident since it is my grandfather and not someone else's.

On the other hand, I have a friend whose dad died from a heart attack after finishing a run when he was still relatively young.

ish happens.

The worst things for the heart are sedentary lifestyle & a high carbohydrate diet. Cardiac disease was the #1 cause of death in America in 2022 because most of the population eats a high carbohydrate diet (more than 40g/day) & they're also sedentary.

There have been some studies linking heart complications to years of high volume training, but this is mostly in cases where runners are running 2+ hours a day, so elites. Since most of us train less than an hour a day & not every day at that, this isn't a concern.

If you're worried, I would suggest following a ketogenic diet which stipulates eating less than 40g carbs/day. That's still plenty of carbs to fuel your running efforts, especially since your body will learn to utilize fat as fuel more efficiently on such a diet. Overconsumption of carbs is going to be far more detrimental to your health in the long-term than the potential negative impacts of zone 2-4 exercise.

I had a long discussion with a cardiologist about this the other day in the Dr's lounge. Broadly speaking, running reduces heart disease. There are limits to that benefit somewhere. It's somewhere north of 250-300 minutes a week.

Avid runners do appear to be at higher risk for atrial fibrillation. But oddly they aren't at any higher risk for stroke, which is the primary concern with afib.

Genetics are huge. Some people can do everything right and still die young. Others can do everything wrong and live a long life.

Of course you can manage risk and tilt the odds in your favor, but there are no guarantees. The impact of picking the right parents can't be overstated.