WSJ: Running more than 30mpw might kill you

Anyone else notice that all three of the WSJ's running kills you articles were written by Kevin Helliker?

Dude's done a fair bit of writing on aneurysms (got a Pulitzer for it) but is absolutely obsessed with limiting the length and intensity of exercise.

Taco Truck wrote:

Running. That is running insane amount of miles. We all know this but don't want to own up to it. Think of your body as a car. Even the best car will wear down if you drive it everyday for 100 miles. Just look at the all the crazies who ran crazy miles. Sometimes you don't need science to tell you what is common sense. Look at the all the elites that had cancer over the years.

Wow. Your analogy isn't even remotely accurate. A person and a car are very different things. A person's body repairs itself and is able to run farther and faster with sufficient rest. It is adaptable if well maintained. A car is not. It does not adapt. It runs until it wears out.

Concerned Girl wrote:

Unconcerned girl wrote:

No worries--mine fell out a long time ago and I don't even miss it. Children? You can always adopt. :)

Thanks for the advice! I have a little girl; I want to have one more (hoping for a boy this time, we want one of each:)), but I'll be satisfied with the one if that's how it works out. I was just worried about my uterus slithering out in the middle of the road. That would be tres embarassing!

A pine cone and some duct tape will prevent it from falling out.

This just in: the #1 leading cause of death is.....life.

"Live like you're young."

-Weichman

dehhhh Brookfield wrote:

Anyone else notice that all three of the WSJ's running kills you articles were written by Kevin Helliker?

Dude's done a fair bit of writing on aneurysms (got a Pulitzer for it) but is absolutely obsessed with limiting the length and intensity of exercise.

I noticed that too. Helliker had an aneurysm in 2002 and has been writing about them ever since.

bladerunner wrote:

Normann Stadler's name is spelled "Standler" in the article. Using an iron man triathlete to back up a theory regarding 30 miles per week is absurd.

Why I discard the claims from this article is because triathletes are known to be the biggest dopers on the planet. What's likely causing more heart trouble: years of high mileage or doping every day?

That said, I believe that running 25mpw is more healthy than running 100mpw.

One issue is mentioning ironman triathletes and comparing them against normal distance runners. People training for the Ironman put in up to 20 hours of training between the three disciplines, and even the amateurs are getting close to that these days. I would venture to say that their bodies are breaking down and having chronic stress related problems. 30 miles a week is light years away from that and takes only a casual jogger 4 hours a week or less to complete that.

Not this again . . . wrote:

The Wall Street Journal has a bizarre interest in the dangers of running:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=3898568http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=4928790

The "mounting evidence" discussed in the article, looks like it is just anecdotes, the O'Keefe study, and the Williams study. The O'Keefe study has been thoughtfully rebutted here:

http://www.runnersworld.com/health/too-much-running-myth-rises-again

And the Williams study discussed at the end of the article doesn't seem to have much relevance for runners who have not already had heart attacks or strokes.

Also, nice strawman: "[S]ports medicine is debunking the myth that distance running confers near-absolute protection against heart disease"

This is one of the problems in operating newspapers and websites according to what stories will produce the most hits.

For an expert, balanced perspective, check out this blog post:

http://www.drmichaeljoyner.com/too-much-exercise/

Since everyone is going to die eventually, I guess they're right.

Former NATIONAL CLASS Marathon runner and one of the TOP Triathlon Ironman Finisher in Hawai, Mark Sisson, had a blog post about this a while ago. He came up with ~4,000 cal of exercise being the limit per week.

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/dear-mark-maximum-4000-calories-a-week-of-exercise/#axzz2UQ5slJ27

Mark is a lot healthier now and he looks BUFF/SHREDDED at 60!

As a subscriber to the WSJ, I'm starting to wonder if the quality of their reporting is on the decline. This is basically a recycled version of the same story they posted 3 or 4 months ago. The one 3 or 4 months ago stated that intense interval work was dangerous and now it's duration that is the killer. Very little evidence to back up either story.[/quote]

You do know Rupert Murdoch owns WSJ. Need I say more about quality journalism /news.

ahahaa.... wrote:

Look at the comments on the article...

Wow these are hilarious. Here are some highlights:

"These types of articles always annoy me because inevitably, someone in my running group will read it and get scared about continuing to run. Even though we run less than 30 miles/week 95% of the time, so this article doesn't apply to us. This article is only talking about a very, very small group of elite distance runners."

"Common sense would say that extreme exercising, as with estreme anything, is not beneficial. Your body wasn't designed to run five miles a day, every day. Some exercise is good but too much of almost any good thing is ba."

"All you have to do is compare a marathon runner with a sprinter to see how unhealthy long distance running is. The marathoner will be puny skinny and even look sickly. The sprinter will be the picture of health.

duh...which lifestyle is healthier"

"No argument with your otherwise reasonable comment,

just have to say that there's no such a thing like "half marathon". I know that the phrase is used but it's misleading as it is self-deceiving for those who run 13 miles - what really counts is the second half of a marathon run."

xenonscreams wrote:

"All you have to do is compare a marathon runner with a sprinter to see how unhealthy long distance running is. The marathoner will be puny skinny and even look sickly. The sprinter will be the picture of health.

this is actually true.

I didn't know we had so many Exercise Physiologists on LetsRun!!!

Here is SOME of the evidence. Not easily dismissed or rebutted. No links to the WSJ included. Look, this information bothers me because I was one of those 100+ mile people in the 70s. And now at 54, I can’t run those miles but I do run very hard, much harder than the “7:30 per mile” limit above which is also in the danger zone. I’m not going to slow down but I will continue to be closely monitored by my doctor.

http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/content/29/15/1903.long

http://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19236297

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3027915/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21330616

http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/123/1/13.long

http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/12/05/eurheartj.ehr397.abstract

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0037887

http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/webfiles/images/journals/jmcp/jmcp_pr87_6_2.pdf

http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196

(12)00473-9/abstract

Just what we need....

It will eventually be revealed that in terms of overall health and athleticism the ideal distance to train and compete is the 800 meters. The perfect balance of strength, guts and speed, yet people look at the marathon as some sort of panacea. All the pallid, emaciated twits who thrash their way to a "BQ" but will never hope to pop even a sub-2:20 for two laps are only testimony to mediocrity and imbalance in priorities.