Thoughts? Is this guy just a sissy? Do you believe his findings? If so, do you care?
Thoughts? Is this guy just a sissy? Do you believe his findings? If so, do you care?
Guess i’ll stop running
I didn't even watch the ted talk, but numerous studies have shown that racing marathons isn't great for your heart and can build up harmful scar tissue over time (half marathons are supposed to be much healthier). And don't even get me started on ultras.
Of course he s right. My grandmother is close to 100 and never remotely did a lot of sports. But she had an active life throughout.
Officialdb wrote:
I didn't even watch the ted talk, but numerous studies have shown that racing marathons isn't great for your heart and can build up harmful scar tissue over time (half marathons are supposed to be much healthier). And don't even get me started on ultras.
What is bad about ultras besides the bearded guys?
Someone on the internet said something wrong!
Who'd have thought such a thing was possible :/
My grampappy smoked 2 packs of Lucky Strikes and drank a full cup of bacon grease everyday and lived to be 115. Be like grampappy.
Good
I skimmed through. His message is that moderate exercise confers very significant benefits but that they go away as the aerobic exercise gets more intense and longer. He recommends under 20-25 mpw. Some of his graphs, like the Chinese study, however, didn't show the benefits melted away, only that they ceased to increase with more mileage and more intense work. However, it has struck me that middle distance greats of the past seemed to live longer on average (lower mileage, but high intensity) than long distance greats (very high mileage, lower intensity but many were still running those 10M and up runs pretty hard on a daily basis for a long time). Just an impression.
Pretty unsurprising. Things that are good in moderation are bad when taken to the extreme. Broccoli is good for you. Eating nothing but 20 lbs of broccoli per day would not be good for you. Running is good for you. Running 100+ mpw isn't good for you.
But isn't this true of pretty much every sport? Baseball ruins rotator cuffs. Football ruins brains. Our sport has some health downsides, too. You just have to weight the costs and benefits and decide if you enjoy the sport enough for the downside to be worth it.
Too much of anything is not good for you. Elite level sports are not particularly healthy. If maximizing health is your goal, you are probably getting the most benefit at hobby jogger levels.
O'Keefe is a quack. He has been debunked by numerous other doctors and researchers. He manipulates data to his liking to make the same point he always makes. Google him and also read other researchers critiques of his work.
not surprising wrote:
Pretty unsurprising. Things that are good in moderation are bad when taken to the extreme. Broccoli is good for you. Eating nothing but 20 lbs of broccoli per day would not be good for you. Running is good for you. Running 100+ mpw isn't good for you.
But isn't this true of pretty much every sport? Baseball ruins rotator cuffs. Football ruins brains. Our sport has some health downsides, too. You just have to weight the costs and benefits and decide if you enjoy the sport enough for the downside to be worth it.
Aristotle said it 2,000 + years ago. Moderation for health. Of course if you want to sacrifice long term health for performance then you need to train intensely and or long.
These studies are so over-interpreted. They show that there isn't much marginal gain after a point, sure, but they have to massage the data to the point that the signal is lost in noise to find any danger (e.g. "adjusting" for cholesterol, weight, and BP, when all of these things are improved by running).
The caveats are increased arrhthymia and maybe coronary calcification, though less unstable plaque. Running seems to just accelerate calcification of arterial plaque, not cause it (don't quote me on that).
The same cardiologist has since softened his view:
https://www.runnersworld.com/news/a20806916/excessive-exercise-proponents-soften-their-views/
^ Yes, I know it's RunnersWorld
Come on, we all know this, right?
How do you feel running 30-40 miles a week? Great? Yeah, me too.
How do you feel running 100 miles a week? The answer for me is pretty damned tired and run down. If you feel like that it probably isn't that great for you.
Bring it on.
Why do we all pretend that living the longest is the ultimate goal?
Ho Hum wrote:
These studies are so over-interpreted. They show that there isn't much marginal gain after a point, sure, but they have to massage the data to the point that the signal is lost in noise to find any danger (e.g. "adjusting" for cholesterol, weight, and BP, when all of these things are improved by running).
The caveats are increased arrhthymia and maybe coronary calcification, though less unstable plaque. Running seems to just accelerate calcification of arterial plaque, not cause it (don't quote me on that).
Issues with arrhthymia and maybe coronary calcification are due to hyperinsulemia and electrolyte insufficiency driven by diet, not activity. I put a stop to my recurring A-fib by switching from a high-carb, whole grain-based, restricted salt diet to first a ketogenic and now a full carnivore with higher salt and electrolyte program. Over ten years without an A-fib recurrence, completely contravening what doctors predicted for me as I got older. CAC of zero.
Des Linden: "The entire sport" has changed since she first started running Boston.
Ryan Eiler, 3rd American man at Boston, almost out of nowhere
Am I living in the twilight zone? The Boston Marathon weather was terrible!
Matt Choi was drinking beer halfway through the Boston Marathon
2024 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions Discussion