New study says there is no limit to exercise that will help you, dispelling myth you can do too much.... Or does it?

Beans are toxic

rojo wrote:

In recent years, I've read a lot that too much exercise might be bad for you. Now a study comes out with a headline saying that's not true?

Hello, I'm from Ivy League but I cannot understand any studies.

Can you please click away so that my advertisers are happy

I’ve always been more concerned about the orthopedic risks of “doing too much”

It could also be genetics, but you don't get endurance exercise to be much more extreme than TdF cyclists:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21618162/

I think 60-90 minutes of aerobic exercise, per day, is fine for me. One just has to be smart and modify what they do as they age ie variety of types of exercise to avoid injury. Cardiovascular wise, one will be fine.

can you eat too many beans? wrote:

Beans, beans, good for the heart to make you fart

The more you fart the better you feel

Eat your beans every meal.

Beans, beans, good for your heart, the more you eat the more you fart.

The more you fart the more you eat, the more you sit on the toilet seat

Terreta wrote:

It could also be genetics, but you don't get endurance exercise to be much more extreme than TdF cyclists:

Yeah but these where not the cyclists we know now. I am pretty sure their numbers wouldn't be that good. There is always that one TDF cyclist who dies early in his 40ies. I have read these kind of news almost every year.

1930-1964 TDF cyclists are probably closer to the today's amateur athlete.

"Consequently we set out to determine the longevity of the participants in the Tour de France, compared with that of the general population. We studied the longevity of 834 cyclists from France (n=465), Italy (n=196) and Belgium (n=173) who rode the Tour de France between the years 1930 and 1964. Dates of birth and death of the cyclists were obtained on December 31 (st) 2007. We calculated the percentage of survivors for each age and compared them with the values for the pooled general population of France, Italy and Belgium for the appropriate age cohorts. We found a very significant increase in average longevity (17%) of the cyclists when compared with the general population. The age at which 50% of the general population died was 73.5 vs. 81.5 years in Tour de France participants. Our major finding is that repeated very intense exercise prolongs life span in well trained practitioners. Our findings underpin the importance of exercising without the fear that becoming exhausted might be bad for one's health. "

Terreta wrote:

It could also be genetics, but you don't get endurance exercise to be much more extreme than TdF cyclists:

Yes but here the questions you would need to answer before drawing conclusions

a) What are the confounding factors. Off the top of my head I would assume TDF cyclist were less likely to smoke (that is like 6 years of the difference with a 50% smoking rate). Things like socioeconomic background and the like also need to be factored in

b) How many of these guys did serious exercise post say 40? Do hard training from 20-40 is one thing. Doing it from 20-60 might be another.

c) Doing a lot of exercise might be better than no exercise, but it doesn't mean doing a moderate amount might be better. Maybe they would have lived another 2 years if they just did 60 mins/day in stead of TDF training.

I am not sure if the "no limit" is just a headline writer taking some liberty but the reasonable conclusion is more that the level of healthy exercise might be higher than some of the earlier suggestion (i.e. 5 or 6 hours versus 3). The guy running 100mpw is going to be up at 2x this level. That is a large difference in load on the body.

The part I hate about all these types of articles is that a lot of peoples take away is exercise is bad despite when they haven't come close to any reasonable limit in 20 years. Worrying about if 90mins/day will take a year off your life while doing 0 mins that will take off a 5 years isn't reasonable.

The law of diminishing returns as applies to any exercise is very real, but the intensity is variable with the individual. For example in high school a few times I ran 20 mile workouts. I knew instinctively that they were wrong for me. Never repeated them and decline to run marathons. At an advanced age my body relishes the runs of 5-6 mile limits as optimum and it will likely be able to do this into a ninth decade. I think that each individual can assess their own limits for maximum enjoyment of fitness if they pay attention.

Exercise fan wrote:

compared them with the values for the pooled general population

They couldn't find a way to exclude the heavy smokers with substandard diets? Those folks were a huge percent of the population of those countries back then.

parkerjohn wrote:

I’ve always been more concerned about the orthopedic risks of “doing too much”

That’s always been my limiting factor. Ferrari engine but Yugo chassis

the430miler wrote:

Just to elaborate on my above post,

Let's say you are planning a trip to NYC or another area where covid is very bad. You don't want to a race on the day before you leave for NYC, as this would break down your immune system and make it easier for you to get the virus.

This is the only way running is bad for you.

-the430miler

SA, TX

What you're describing is the open window theory. Keep in mind, this was established way back in the 80's and based entirely on surveys. Kinda weak science.

More recent information seems to challenge the theory --

.

^towards the end of that article, there is a point about at least one study supporting the theory. However, they don't link to it. Digging around, I believe this is that study:

Now, let's say it's true that we temporarily supress our immune system with intense exercise, your suggestion of not racing before a trip to NYC is not a one-size-fits-all truth. There are all kinds of conditions where racing the day before a trip doesn't do anything other than make you a little tired. For example, a marathon runner cranking 80+ miles per week is unlikely to do anything negative to their immune system racing a 5K or 10K the day before a trip to NYC.

more rojo clickbait wrote:

rojo wrote:

In recent years, I've read a lot that too much exercise might be bad for you. Now a study comes out with a headline saying that's not true?

Hello, I'm from Ivy League but I cannot understand any studies.

Can you please click away so that my advertisers are happy

RoJoke for sure.

It’s like no one ever heard of muscle fatigue. Your heart may not shut off but your muscles need recovery.

CowboyBob wrote:

But for us older individuals:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqKfL3z5yM4

That was pretty good.

"Moderate alcohol was associated with living longer than individuals who did not consume alcohol . . . up to two drinks per day."

can you eat too many beans? wrote:

I run 10 hours a week even though it has affected my heart. My heart used to beat 70 times a minute and now only beats 48 times a minute. I hope it doesn't slow down anymore.

I have some bad news: One day it will be 0.

hr measurement wrote:

rojo wrote:

In recent years, I've read a lot that too much exercise might be bad for you. Now a study comes out with a headline saying that's not true?

Does anyone know if this new study actually dispels what has been reported before?

Well, what the definition of "moderate to vigorous" in the new study is an important discerning factor. They likely did not consider those things, such as inflammation markers in the blood, of a more detail-focused study.

CRP was measured.

This new study is being highlighted as covid damage control, IMO. Everyone knows we can overdo just about anything. The body responds by adapting and getting stronger or breaking (injury). We all have our personal limits that we tend to find over the course of training. And once you get into your 40s and 50s and older, you will lose your invincible mindset of the 20s.

To the non-active general public, just moving from the couch to the refrig is exercise, so it needs to be "unlimited" so as to not scare their big A$$ back onto the couch- where they will continue to work on the spread and size of the offending member. ;)

I don't think its exercise persee. I think its fitness you want.

Obviously people can train to hard and get injured, not stop and get worse.

I think what should be the goal is fitness. As Herb says about Percy's training goals.

I think the real danger is weight. I think that carrying extra weight is a multiplier for every ailment we have. And I am not saying obesity.

If fit young guys running hard get stress injuries from imbalances caused by weight.

So train your ass off and keep your weight down

Clearly runners like Ryan hall and other ultra runners whose careers ended due to over training, would indicate that there is a limit to what is good for you.