Does running too much increase the risk of having heart diseases ?

There is a fair amount of research that endurance athletes can build up calcium deposits that make them more likely to suffer heart attacks (but, also, to survive them).

I had a heart attack a few years ago after having been a runner for (then) close to 50 years, with no obvious risk factors, so this line of research was kind of a relief for me -- at least I understand why it might have happened. I'm still running.

E.g.,

scitechdaily.com

Dangerous Paradox: Physical Activity May Hasten Build-Up of Heart Attack Risk Factor

Mike O'Neill

Linked to calcium deposits in coronary arteries, used to measure cardiovascular disease risk But findings don’t outweigh numerous health benefits of exercise, emphasize researchers. Physical activity may paradoxically hasten...

Link:scitechdaily.com/dangerous-paradox-phy...

My goodness at 30 mpw I would hardly ever get warmed up. At 67 it takes me about 3 miles to get going and I'm doing around 60 per week. That seems pretty light compared to the 70-80 of ten years ago. And lots of it is slow. Hard to believe that easy comfortable running can be bad for you or that a mere 30 is some kind of dividing line between good and bad.

That's not too different from what I said, the sweet spot is running 2.5-5 hours/week.

Have you read this book?

YMMV but you can't ignore some of the research out there. It's something to think about. But anything in excess in life will kill you. I cannot think of one that won't. You don't see many elite distance runners living into their 90s. But America has normalized giant fatties as acceptable and even call them healthy. The research on that is crystal clear. They will all drop dead before 70. How many old fatties you see you in your neighborhood? Never.

I am 62 and just diagnosed with atrial fibrillation but I have had it for maybe 2 years. From 55 to 60 I was running about 90 miles a week. My stamina seemed to really decrease about the time I first had it.

There are no recommendations for “levels” of fitness required for improving mortality benefits. It appears that general low level activity is just as beneficial as vigorous activities.
Certain markers such as VO2 max aren’t given targets to reach by health organisations. There are no mention of “fitness” markers such as VO2 max levels, lactate etc in this study.
The study does mention that moderate activity can be adequately substituted for vigorous efforts with no decline in mortality benefits. So levels of intensity don’t appear to be the determining factor.
This seems to link into what I said previously about centenarians. I’ve yet to see one interviewed who bragged about weekly mileage, VO2 max levels, dead lift PR’s or resting heart rate.

I'm puzzled why anyone would vote down this post. Sally Vix is just reporting a personal experience.

Best of luck with managing your condition.

Thanks, Fisky. My heart condition hasn't actually affected anything. No limitations on my physical activity.

Every year I check my heart.

One year I was running 70-80mpw and in test my heart was getting too big. If I would keep running that much, later it could have failed.

Now I returned to around 50mpw. Rarely I got to 60-70. And my heart parameters are perfect

More mileage = more damage. What you eat matters in order to repair the damage. Thus you cannot out run a bad diet

Us runners don't think it because we're all used to reading about elites and even non-elites running a ton of miles. But 90mpw at your age would have 99.99% of the population dropping their jaws when they hear it. That is probably what makes it excessive. How much excess running may take off that counter who knows for sure. People smoke, drink, do drugs, get STD, etc. All the variables are out there. We all die for one reason or another. I guess pick your poison and roll the dice. You may have better luck with some variables than the other depending on your genetic profile.