Ho hum, can only really talk from my own experience where there are positive and negatives.
Poaitives, a lifetime of unrepeatable experiences, lifetime friendships, a keen understanding of my own mindset, strengths and limitations to say nothing of the fitness and health benefits from 25 years of effective training and exercise on a daily basis.
Negatives, a chronically arthritic toe and a worn out hip. Both an annoyance rather than a limiter.
On balance, tough to call
So basically running a lot gave you nothing positive you couldn’t have had through other means like most people do or even by doing less slogging in life for years and years.
I thought of another thing you could test your opinion on if you are really concerned that’s pretty simple to do.
Go sit in the waiting area of a local cardiology and dermatology clinic and count how many of the people look to be longtime endurance athletes.
Probably zero.
Then again, stand on a busy sidewalk and count how many of the people look to be longtime endurance athletes. Probably zero as well. Same thing if you go to a bar, a beach, or the local grocery store.
It's extremely rare to come across anyone who's been seriously training for decades. How many college athletes who graduated in the early 2010s are still training with the same volume and intensity as they did back then? Maybe 0.1%, if we're being generous. And the vast majority of 30+ year old adults weren't even former college athletes in the first place, and that's including intramural sports, junior colleges, and low-tier D3 and NAIA schools where a 4:40 would get you on the men's 1500 team.
I'm extremely skeptical that the vast amount of people who do train "hard" for 20+ are training hard enough to induce cardiac problems.
The data we would be looking for is going to suffer from two (if not more) problems:
1. People who train hard and for many years are acutely aware of their body. They will be more prone to seek medical treatment even as a precaution as compared to the average runner. An average runner likely deals with shin splints will rest, whereas someone who trains harder is more likely to do PT. This can show up in the data as the person who trains more having more injuries.
2. There is a correlation between socioeconomic status and fitness levels. While I know of some, the vast majority of the people working out 14+ hours a week are not FedEx delivery drivers working 50 hours of week. This also skews the data for those who work out getting more early diagnostics. There are likely millions of average runners with heart murmurs or other pathologies who never reach the level of training, or enough free money to warrant a test. Whereas if you have great healthcare you likely get tested for the hell of it.
This isn't at all taking a stand either way, just noting its a lot easier to compare the top 25% to the bottom 25% of VO2 Max and see that the bottom 25% has a 400% higher yearly mortality rate than the top. Once you start trying to compare the top 10% to the 80-90% bracket and look for certain illnesses the data gets extremely unconvincing.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
Hmm, been doing exactly that for 30 years or so. Still getting carded as I push 50, so I’m guessing my skin is holding up.
As to the other health conditions you associate with exercise, only the arrhythmias have any scientific literature suggesting a possible association.
Of course, I could get another cardiac MRI or confirm with an echo to see if something has changed. But that seems like an unnecessary effort to test your theory since I’m not real concerned with your medical advice as you don’t have the degree or training to qualify you.
best of luck worrying about things that won’t happen
In the future your insurance may not cover another MRI or Echo. My BCBS denied MRI because I passed the stress test and next level protocol was not needed!
They are right not to cover it as it is unnecessary. I got mine for free since I was a study volunteer.
Getting another one wouldn’t be overly difficult as a person qualified to interpret MRI and CT. But, it wouldn’t be necessary.
I was in a NIHS sponsored study for high level endurance athletes that studied heart rate, high level intensity reaction, and heart scarring, inflammation and cholesterol levels. At the end of the third test, they revealed what my likelihood for various heart conditions was and what factors to look for. Shockingly, not taking time off after major efforts caused more scar tissue and inflammation, and high cholesterol caused heart issues and inflammation. With rare exceptions, if you kept “bad” cholesterol down and took occasional time off after extreme efforts, no adverse effects. For any participants up to that point. They had tested nearly 3000 competitive athletes from across the country at that time. I believe the study is ongoing as they were hoping to make it global.
I'm 58, a competitive masters athlete, ran compulsively and competitively through high school and college, only ran intermittently during my 30s, but have run every day except one for the past 13 years. Not only am I healthier than anyone else I know at my age, but all my running friends and the competitive athletes I know at regional and national meets are super healthy. I know it is a relatively small sample size, but the only thing you said that I agree with is the part about looking older. I suspect that is because of all the long hours on the road in the sun.
Here is my question: ALL older people are more likely to have these problems. Is it possible that they are just average? I'm not trying to be a jerk, I'm really interested in the truth. The problem, from my perspective, is that it doesn't pass the eyeball test. You say your experience is different, and it may very well be. I may be disillusioned, but as long as I am, I'll keep pounding out 60 miles a week!
I wonder if some of the health problems can be attributed to heavy ingestion of processed carbohydrates and sugar, with less in the way of healthy fat and protein.
This! A lot of "healthy runners" have terrible diets and then justify it with, "Look at me! I'm a fit runner!". They look good outwardly but, internally, their plumbing is clogged or those processed foods with nitrates and sugars are fueling conditions that they cannot feel yet.
I just don't see this. Most older runners I know have a much better than average diet.
I quit running at 18, then took it back up at 33. I missed out on 15 years of PRs but I also feel fresher at 40 and am not chasing PRs from age 18-22, etc.
What’s “15 years of PRs” worth? Jack squat, except in your head of course.
My fault was listening to the ROTC leader and not thinking for myself at that time is my point too...I could have had more opportunities for success. But it's water under the bridge now.
I'm extremely skeptical that the vast amount of people who do train "hard" for 20+ are training hard enough to induce cardiac problems.
The data we would be looking for is going to suffer from two (if not more) problems:
1. People who train hard and for many years are acutely aware of their body. They will be more prone to seek medical treatment even as a precaution as compared to the average runner. An average runner likely deals with shin splints will rest, whereas someone who trains harder is more likely to do PT. This can show up in the data as the person who trains more having more injuries.
2. There is a correlation between socioeconomic status and fitness levels. While I know of some, the vast majority of the people working out 14+ hours a week are not FedEx delivery drivers working 50 hours of week. This also skews the data for those who work out getting more early diagnostics. There are likely millions of average runners with heart murmurs or other pathologies who never reach the level of training, or enough free money to warrant a test. Whereas if you have great healthcare you likely get tested for the hell of it.
This isn't at all taking a stand either way, just noting its a lot easier to compare the top 25% to the bottom 25% of VO2 Max and see that the bottom 25% has a 400% higher yearly mortality rate than the top. Once you start trying to compare the top 10% to the 80-90% bracket and look for certain illnesses the data gets extremely unconvincing.
This is the first time I've ever heard of "too much running" being a problem.
I realize know very little the more I learn about this sport.
Someone upthread mentioned the J-curve with the dataset...but how reliable is that data?
I looked in the data myself a few years ago and longevity benefits for exercise are optimal in the 3-6 hour/week range of running, and it gets somewhat less beneficial when running for example 10 hours/week, but it still is a lot better than being a couch potato.
These people that run on the edge are doing themselves no fa ors. I would never change long term health for short term glory.
I heard a quote once that resonated with me. "Always let your 80 year old self be your coach". Basically don't push so hard now that you will have negative effects later. It is why I would never trade my life with that of an NFL player. I do ok professionally (with bonus just over 7 figures) but it isn't NFL money. I would never trade my corporate life either for that life because I won't be brain dead at 50.
I was in a NIHS sponsored study for high level endurance athletes that studied heart rate, high level intensity reaction, and heart scarring, inflammation and cholesterol levels. At the end of the third test, they revealed what my likelihood for various heart conditions was and what factors to look for. Shockingly, not taking time off after major efforts caused more scar tissue and inflammation, and high cholesterol caused heart issues and inflammation. With rare exceptions, if you kept “bad” cholesterol down and took occasional time off after extreme efforts, no adverse effects. For any participants up to that point. They had tested nearly 3000 competitive athletes from across the country at that time. I believe the study is ongoing as they were hoping to make it global.
Agree. Let me share my experience with exactly what you just described.
I see a cardiologist twice a year. A year ago, my cardiologist found that I had high LDL. He recommended that I take Red Rice Yeast supplements. I did. My LDL went down at my next six month checkup. Since my LDC was okay, I stopped taking that supplement, but at the next six month checkup, my LDL was back up again so I've started Red Rice Yeast pills again.
Earlier in this thread, I wrote...
To me, this does not mean that you should quit training seriously and become a recreational runner instead of a competitive runner. To me, it means that serious runners need to supplement their diets with nutrients that have been shown to reduce inflammation, counter the effects of antioxidants, and allow muscles to recover faster from extreme exercise.
Since there are some studies that seem to show a possible link between various types of cardiovascular disease and extreme endurance exercising, I take several supplements recommended by my cardiologist for overall heart and arterial health.
Most lifelong runners I know have enjoyed long term health benefits.
My guess would be that the negatives affect only a small percentage of runners.
Worrying about it is like not going to the beach because of sharks.
I know an older super casual runner (>65) who was sharing all the running is bad nonsense. Well they ran a half marathon and ended up tearing a hamstring so clearly running is bad!!
Let's ignore they just ramped up the volume fairly quicky for an older runner and go straight to the conclusions.
What’s “15 years of PRs” worth? Jack squat, except in your head of course.
My fault was listening to the ROTC leader and not thinking for myself at that time is my point too...I could have had more opportunities for success. But it's water under the bridge now.
I hear your regret, but just find it unrelatable. If you are a talented sub-elite and wondering if you could’ve been elite if only this or that [insert impossible turning back of time], I can understand, but with hobbyjogger times (no offense), what does it matter even if you are like say 30% faster or for that matter slower? It’s all just numbers in your head and all that should matter is having fun and being healthy including mental health benefits of trying to improve your limits, however modest they are.
I looked in the data myself a few years ago and longevity benefits for exercise are optimal in the 3-6 hour/week range of running, and it gets somewhat less beneficial when running for example 10 hours/week, but it still is a lot better than being a couch potato.
Easy, it tops off by 3 hours/week, not 3-6.
An enormous number of things in life are better than being a couch potato.
I was in a NIHS sponsored study for high level endurance athletes that studied heart rate, high level intensity reaction, and heart scarring, inflammation and cholesterol levels. At the end of the third test, they revealed what my likelihood for various heart conditions was and what factors to look for. Shockingly, not taking time off after major efforts caused more scar tissue and inflammation, and high cholesterol caused heart issues and inflammation. With rare exceptions, if you kept “bad” cholesterol down and took occasional time off after extreme efforts, no adverse effects. For any participants up to that point. They had tested nearly 3000 competitive athletes from across the country at that time. I believe the study is ongoing as they were hoping to make it global.
Agree. Let me share my experience with exactly what you just described.
I see a cardiologist twice a year. A year ago, my cardiologist found that I had high LDL. He recommended that I take Red Rice Yeast supplements. I did. My LDL went down at my next six month checkup. Since my LDC was okay, I stopped taking that supplement, but at the next six month checkup, my LDL was back up again so I've started Red Rice Yeast pills again.
Earlier in this thread, I wrote...
To me, this does not mean that you should quit training seriously and become a recreational runner instead of a competitive runner. To me, it means that serious runners need to supplement their diets with nutrients that have been shown to reduce inflammation, counter the effects of antioxidants, and allow muscles to recover faster from extreme exercise.
Since there are some studies that seem to show a possible link between various types of cardiovascular disease and extreme endurance exercising, I take several supplements recommended by my cardiologist for overall heart and arterial health.
I thought you ran shorter distances. What’s your “extreme endurance exercising”?
FWIW, for CVD risk, Apo-B is a much better predictor than LDL.
I'll be the first to admit that this isn't a scientific study, but I've seen an alarming number of older lifelong competitive athletes with health problems. A-fib, other heart rhythm issues, enlarged rupture-prone aortas, calcified arteries, and so on.
My fault was listening to the ROTC leader and not thinking for myself at that time is my point too...I could have had more opportunities for success. But it's water under the bridge now.
I hear your regret, but just find it unrelatable. If you are a talented sub-elite and wondering if you could’ve been elite if only this or that [insert impossible turning back of time], I can understand, but with hobbyjogger times (no offense), what does it matter even if you are like say 30% faster or for that matter slower? It’s all just numbers in your head and all that should matter is having fun and being healthy including mental health benefits of trying to improve your limits, however modest they are.
Fair enough, when you explained it like that I get you completely. TY for responding, no sarcasm.
I'm a lifelong, 100,000+ miles runner, and a heart attack survivor - I attribute both the heart attack and surviving it due to the cumulative effects of all those miles. And I'm still running.
I tell would-be runners, if they're just interested in the health benefits, take up walking. It has almost as many positive health impacts but way fewer negative ones. Become a runner only if nothing makes you feel the same. It's worth the risks.