Study confirms the first 200 sub-4 minute mile runners have increased longevity compared to the general population

From the study:

Running a mile is not "extreme endurance exercise"

Training to run sub-4 is extreme endurance exercise

I suspect a full study will show that everybody who ever participate in track or cross country has a longer average lifespan than the general population.

Training to run a sub-four-minute mile requires "extreme endurance exercise," at least in the sense they're referring.

It’s not that difficult

2 mile record is 3:57 pace and 5000 record is 4:03 pace

Some people could jog it

I think no one will argue that training for a sub 4 involves some strenuous running. Some people would consider that unhealthy. Therefore this study is important.

There's a similar study with Tour de France riders:

.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Increased average longevity among the "Tour de France" cyclists - PubMed

It is widely held among the general population and even among health professionals that moderate exercise is a healthy practice but long term high intensity exercise is not. The specific amount of physical activity necessary...

Link:pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21618162/#:~:t...

I only ran 4:04.

I’m screwed!

Not sure if you are joking, but a sub 4 min mile is extreme both in and of itself (i.e. energetic output relative to duration) and likely requires an extreme volume and intensity of training. Also, a mile is generally considered an endurance activity, as in common usage "endurance exercise" is synonymous with "aerobic exercise". Extreme endurance exercise doesn't have to be extreme in terms of absolute duration/distance.

It is also worth considering that the authors are pushing back against health warnings that have been aimed at hobby joggers and weekend warriors. Relative to the endurance activities of the general population it doesn't take much for something to be considered extreme.

Sub-1:49 800m is the answer. Do many or most sub-4 1 milers have a f.a.t. sub-1:49 800m? Sure. The old guys who live to age 90 and longer are sub-1:49 800m guys. Guys can race sub-1:49 800m while longing (25 to 50) miles per week.

From the conclusion: “thereby challenging the notion that extreme endurance exercise may be detrimental to longevity.”

— I know that something similar to that has been raised, but it has never struck me that the primary focus of those concerns is about just any extreme endurance exercise, of relatively brief duration in years, early in life. And even though I didn’t look at the details enough to see how this might’ve been addressed, I say “early in life” (teens, twenties) because that’s when people are running sub-4.

That is, I had thought that what are usually called extreme amounts carried out over a number of years into at least early middle-age are those that have presented calcification problems in other studies.

— I’d be willing to wager that the average sub-4 runner has a lower BMI than the average person, which tends to correlate with longevity. I wouldn’t be surprised if overall health habits of sub forerunners are better than those for the general population.

Saw this study mentioned on the local news in the office and found it interesting but then immediately wondered how EPO era runners would factor into this. Isn't there some pretty grim evidence from cycling among Tour De France winners who were heavy dopers not living much past 60? I'd imagine the first 200 would be (mostly) clean but in the coming decades I'd be a little morbidly curious if any top runners have cardiac issues.

Since when do you trust the Big Science, Dan?

They would have lived significantly longer than avg folks even if they never ran. It's self selection bias. They started off with better genes. You're not gonna see one fatty in that group.

A foolish post. A percentage (we can and do debate the percentage) of elite T&F athletes have always taken performance enhancement drugs. Don't be naive. Athletes on strychnine. Amphetamines since 1880-something. Steroids since 1930-something.

have not read but the basic flaw that comes to mind is what might make you super for age 20 fit and help pay lifelong health benefits forward, might give you an arrhythmia if done to excess age 60. both can be true. how far i would push myself long ago is about where i pull the plug now.