I have run for years, and always thought I was preserving my health and fitness through each week's toll. But what if running is not as healthy as we thought?
More and more medical research has begun to show inflammation as one of the chief causes of cancer and cardiovascular disease.
Could endurance running actually be harmful to health:
http://www.arthurdevany.com/2006/07/elite_athletic.html
?
Old as hell. 0/10.
This is a serious post... please direct me to older threads if that would be appropriate.
Yea so everyone start eating more fats and sitting on the couch!
Well, I agree it's a lot wiser to run than just sit and watch tv while devouring a bag of cheese curls, but that doesn't make runners invulnerable. And it does pay to keep on top of numbers such as cholesterol, get the cancer screenings, etc. But whatever number of years I have, I want them to be of good quality--the quantity is what it is... you take chances no matter what you do, whether out running or sitting at home watching tv, and eventually we all die of something, so choose what makes your life more fulfilled.
Good running to all!
Life does not consist of the choice to either run or watch TV and eat fatty foods. That is a strawman. Are you saying you would run even if you knew there were negative health consequences compared to other types of physical activity?
QCK wrote:
This is a serious post... please direct me to older threads if that would be appropriate.
Direct your lazy ass to the search function before you post crap like this.
There is quite a lot of evidence that supports the idea that the intense stress-response cycle of hard and long run training is not the optimal way to improve fitness and longevity. Now, running intensely is a lot better that sitting on the couch eating pork rinds, but as you pointed out, those are not the only options.
Still though, if you're hooked on running, what are you going to do? I love the physical and mental buzz of pushing myself through a nice hard run. I haven't found anything else like it.
QCK wrote:
Are you saying you would run even if you knew there were negative health consequences compared to other types of physical activity?
Of course.
mnbv wrote:
QCK wrote:This is a serious post... please direct me to older threads if that would be appropriate.
Direct your lazy ass to the search function before you post crap like this.
So anything that has been discussed here before should be off limits? Would make for a very quiet message board.
I have had my worries about the long term effects of endurance running.
If you had entered a 10 mile race in the area i live, in the mid 80s it is possible the top 4 would have gone under 50 mins.
One was a 4 min miler another 2.15 international marathoner.
i heard recently that thee of them have serious heart problems and one has died of cancer, all are or if still alive would be about 55 yrs old .
Is this to much of a coincidence ?
I read the article, and it makes some good points. Ken Cooper years ago said that running more than 20 miles a week (or something close to that, I'm not sure) was for something other than health. Whether at some point intense training actually begins to turn the body against itself is an interesting question. But the examples he uses in the article are simply too anecdotal to prove anything. Going to the limit in any sport has it's risks as well as it's rewards. There has been a prevailing mindset since the start of the running boom that running is an intrinsically *good* thing to do. I've never bought into that. In fact, I think most people would be better off not running at all, and only the most genetically gifted should even try to go to the edge for extended periods of time.
RT article:
http://runningtimes.com/rt/articles/?id=9255&c=6
Can too many miles make you sick?
This relates to 100 mi racing / immunes system breakdown / cancer.
Good common sense advice / eat more blueberries.
Running for HEALTH, up to a certain point makes sense. Cooper said more than 14 miles a week actually.
His point system (30 points minimum weekly, the points working from formulae establishing milliliters[sp?] of oxygen needed to perform the workload) works out to this at its' most basic:
***run 1 mile in under 8-minutes-flat 6x weekly
***walk 3 miles in under 1 HOUR, yes ONE HOUR, 6x weekly
EASY, right? Those two are the easiest to remember. Each earns you 30 of his POINTS in a week. This was his bottom floor for conditioning: 30 points. Anything beyond that was for something other than health.
You can google "Cooper Points" to get a more comprehensive listing, using walking, running, swimming, cycling etc.
What's scary is that lots of people don't even do THAT much.
It's an important topic, and one that I'd like to see addressed more often and more systematically, especially by people who don't have an axe to grind, aren't trying to sell me something, and have the intelligence, education, training, and thoughtfulness to reach tentative conclusions and back them up with solid science.
I'm afraid that Kenneth Cooper is an idiot and that nobody should take him that seriously. He has always been a tremendous sensationalist.
I really don't see any empirical evidence at all to suggest that running is bad for your health. Yes sometimes runners get heart attack and cancer- so what? I don't even need to point out how often those events happen in non-runners.
I'm not really impressed with the oxidative stress thing. I wouldn't know for sure, and haven't researched the issue, but don't these free radicals occur primarily within the mitochondria of the muscle cells?
Avocados Number wrote: It's an important topic, and one that I'd like to see addressed more often and more systematically, especially by people who don't have an axe to grind, aren't trying to sell me something, and have the intelligence, education, training, and thoughtfulness to reach tentative conclusions and back them up with solid science.
As has been pointed out here before, while Art Devany might fall short on a number of your criteria, at least he's got a hell of a rack for a 70 year old man:
http://www.arthurdevany.com/about.htmlThat's gotta be worth something, eh?
Thanks for the link sound byte.
"Cortisol is essentially a stress hormone; the higher the levels the more you’re at risk of developing serious diseases such as heart disease, diabetes and cancer. Cortisol regulates insulin production as well as inflammatory response in the body, so people with levels that are too high are setting themselves up for serious health problems," Kalish explains. He goes on to say that one of the problems with distance runners is that they usually don’t realize that something isn’t right because they’re feeling good. "When you start exercising more, like when you’re training for a marathon, you feel great because the cortisol that’s being produced gives you more energy initially, and also reduces your sensitivity to discomfort or pain." But when runners overdo it, when they train too hard, run too many marathons, or, like many runners who participate in marathons and ultra events such as the Western States 100, they are living already stress-filled lives, things can start to go wrong."
marijuologist wrote:
I'm afraid that Kenneth Cooper is an idiot and that nobody should take him that seriously. He has always been a tremendous sensationalist.
Whatever Ken Cooper is, he's not an idiot. His original aerobics books were the beginning of the fitness movement in this country. I've heard it said he started the *running boom*. Having been there, I can tell you there was no running boom in the late 60's. People didn't really start getting out on the roads in any great numbers until the mid 70's. But he did get the ball rolling. He's also 76 and still running, which is more than most people can say, right?
QCK wrote:
I have run for years, and always thought I was preserving my health and fitness through each week's toll. But what if running is not as healthy as we thought?
More and more medical research has begun to show inflammation as one of the chief causes of cancer and cardiovascular disease.
Could endurance running actually be harmful to health:
http://www.arthurdevany.com/2006/07/elite_athletic.html?
Interesting and important discussion. Any activity when done to the extreme is unhealthy. Excessive running concerns reagading stress hormones, increased oxidation causing an increasein free radicals, and simple wear and tear are all issues to consider.
Running is an amazingly healthy sport. Racing has many benefits and can indirectly motivate one toward fitness but the primary goal of racing is not health. Doesn't mean its bad but its not health driven.