No. Not from experience.
Campbells Salty Sodium wrote:
MALMO: increased training stress = increased likelihood of unplanned setback do you believe that at all?
Soupman, you're on tilt. Leave the table and get some rest.
Campbells Salty Sodium wrote:
yeah, nothing else works with you. ive tried to reason with you, but you show no mercy. you take pride in being arrogant as f*ck
Edit: You're at risk of an unplanned setback, the flu, or pancreatic cancer. ;-)
malmo wrote:
Soupman, you're on tilt. Leave the table and get some rest.
Okay, you keep posting the same link to an abstract, and there's nothing new about it. Certainly nothing 'empirical' about it. "possible" ... "may be" ... "I wish" ... are not empirical terms.
runski2010 wrote:
Just making the point that scientific and empirical evidence, much of it deduced long after your racing career was over, suggest that prolonged bouts of moderately intense exercise can in the short-term and sometimes long-term (i.e., overtraining syndrome, which is well documented and real), can result in suppressed immunity.
The key is to acknowledge that and work around it.
Mix in recovery efforts (easy-hard, or some derivation, does seem to work).
Rehydrate and refuel during and after exercise, especially if the session was more than 90 minutes.
Although elite athletes are not clinically immune deficient, it is possible that the combined effects of small changes in several immune parameters may compromise resistance to common minor illnesses, such as upper respiratory tract infection. However, this may be a small price to pay as the anti-inflammatory effects of exercise mediated through cytokines and/or downregulation of toll-like receptor expression are likely mediators of many of the long-term health benefits of regular exercise.
malmo wrote:Campbells Salty Sodium wrote:No. Not from experience.
MALMO: increased training stress = increased likelihood of unplanned setback do you believe that at all?
I've been injured running lower mileage many more times than when running higher mileage. I've been sick running lower mileage, and no mileage at all, many more times than when in higher training blocks.
What exactly aren't you understanding about this?
I didn't say that.
Mark Sanchez wrote:
So, I guess you speak for the entire running community?
Thank you.
summary guy wrote:
If you're late to the party:
Malmo- I ran a 177 mile week, then missed a couple days next week with the flu.
Posters- So you got sick from the mileage, eh?
Malmo- Nope, I got sick because I had the flu. Getting sick happens to most people 2-3 times a year, regardless of mileage.
Posters- Nuh uh, it was the mileage. Everyone knows that.
Malmo- My experience differs. What you said is dumb.
Posters- Oh, so you're saying if a 15 year old boy ran 170 miles next week, he'd be fine?
Malmo- No.
Posters- So you admit high mileage makes you sick?
Malmo- No, can any of you read?
Posters- You're arrogant!
Malmo- You're ignorant.
Posters- But running a lot MAKES YOU SICK.
Malmo- Not in my experience, or in the experience of all my super fast friends.
Posters- You're arrogant and mean!
Malmo- I'm also right.
Posters- But why don't you conform to our preconceived notions?
Malmo- Becuase they're wrong. I got sick 2-3 times a year, regardless of mileage. I got injured more at low mileage than high mileage, too.
Posters- Ok, you're clearly senile. You're saying that you speak for the whole running community, and every 15 year old boy with a pair of spikes should be running 175 miles a week, all at tempo pace?
Malmo- *hides face in palm of hands*
Exeunt omnes
You are absolutely correct on the first two counts. Could be right on the third, but I don't know.
malmo wrote:
I'm pretty sure his official manifest didn't show those trips. That's quite illegal. But then again, the entire trucking industry is (or used to be) illegal.
Perhaps it was lower mileage, but had much more intensity/hard workouts. Whereas the higher mileage consisted of mostly easy/low stress runs.
ramaco wrote:
why would running low mileage lead to more injuries?