Tom Fleming, just died in April form a heart attack at 65.
"won the 1973 and 1975 New York City Marathon.[1] He was also a two time runner-up in the Boston Marathon in 1973 and 1974 and finished six times in the top ten in the BAA marathon."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Fleming_
(athlete)
1955 wrote:
While never anything close to elite, I am a lifelong runner, now in my 60's. A few months ago I had a heart attack, despite very good cholesterol, no family history, no smoking, etc. The doctors just shrugged as to why it happened.
I recently felt "better" about why it happened, due to this article:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/19/well/move/the-toll-of-exercise-on-the-heart-and-why-you-may-not-need-to-worry.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fhealth&action=click&contentCollection=health®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfrontBasically, endurance athletes not atypically get plaque build-up, more than sedentary people, but it is more calcified & generally less dangerous than the plaque in non-athletes.
Moral of the story: running doesn't make you immune to heart attacks, but probably doesn't increase your risk either.
These kind of studies are very vague. CT scan can't really tell how much plaque one has. All the best and big imaging studies use intravascular ultrasound. Very little of the coronary artery plaque is actually calcium. It is something like few percent at most if I remember correctly. And it is the most harmless kind of plaque as was mentioned in that article. Lowering your cholesterol with diet change or using cholesterol drugs will actually increase the calcified plaque a little bit while at the same time reducing total plaque volume. Both are positive changes. The slighly increased calcification just means the plaques are becoming more stable. The stabilization effect is actually clearly stronger than the plaque reducing effect, because you can only remove a small amount of the plaque. Stabilized plaques won't rupture easily. Usually it is plaque rupture than causes the blockage in a blood vessel. Those ruptured plaques can travel in the bloodstream and cause blockages all over the body. If it happens in the brain, it's called ischemic stroke.
jghjjhh wrote:
1955 wrote:While never anything close to elite, I am a lifelong runner, now in my 60's. A few months ago I had a heart attack, despite very good cholesterol, no family history, no smoking, etc. The doctors just shrugged as to why it happened.
I recently felt "better" about why it happened, due to this article:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/19/well/move/the-toll-of-exercise-on-the-heart-and-why-you-may-not-need-to-worry.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fhealth&action=click&contentCollection=health®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfrontBasically, endurance athletes not atypically get plaque build-up, more than sedentary people, but it is more calcified & generally less dangerous than the plaque in non-athletes.
Moral of the story: running doesn't make you immune to heart attacks, but probably doesn't increase your risk either.
These kind of studies are very vague. CT scan can't really tell how much plaque one has. All the best and big imaging studies use intravascular ultrasound. Very little of the coronary artery plaque is actually calcium. It is something like few percent at most if I remember correctly. And it is the most harmless kind of plaque as was mentioned in that article. Lowering your cholesterol with diet change or using cholesterol drugs will actually increase the calcified plaque a little bit while at the same time reducing total plaque volume. Both are positive changes. The slighly increased calcification just means the plaques are becoming more stable. The stabilization effect is actually clearly stronger than the plaque reducing effect, because you can only remove a small amount of the plaque. Stabilized plaques won't rupture easily. Usually it is plaque rupture than causes the blockage in a blood vessel. Those ruptured plaques can travel in the bloodstream and cause blockages all over the body. If it happens in the brain, it's called ischemic stroke.
One example of your misinformation is in stating CAD is all about LDL. This is simply not true and 1955 is a case in point.
Nonsense wrote:
One example of your misinformation is in stating CAD is all about LDL. This is simply not true and 1955 is a case in point.
It is in the sense that CAD can be completely prevented with these ideal cholesterol levels and having them from a young age. This is realistic only on the individual level. Masses are not going to get their cholesterol that low. When cholesterol is above optimal levels, other factors begin to influence the risk of heart attacks. They also influence the rate of atherosclerosis on a certain cholesterol level. But to stop atherosclerosis, getting cholesterol to a low level is necessary and sufficient. You can't stop atherosclerosis on a high cholesterol level and you can't get it going on a low enough level.
Eating an animal centric, and by definition a cholesterol centric, diet makes will give you heart disease no matter the level of running/exercise.
It's just filthy for your body.
Galen Rupp's fatal heart attack in 2013 was sudden and tragic.
Eat a diet high in saturated fat and walk a lot:
At the other end of the scale, you have someone like this:
"Mr Green puts his incredible fitness down to exercising daily and running marathons when he was younger".
jghjjhh wrote:
Fentrekker wrote:If you are suffering from cancer, it's heart failure that ultimately kills you.
No it's not. Cancer kills even if you artificially pumped he blood of cancer patients with machines.
Um, if the heart hadn't failed you wouldn't need the machine.
try to think wrote:
Um, if the heart hadn't failed you wouldn't need the machine.
Yes, but cancer would kill you anyway. It does not have to kill the heart first to kill you. And if cancer killed the heart, cancer would also then be the cause of death.
Unless the theme were "elite former runners who died very young from heart attack", it's silly to consider how former elites die. By the age of 55 or so, people start to die. Heart disease, stroke, cancer, things start to happen.
The thing anybody would care about is whether runners died younger than they would have otherwise, which is to ask whether running is correlated with damage to the heart, which is to generate fear about the health of the running that is the focus of this forum.
The healthiness of running is beside the point for most of us. I have run so many miles for so many years that it has become deeply ingrained as an important part of my lifestyle. If I knew for a fact that it was taking years off of my life, I'm not sure I'd change a thing. Even accounting for damage to the heart and vascular system, how does one know that not running would bring another chain of physiological changes that would be as damaging, if not more so?
In the cases of elites who died young, it's very difficult to say what would their outcomes have been if they didn't run. In the end, I'd rather run and enjoy my time than not.
I know it has been mentioned on this board a few times before and he has discussed it. Former NAIA top runner Corey Duquette ran 29:10 or so for 10k which is good for at least a 2:15 marathon. I know he I believe had a heart attack at 30ish lucky to be alive from what I hear it was a very close call. His was caused by a blockage in the main artery of his heart the LAD which from what I hear if that blocks your dead.
Runrincerepeat wrote:
Eating an animal centric, and by definition a cholesterol centric, diet makes will give you heart disease no matter the level of running/exercise.
It's just filthy for your body.
0/10 👎
The guy who started Powerbar, ran under 2:20 for marathon.
Mooiiiisssttt wrote:
Unless the theme were "elite former runners who died very young from heart attack", it's silly to consider how former elites die. By the age of 55 or so, people start to die. Heart disease, stroke, cancer, things start to happen.
The thing anybody would care about is whether runners died younger than they would have otherwise, which is to ask whether running is correlated with damage to the heart, which is to generate fear about the health of the running that is the focus of this forum.
The healthiness of running is beside the point for most of us. I have run so many miles for so many years that it has become deeply ingrained as an important part of my lifestyle. If I knew for a fact that it was taking years off of my life, I'm not sure I'd change a thing. Even accounting for damage to the heart and vascular system, how does one know that not running would bring another chain of physiological changes that would be as damaging, if not more so?
In the cases of elites who died young, it's very difficult to say what would their outcomes have been if they didn't run. In the end, I'd rather run and enjoy my time than not.
Good points ^
I am a lifelong runner formerly competitive. I survived a widowmaker heart attack from a complete blockage high on my LAD and a 70% blockage mid LAD. While my heart was significantly damaged, I was able to recover almost all of my heart function within about 10 days. I have no doubt this was in part due to my otherwise healthy body and heart.
Nonsense wrote:
Mooiiiisssttt wrote:Unless the theme were "elite former runners who died very young from heart attack", it's silly to consider how former elites die. By the age of 55 or so, people start to die. Heart disease, stroke, cancer, things start to happen.
The thing anybody would care about is whether runners died younger than they would have otherwise, which is to ask whether running is correlated with damage to the heart, which is to generate fear about the health of the running that is the focus of this forum.
The healthiness of running is beside the point for most of us. I have run so many miles for so many years that it has become deeply ingrained as an important part of my lifestyle. If I knew for a fact that it was taking years off of my life, I'm not sure I'd change a thing. Even accounting for damage to the heart and vascular system, how does one know that not running would bring another chain of physiological changes that would be as damaging, if not more so?
In the cases of elites who died young, it's very difficult to say what would their outcomes have been if they didn't run. In the end, I'd rather run and enjoy my time than not.
Good points ^
I am a lifelong runner formerly competitive. I survived a widowmaker heart attack from a complete blockage high on my LAD and a 70% blockage mid LAD. While my heart was significantly damaged, I was able to recover almost all of my heart function within about 10 days. I have no doubt this was in part due to my otherwise healthy body and heart.
I asked my cardiologist how someone with such blockages could still run and not have symptoms. He explained that the blockages form gradually over time and heart of many distance runners adapts and becomes super-efficient - operating at an incredibly reduced capacity, but still getting the job done...until of course, the plaque ruptures and all hell breaks loose.
McSun wrote:
I asked my cardiologist how someone with such blockages could still run and not have symptoms. He explained that the blockages form gradually over time and heart of many distance runners adapts and becomes super-efficient - operating at an incredibly reduced capacity, but still getting the job done...until of course, the plaque ruptures and all hell breaks loose.
Arteries can compensate for the plaque accumulation by expanding. At the point were they can't compensate anymore, atherosclerosis has already progressed a lot. You can have a plaque rupture and a blockage before any severe narrowing of the artery. Your plaque can also accumulate in a very uneven way: you may have risky narrow spots in your arteries even if they otherwise are in a relatively good condition.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgSl-8bxFCEWeird to read this thread. I knew Ed Sheehan a bit in high school, ran against him in XC. We'd see each other at meets in college and blab a bit. I remember his telling me how he started running 90 miles per week and it pushed him to big improvements.
Hadn't talked to the guy since 1979 so I had no idea he'd died! Bam.
IN terms of heart health, I think a plant based diet is recommended. OK so I eat fish. Well, I'm doing well and running at 60. Read this book, it's pretty comprehensive. The China Study. Big pharma and the medical establishment hate this book. Can't think of a better recommendation!
https://www.amazon.com/China-Study-Comprehensive-Nutrition-Implications/dp/1932100660
RIP Ed. Didn't know you well, but you were a good guy.
The China Study (recommendation for plant based diet)
Screw Amazon. Here is a good link: