WSJ: Running more than 30mpw might kill you

"that study looked at marathoners running 15 hours a week, which is around 130 miles. That's VERY high mileage, so calling these people "marathoners" as if they're representative of the group as a whole is pretty misleading."

From what I am reading on the boards, that probably represents 90% of the posters here it seems. We can at least write off above 100 miles as being excessive. Who knows if the result would have been different if the subjects ran 8 hours per week or 4 hours per week.

Honestly, why would I care about whether I'm adding or subtracting a couple years of my life by running hard? The difference between living to 78 or 85 doesn't really matter to me. If you told me today that, if I keep running, I'll drop dead at 78 rather than 85, I wouldn't give a rat's @$$. I'd rather live 20 or 30 years of unbridled exercise, trying to reach my potential, than be cautious and be a mediocre runner just so I can be a demented, costly strain on the healthcare system for an additional 7 years. Assuming, of course, that this WSJ article isn't completely bullsh!t.

Don't care. Running is awesome. Few things make me feel better. Rather live now than extend the life a few extra years.

crazy person wrote:

Don't care. Running is awesome. Few things make me feel better. Rather live now than extend the life a few extra years.

damn strait

Concerned Girl wrote:

I haven't been following scientific developments, but is it still the general consensus that running a marathon will make my uterus fall out?

No worries--mine fell out a long time ago and I don't even miss it. Children? You can always adopt. :)

Good luck getting your body fat up high enough to the point where you can even have kids if your uterus doesn't fall out!

Hopefully this will deter the hobby joggers that are driving up the cost of races.

Research clearly shows that the more sugar that there is in your diet, the longer you will live. This works longitudinally and geographically.

For instance, In the early 1800s there was almost no sugar in the average diet and the age in which people died was very young. As the % of sugar in our diet increased into the 2000s, the age of mortality increased at nearly exactly the same rate until today.

Geographically, countries that have a low % of sugar in their diet also have a lower age of mortality. And countries in Western Europe and North America who have the highest % of sugar in their diet also have the highest age of mortality.

It is a direct correlation, so eat as much sugar as you can.

Beware of the results that come out of studies.

Taco Truck wrote:

[...]

Look at the all the elites that had cancer over the years.

Could you name a few?

Taco Truck wrote:

RW did not debunk anything. The writer, Alex Hutchinson, has zero understanding of how research is done.

Alex Huthinson comes from a scientific background. You just come from bad breeding. Or inbreeding.

Alex Huthinson comes from a scientific background. You just come from bad breeding. Or inbreeding.

--------------------------------------------------------------

He must went to online school of science because even an avg. moron with an intro to stats will not be that stupid. No wonder he is writing for RW. Just another cheerleader who needs to get paid for writing gossip.

What he wrote was astonishingly stupid. If you can't see that on the first read, you need to keep reading RW and stay informed with other dummies.

Could you name a few?

--------------------------------------------------------------

Just off top of my head. Greta Waitz, Ken Martin. There were others over the years. It just hit me as odd that these people who ran the most, got the cancer fairly early in life. I thought more you run, healthier you're, no?

Just because you run doesn't mean you have to be defensive about it. It is what it is. These studies that are coming up are far from definitive but shouldn't be ignored. Do you actually think O'Keefe and Thompson are wasting time using NIH money to upset you? They were both serious runners themselves who championed running.

Taco Truck wrote:

Could you name a few?

--------------------------------------------------------------

Just off top of my head. Greta Waitz, Ken Martin. There were others over the years. It just hit me as odd that these people who ran the most, got the cancer fairly early in life. I thought more you run, healthier you're, no?

Just because you run doesn't mean you have to be defensive about it. It is what it is. These studies that are coming up are far from definitive but shouldn't be ignored. Do you actually think O'Keefe and Thompson are wasting time using NIH money to upset you? They were both serious runners themselves who championed running.

I agree. After close to forty years largely on the other side of the fence, I've changed my views dramatically in the last year regarding the long-term bealth benefits (and dangers) of high-mileage training. And I think it's especially notable that Paul Thompson seems to have changed his views very recently, after over forty years as one of the most knowledgeable medical researchers and advocates of the health benefits of running.

Cancer is very common. Just because some athletes get cancer, doesn't mean athletics causes cancer. If you can't grasp that, quit acting like you understand statistics and science.

The scientists and/or journalists involved in pieces like these usually have an axe to grind, and tailor their studies and research to back it up.

In other words, B-U-L-L-X-H-I-T!

[quote]Horst Girth wrote:

The scientists and/or journalists involved in pieces like these usually have an axe to grind, and tailor their studies and research to back it up/quote]

That's true; at the very least, they have a confirmation bias. But that doesn't mean that the underlying data are useless. And when you see a careful observer change his long-held views, pay attention.

Taco Truck wrote:

Could you name a few?

--------------------------------------------------------------

Just off top of my head. Greta Waitz, Ken Martin. There were others over the years. It just hit me as odd that these people who ran the most, got the cancer fairly early in life. I thought more you run, healthier you're, no?

The relationship is that they both went to doctors and took doctor's advice, not that they ran.

The percentage of people who go to doctors and die from cancer is much higher than the people who don't go to doctors. Runners who don't go to doctors are much less likely to get cancer at all.

After running for 45 years, 50+ marathons, some ultra trail races, etc. etc., at age 60 I experienced sustained ventricular tachycardia after a 10K trail race (190 HBM that wouldn't come down). Had to be shocked back into a normal heart rhythm in an ambulance. This is a condition that has taken out some champion bikers and triathletes (Greg Welch). I survived but now have an implanted defibrillator and some on-going heart issues. I wouldn't poo-poo articles such as this. Here's an interesting video by the way (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Y6U728AZnV0) which mentions the death of Micah True, "hero" of Born To Run. I do think the doctor overstates his cautionary message, however, although the EKG he shows of VTach was similar to mine. I don't know if I would change anything because I dearly love every 60-70,000 miles I've run, but if anyone out there is getting by on caffeine and ibuprofen as I did, you might consider backing off and enjoy more moderate running at some point. I wanted to run into my 80s but that ain't gonna happen.

Look at the comments on the article...