Wall Street Journal: Don't run more than 35 mpw

So 10hr/wk is better than 5hr/wk, which is better than 2.5hr/wk, which is still better than nothing.

So, 10 hr/wk....that is 84 minutes per day.

At a relative easier pace of 8:00 / mile that works out to just about 75 miles per week.

So which is correct? 35 miles per week or 10 hr/wk?

The James O'Keefe exercise doc is an ahole and has an agenda to push that extreme exercise is bad for you. WSJ appeals to hustle bustle New Yorkers who buy into the nonsense

35 mpw? LOL. I probably do 2-3 mpw (sprinting) and I am a lot fitter (in terms of BUFF/SHREDDED) than any of you guys.

Seems like the WSJ is trapped into this "everything in moderation BS". Trans fat, pasta/grains, sugar, running etc.

If they were smart they'd look into some of the amazing transformations CrossFit athletes have gone through: broad shoulders, wide back, thick legs, huge biceps, overall GREAT PACKAGE.

But yeah, continue running 35mpw you guys...

X FIT BRO THE REAL ONE 1 wrote:

35 mpw? LOL. I probably do 2-3 mpw (sprinting) and I am a lot fitter (in terms of BUFF/SHREDDED) than any of you guys.

Seems like the WSJ is trapped into this "everything in moderation BS". Trans fat, pasta/grains, sugar, running etc.

If they were smart they'd look into some of the amazing transformations CrossFit athletes have gone through: broad shoulders, wide back, thick legs, huge biceps, overall GREAT PACKAGE.

But yeah, continue running 35mpw you guys...

Could you run a marathon on 3 miles of sprints a week?

X FIT BRO THE REAL ONE 1 wrote:

35 mpw? LOL. I probably do 2-3 mpw (sprinting) and I am a lot fitter (in terms of BUFF/SHREDDED) than any of you guys.

Seems like the WSJ is trapped into this "everything in moderation BS". Trans fat, pasta/grains, sugar, running etc.

If they were smart they'd look into some of the amazing transformations female CrossFit athletes have gone through: broad shoulders, wide back, thick legs, huge biceps, overall GREAT PACKAGE.

But yeah, continue running 35mpw you guys...

yeah, androgirls...

Sounds like it was written by someone who did crew.

I suggest reading Alex Hutchison at Runnersworld for an initial take. For one thing, different kinds of plaque involved.

Is there good plaque and bad plaque?

which conclusion to draw? wrote:

Is there good plaque and bad plaque?

The doctors are starting to theorize this. Read the article.

Dense plaque is less likely to break off and cause a heart attack or stroke.

Also, others may want to read this:

Hutch often does a counter-argument to these "studies." So look to him whenever Dr. James O'Keefe decides to push his agenda.

Quote from Hutch's article:

Here’s what Ahmed Merghani, the cardiologist who presented the findings, said at the conference: “For me, the plaque morphology and what a plaque looks like is more important than the presence or absence of atherosclerosis. Because different types of plaques relate (to) different prognoses. So if you’ve got a plaque which is rich in calcium, this is a stable plaque. But if you’ve got a plaque which is soft and full of lipids, then this can later fissure and cause problems.”

Another quote:

It’s also worth looking more broadly at the determinants of cardiovascular health. Plaques that partially block arteries are certainly a concern; but long-term exercisers actually have coronary arteries that can dilate significantly more than non-exercisers. In fact, as Michael Joyner pointed out in an email, the autopsy of Clarence DeMar (“Mr. Marathon”), published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1961, found that though he had some mild atherosclerosis, his coronary arteries were actually two or three times wider than normal!

Ok, thanks piano man.

Its true that plaque that is less dense can fissure, a piece can break off and cause problems. But typically the piece travels to the brain and causes a TIA or stroke, not an MI. The reason is that the less dense plaque typically is not at a point yet that it creates significant coronary stenosis, so the piece travels, instead of plugging the coronary artery (Unless its a big piece). The more calcified plaques, while inherently more stable, typically create greater stenotic areas, and in the presence of heavy physical activity can precipitate cardiac ischemia and the potential for an MI.

Ya ya ya wrote:

So 10hr/wk is better than 5hr/wk, which is better than 2.5hr/wk, which is still better than nothing.

So, 10 hr/wk....that is 84 minutes per day.

At a relative easier pace of 8:00 / mile that works out to just about 75 miles per week.

So which is correct? 35 miles per week or 10 hr/wk?

Well, one is a peer-reviewed article in a publication for American Heart Association. The other is an unpublished conference presentation. And since there is no link to the second paper, there is no way to examine their methodology (or its flaw).

It's up to you to decide which one is more credible.

I suspect there may be an increased endothelial shear stress induced by exercise which, when taken to the extreme, may compromise vascular endothelial health. This, in combination with the real possibility of exercise influenced dietary changes could lead to a paradoxical increase in atherosclerotic coronary artery disease in athletes. The data surrounding coronary calcium (in the extreme presence of lack thereof) is pretty darn convincing. It isn't completely unfeasible to make a case for a causal relationship here. We already know that extreme exercise can lead to deleterious effects on the heart. A good example is the Phidippides cardiomyopathy. This is not an assault on endurance athletes, it is simply an investigation as to whether ultra endurance training is truly without some as yet unidentified risk. We would not be very good scientists/physicians if we did not at least investigate this. This is especially true with the rising boom of endurance races in the general public (who may possess more traditional Framingham risk factors). If, at the end of these investigations, it turns out that endurance training, even in the extreme form, is beneficial....we will all be very happy. Until then, let's continue to apply a deliberate and open mind to the investigation.

good discussion....bump

I have no problem believing that it's possible to overtrain for long periods of time and predispose yourself to all sorts of problems - from shin splints to reduced immune function and maybe even heart problems.

The issue I have with studies such as these that put a number out there, whether it's 20 miles a week or 35 miles a week or 100 miles a week is that the number of weekly miles tells you almost nothing about the stress on the individual.

For example, 35 miles a week is a very different stress if you run it at 5 minutes per mile as opposed to 10 min per mile. It's a different stress if you run 7x 5 mile runs per week or 5x7 mile runs per week or 3 tens and a 5 miler or a single 35 mile run once a week.

It's a different stress in 100 degree weather vs. 50 degree weather vs. 0 degree weather. It's different at 8,000 ft of altitude vs sea level. It's a different stress for someone who has 10 years of 100 mile weeks under his or her belt vs. someone who started running last week. It's different for someone who has all day to run, eat and sleep vs. someone who commutes 2 hours a day to a stressful job.

So any study that pulls a specific weekly mileage number out of their ass and says its the limit for anyone is bullshit.