NY Times: "Running may be the single most effective exercise to increase life expectancy"

kanny wrote:

Well, running can easily ruin one's knees and cause one to age prematurely. There's no denying that.

yahrite wrote:

How can you believe fake news from the failing New York Times. Running ruins your knees and ages you prematurely but the mainstream media keeps pushing it.

Running on grass and dirt doesn't ruin your knees.

4runner wrote:

Running on grass and dirt doesn't ruin your knees.

Nor does any other surface, a certain percentage of the population is going to get arthritis no matter what they do. If they happen to have run everyone puts 2 and 2 together making 5.

"CONCLUSIONS:

Running significantly reduced OA and hip replacement risk due to, in part, running's association with lower BMI, whereas other exercise increased OA and hip replacement risk."

This is completely false. Light running can be very beneficial towards the increase of life expectancy however competitive distance running can be very harmful to the body. Good solid cardio as in jogging and light workouts for upwards of 30 minutes a day is very healthy. Running 100+ Mile weeks intense interval training can actually have a reverse effect and be very damaging. I know this from direct experience:

I was a competitive distance runner for nearly 20 years. I ran my first race at age of 9 and continued to compete until around the age of 30. I am now 34 years old. In college I competed very hard and was eager to reach my potential it controlled my life and who I was, which is not the damaging part. However at the age of 28 I started experience abnormalities in my EKG's and at age 32 I collapsed and was diagnosed with a 90+% blocked LAD (Left Anterior Descending Artery) also known as the Widow Maker. When asked how long I had probably had this issue my cardiologist explained that this is not something that just happens over night however it was something that could have be brought on by a number of things Genetics, Earlier Injury, and a Plaque Buildup which could have been deposited from over eversion forcing blood through the arteries during intense physical activity.

The problem is runners want to think that running is incredibly healthy and a huge benefit of longevity when it can actually be the exact opposite. I am not a doctor and what I am saying is not based on research or fact, but what I am saying comes from the experience of having Surgeries and cardiovascular invasive procedures done, long hours and days in a hospital bed asking cardiologists "Why me why did this happen?" I always took care of myself and thought the same thing that all runners think it is not going to happen to me. What running did do for me is allow me to feel the pain that would have killed me before the heart attack, but running is not a direct correlation toward longevity luck is and good genes are.

FR wrote:

"Running up to 20 miles per week was associated with a significantly reduced risk of death, with the largest benefit observed in those who ran between 10 to 15 miles weekly (HR 0.73; 95% CI 0.60–0.89). For those who ran 20 to 25 miles and more than 25 miles per week, however, there was a nonsignificant 10% and 5% reduction in all-cause mortality. Similarly, the mortality benefit was observed in individuals who ran two to five days per week, but the benefit began turning in the other direction when subjects ran six or seven days per week. At six and seven days, the reduction in all-cause mortality was not statistically significant"

Obviously this study is by no means definitive, and correlation does not equal causation. But it's still interesting that running more correlated with fewer benefits.

I wonder if this is because of the increase in oxygen processed? More oxygen implies more oxygen radicals, and most people wouldn't increase their anti-oxidant intake to keep pace? Just a thought.

"I am not a doctor and what I am saying is not based on research or fact, but what I am saying comes from the experience of having Surgeries and cardiovascular invasive procedures done"

This is why we don't do studies on anecdotes, we do them on large numbers.

John Utah wrote:

Wait! The researchers are saying that exercise is good for your health? Who knew?

Imagine that - daily exercise, healthly diet, no smoking or drugs and the world would be a better place (and the medical system would deflate to more manageable & affordable levels) 😉

More fake news, study doesn't include runners who get hit by cars while listening to music, fall off cliffs when checking Fitbit for split time, etc.

I don't think competitive running, high mileage, regular speed workouts, etc., are detrimental to health & longevity...so I'm not buying it. Look at Whitlock who lived to 86. All those marathons and mileage he ran through his 50s, 60s, & 70s. Though he sadly passed away from cancer, he exceeded the life expectancy of males by over several years.

There's also Frank Shorter who still runs almost daily, and he's in his 70s I believe. And in my masters running club we have numerous men & women in their 70s & 80s who have been doing speed workouts and racing for decades with no signs of health problems other than some orthopedic issues.

There are so many more examples out there...just start checking the Boston results for the old Bucks 😉

Corey Duquette wrote:

... my cardiologist explained that this is not something that just happens over night however it was something that could have be brought on by a number of things Genetics, Earlier Injury, and a Plaque Buildup which could have been deposited from over eversion forcing blood through the arteries during intense physical activity.

So your doctor said "I don't know, it could have been caused by a number of things," and you conclude that it came from intense running? Are you sure that artery blockage wasn't in your brain?

Where do studies come from?

ExpertKipWatcher wrote:

"I am not a doctor and what I am saying is not based on research or fact, but what I am saying comes from the experience of having Surgeries and cardiovascular invasive procedures done"

This is why we don't do studies on anecdotes, we do them on large numbers.

You must have missed where the doctor said, "and a Plaque Buildup which could have been deposited from over eversion forcing blood through the arteries during intense physical activity.""Genetics" is another way to say "I have no idea but I have to say this because everyone does." Earlier Injury could include running induced.

Corey Dumbquette wrote:

Corey Duquette wrote:

... my cardiologist explained that this is not something that just happens over night however it was something that could have be brought on by a number of things Genetics, Earlier Injury, and a Plaque Buildup which could have been deposited from over eversion forcing blood through the arteries during intense physical activity.

So your doctor said "I don't know, it could have been caused by a number of things," and you conclude that it came from intense running? Are you sure that artery blockage wasn't in your brain?

blerblez wrote:

You must have missed where the doctor said, "and a Plaque Buildup which could have been deposited from over eversion forcing blood through the arteries during intense physical activity."

"Genetics" is another way to say "I have no idea but I have to say this because everyone does." Earlier Injury could include running induced.

Corey Dumbquette wrote:

So your doctor said "I don't know, it could have been caused by a number of things," and you conclude that it came from intense running? Are you sure that artery blockage wasn't in your brain?

Sounds like a ridiculous explanation of his problem. If it was true, wouldn't runners be over represented in the population with plaque buildup? If anything, it's the opposite.

kanny wrote:

Where do studies come from?

Ideally thousands of randomly sampled individuals where the effects of the unusual are seen to be just that.

These studies are so wide and broad it they lose all meaning.

Runners tend to be small build, and smaller people live longer than big people.

Runners tend to be mindful of a myriad of other healthy behaviors, not just the running part. People that are runners probably at least watch what they eat to a point, they probably do not smoke, they do not over eat regularly, and they probably do not suffer from some inherited disease (that would prevent them from becoming runners in the first place.)

Your family history is going to be the biggest determining factor re: your life span assuming you are not engaging some real high risk behaviors/jobs.

Being a "runner" and adopting that lifestyle helps to steer one clear of the many terrible things that could lead to a shorter life. Say compared being a "runner" to someone involved in the music scene where there is lots of late nights, drugs, drinking, and smoking.

One of the amusing things when people critcise studies is that they assume that the people carrying out the studies are unaware of confounding factors and pretend no such thing exists.

It's been my experience that runners are not more health conscious than anyone else, outside of the fact that their hobby involves exercise. Runners have some of the WORST diets of anyone I know. "If the furnace is hot enough...", they reason, as they scarf down another slice of pizza. "I just ran 10 miles, I can eat whatever I want!"

I don't know any runners who smoke, but I know lots who overeat daily, and some with high cholesterol and even diabetes.

Besides, I don't run to live longer anyway. I run because I love it. If I had a choice of being a runner and dying at 70 or being a non-runner and dying at 90, I'd take being a runner and dying sooner every time.

You did not read my post to entirety. If you did you would have understood the part were it says "a number of things". With this being said check yourself before you start the name calling. My reason for saying something which I have a right to is coming from someone who was at one point a national level distance runner and indicating that some peoples bodies simply can not handle certain levels of running. The article indicated that running may be great for longevity which I never argued what I did mention from personal experience is for some like myself running may be a deterrent.

I assume they do, but the headline is "running adds X years to your life" not adopting healthy lifestyle choices. I'd say being a runner is a marker of a person that adopts healthy choices, but not the proximate cause of the longer life.

Grim Reaper might visit wrote:

It's been my experience that runners are not more health conscious than anyone else, outside of the fact that their hobby involves exercise. Runners have some of the WORST diets of anyone I know. "If the furnace is hot enough...", they reason, as they scarf down another slice of pizza. "I just ran 10 miles, I can eat whatever I want!"

I don't know any runners who smoke, but I know lots who overeat daily, and some with high cholesterol and even diabetes.

Besides, I don't run to live longer anyway. I run because I love it. If I had a choice of being a runner and dying at 70 or being a non-runner and dying at 90, I'd take being a runner and dying sooner every time.

If you think runners have the worst diets then you must not spend time around many non runners. You have a skewed perspective.