Just read that some fit guy who has run many marathons died of heart attack. There is also that YouTube video of a cardiologist saying that running more than 30km per week is extremely bad for the heart.
Just read that some fit guy who has run many marathons died of heart attack. There is also that YouTube video of a cardiologist saying that running more than 30km per week is extremely bad for the heart.
the reason why running more than 30 miles per week (30km is nothing) is not generally harmful, is the intensity is generally lower the longer you run. Running 30km at 400 meter pace you might have a problem sure, at training pace not likely. Marathons sure, if you run them fast thats a lot of heart strain. Ive read runners conditioned with at least 35 miles per week were less likely to show signs of heart damage after a marathon. So you adapt, you get more economical and learn to pace safely. The rest you get after is better because running lowers heart rate. If you find your resting heart rate starts to rise, that may be over training. 50+ miles per week at marathon pace would cause that. but 70+ miles per week at training pace is still fine. You want the heart rate to be in a certain range, lower the older you are, to benefit the most in heart health.
This is a very complex problem with many answers. The truth is, running can be dangerous for the heart, especially in people who have underlying artery disease. The only way to know if running is safe for you is by going to your physician for annual checkups and having appropriate blood-work done. Ultimately an EKG may or may not be useful until the heart attack actually occurs.
As another note there is some interesting evidence that unlike what was previously thought, in runners, damage to the muscle of the heart is actually reparable and may actually be consistently reversed and overturned.
This is 100% not physiologically proven... but I've always viewed cardiac muscle the same as skeletal muscle in that doing too much work too often can do damage to that muscle. No one would do chest day 3-6 days in a row bc the risk for creating scar tissue with the lack of rest. But, you could do yoga after a hard chest day, even though the same muscles might be used, but at a much less intense level.
If every run is hard, the cardiac muscle can't repair itself and can be damaged. Moral of the story: doing anything at an intense level in excess is probably not good for your body in the long run.
No, it's good for the heart but if you have a preexisting heart condition, it could aggrevate it. That's what the best evidence says anyway.
There's always some contrarians claiming it's bad for you, same type of people now saying vegetables are bad for you and promoting eating only meat.
Wowwwdude wrote:
This is 100% not physiologically proven... but I've always viewed cardiac muscle the same as skeletal muscle in that doing too much work too often can do damage to that muscle. No one would do chest day 3-6 days in a row bc the risk for creating scar tissue with the lack of rest. But, you could do yoga after a hard chest day, even though the same muscles might be used, but at a much less intense level.
If every run is hard, the cardiac muscle can't repair itself and can be damaged. Moral of the story: doing anything at an intense level in excess is probably not good for your body in the long run.
People do though. The brosplits thing is actually a pretty ineffective training method that got popularised by steroid users that could get away with it.
Dead guy wrote:
Just read that some fit guy who has run many marathons died of heart attack. There is also that YouTube video of a cardiologist saying that running more than 30km per week is extremely bad for the heart.
I agree with one of the above posters, this is a complex answer with varying degrees of truth. Let's be clear though, 30k = 18.6 miles, 50k=31 miles. In my honest opinion, if you're a recreational runner doing it for fun and the love of running, somewhere between 30-40 mpw can keep you very fit and a strong runner. You won't be running for an OTQ, but to the average guy, you'll be quite fit. If you condition yourself appropriately over time, even upwards of 50-60 mpw could be fine, but that depends on more than just logging mileage. As I've progressed with my own running, you begin to learn, just because 6 miles is on the menu today, doesn't mean you're running @10k pace, or even marathon pace, it could be a very easy pace where your heart is in a lower zone and you're not putting much stress at all on the heart muscle, instead, you're in a zone promoting aerobic strength and efficiency. You should really one being doing 1-2 hard efforts a week, yet you can still run 5-6 days a week, but those other runs can just be running economy, feel good runs. The body does adapt over time, but only with appropriate rest and recovery. The guy running 70 mpw, with his nutrition dialed in, and likely been running for years knows the importance of rest, easy days, and active recovery, is far better off than the reckless 9-5er logging intense 20-30 mpw. Probably ran at a higher heart rate, and getting that extra mile or 2 just to humble brag on social media. To the non runner, 40 mpw is insane, but to the appropriately conditioned runner, 40 mpw likely feels perfectly healthy and normal. An on going discussion that we'll likely always have a different opinion on.
Heart attacks are caused by the blockage of coronary arteries which has to do with genetics, eating habits, etc. Not by running.
I forgot to add, here's some science
66 year old guy here - lifelong runner. Earlier this month had my first afib episode. Needed a 'cardioversion' to shock my heart back to normal. Scary thing to go through. It got me scouring the internet for info.
Bottom line: running does increase your chance of getting afib late in life.
Lots of information out there, here's one link:
I am a life-long runner who had a heart attack last year, despite good cholesterol levels, no family history, etc. Nothing could have surprised me more, and I very seriously considered giving running up.
Since then, I have seen some of the studies suggested that vigorous exercise can elevate risk of heart attack, which actually made me feel little better about why it might have happened. Still, I keep in mind that my cardiologist and my hematologist were clear about one prescription for me: keep moving.
Not doing as many miles as I used to, but I'm still running.
Yes this is correct. It’s a given fact that everyone that has been a runner, usually 30mpw or greater, eventually dies. The stats don’t lie.
Not running at all and no exercise has a greater chance of killing you than running 40 miles a week at a moderate pace. Which would you rather choose?
My thinking is that hard endurance training might be too stressful after a certain age. Everything wears out -- arteries stiffen, repair mechanisms degrade, etc., and this puts more strain on your cardio system.
From the studies I've seen, marathoners in their 30s have no issues, but older marathoners have way more calcium buildup than they should. But none of this is settled, and the lifespan of lifelong runners is still good regardless. Maybe dial back the serious training after middle age, and don't worry about it.
Cardiologist here wrote:
Yes this is correct. It’s a given fact that everyone that has been a runner, usually 30mpw or greater, eventually dies. The stats don’t lie.
It's also a given fact that everyone eventually dies. The stats don't lie.
Those marathon runners think that they can out run a bad diet, which you can't.
Yes, but so is not doing enough activity, eating too much, having too much stress, etc. Stop being a snowflake and get out there and grind and pray that your parents passed down superior genes.
I run 60-80km on uphill-downhill mountain trails. Not a snowflake. Still want to take care of my body.
1955 wrote:
I am a life-long runner who had a heart attack last year, despite good cholesterol levels, no family history, etc. Nothing could have surprised me more, and I very seriously considered giving running up.
Since then, I have seen some of the studies suggested that vigorous exercise can elevate risk of heart attack, which actually made me feel little better about why it might have happened. Still, I keep in mind that my cardiologist and my hematologist were clear about one prescription for me: keep moving.
Not doing as many miles as I used to, but I'm still running.
So basically steady running is good but heart exploding tempos and intervals are bad
My max HR is around 186 and I am 43 years old. When I run hard uphill it touches that number sometimes. Sometimes it is in the 170s and I hear/feel my heart beat.
No pain ever. Should I worry?