Here is an opinion from a cardiologist who has completed 54 marathons.
He stopped running them when research convinced him it was bad for your heart.
Here is an opinion from a cardiologist who has completed 54 marathons.
He stopped running them when research convinced him it was bad for your heart.
A Danish study even claimed recently that 'running too fast' can lead you to an early grave :
Turns out that they were basing that conclusion on the deaths of just two 'fast joggers' in the study :
I looked at the lifespans of Olympic middle and long distance finalists over the last 100 years some time ago. Not a very scientific look at all, but it was striking that the vast majority of elite runners live longer than they would have been expected to (for their time and location). Nearly all the finalists from the 60 and 64 Olympics are still with us, for example, and in their eighties or even nineties. Of course they might simply have remarkable genes that enabled them to reach the pinnacle of their sport in the first place, but then again their training would have been far more intense than a 'fast jogger' and all.
I think most of these studies are poorly done. They all fail to take into account that every person is different, and there are many, many other variables at play other than volume of running when it comes to how long one lives. I really wouldn’t worry about it.
A big review of studies that was performed in 2017 found that while the benefits of running do plateau after a certain point, they do not decline :
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/12/well/move/an-hour-of-running-may-add-seven-hours-to-your-life.htmlThe good news is that prolonged running does not seem to become counterproductive for longevity, he continues, according to the data he and his colleagues reviewed. Improvements in life expectancy generally plateaued at about four hours of running per week, Dr. Lee says. But they did not decline.
Coevett wrote:
A Danish study even claimed recently that 'running too fast' can lead you to an early grave :
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11385044/Fast-running-is-as-deadly-as-sitting-on-couch-scientists-find.htmlTurns out that they were basing that conclusion on the deaths of just two 'fast joggers' in the study :
https://www.cooperinstitute.org/2015/06/questionable-conclusion-regarding-risk-of-jogging-in-copenhagen-city-heart-study/I looked at the lifespans of Olympic middle and long distance finalists over the last 100 years some time ago. Not a very scientific look at all, but it was striking that the vast majority of elite runners live longer than they would have been expected to (for their time and location). Nearly all the finalists from the 60 and 64 Olympics are still with us, for example, and in their eighties or even nineties. Of course they might simply have remarkable genes that enabled them to reach the pinnacle of their sport in the first place, but then again their training would have been far more intense than a 'fast jogger' and all.
This Danish study was flawed. The group with « intensive » runners (3 or more times a week, faster than 6-7 mph) was supposed to have a higher risk, but the confidence interval was very wide, so no conclusions could be made concerning this group.
The only take home message from this study is that « light » jogging is correlated with a large mortality benefit.
Conclusion:
In regard to mortality, health care professionals should encourage inactive adults to perform leisure time physical activity and do not need to discourage adults who already participate in high-activity levels.
some day I'll be faster wrote:
I read that running beyond 60 minutes or more than an hour is bad for you and leads to earlier death; that studies have shown this. Does anyone have any thoughts on this?
Thoughts?
It is bullshit, there seems to be one group of researchers with an axe to grind churn out a story to this effect every 18 months. If I recall correctly in one "study", two runners died prematurely but they had no information on the cause of death but that didn't stop them claiming this as evidence that running "too much" causes early deaths.
You would have to be a fool to run more than an hour. I ALWAYS stop when I get to 59 minutes. Just the other day I was 3 miles out of town when I realized I had run an extra loop and I was at 59 minutes. It was a long walk back home but no way am I risking my life. I just shake my head when I hear of runners who say they ran for 62 or 63 minutes at one time. That's just insane.
down to 7.24 miles in 59 minutes....... wrote:
You would have to be a fool to run more than an hour. I ALWAYS stop when I get to 59 minutes. Just the other day I was 3 miles out of town when I realized I had run an extra loop and I was at 59 minutes. It was a long walk back home but no way am I risking my life. I just shake my head when I hear of runners who say they ran for 62 or 63 minutes at one time. That's just insane.
Yep I ran 62 minutes yesterday and my heart exploded now I am dead but it was worth it.
Let's not bury our heads in the sand. Running more than 3-5 miles a day doesn't really do much other than make you weird. Is it fine when you are young and there are a lot of people competing? Yes, and it can pave the way for a healthy lifestyle later on when everyone else is getting fat and sedentary. But when you get older, the whole competition thing is pretty pointless unless you are a pro and can make a living at it. The marathon and beyond crowd are pretty much nuts and self absorbed, not really healthy.
NEW STUDY FINDS LIVING WILL LEAD TO DEATH 100% OF THE TIME
When asked these questions my answer is always the same, "I don't run for my health."
How about the protective effect running has on osteoarthritis?
As long as there hasn't been any significant acute trauma to a joint and you're not overweight, regular running prevents osteoarthritis.
And this is whether you run 20 miles or 100 miles per week (what a deal!).
Now are sedentary middle-aged fellow humans don't want hear this as they suffer in great pain from OA and are consulting left & right with orthopedic surgeons about joint-replacement.
https://www.npr.org/2011/03/28/134861448/put-those-shoes-on-running-wont-kill-your-knees
Dick face head wrote:
train don't strain wrote:
High impact? Don't think so. High mileage might cause some repetitive strain injury if you do too much. But then so could low mileage if you do too much.
But high impact? No, distance running isn't high impact.
It is high impact you MASSIVE MORAN!
"You will know them by their fruits" (Matthew 7:15-20)
Despite your anonymous handle I always recognise you in threads by your inability to spell "moron" correctly.
I lolz every time.
Being sedentary is way worse than any amount of running. If someone can mindlessly slog three times a week for a total of 20 miles, get their 'moderate exercise' and feel good about it, that's good for them I guess. For me, I know I wouldn't be exercising at all if I didn't have a goal of doing my best in races.
joedirt wrote:
Let's not bury our heads in the sand. Running more than 3-5 miles a day doesn't really do much other than make you weird. Is it fine when you are young and there are a lot of people competing? Yes, and it can pave the way for a healthy lifestyle later on when everyone else is getting fat and sedentary. But when you get older, the whole competition thing is pretty pointless unless you are a pro and can make a living at it. The marathon and beyond crowd are pretty much nuts and self absorbed, not really healthy.
I think this is the answer for most of us.
Hit 3-5 miles a day. Run more if you want to be competitive on the local level or with yourself.
Run because you enjoy it.
Someone said upthread already that the doom-and-gloom studies aren’t designed well enough to be conclusive.
Anyone consider that since as a cohort runners tend to have more other comorbidities like OCD, eating disorders, etc., that could be skewing the numbers? Maybe it’s not your 100mpw even though your middle aged but the sleepless nights because you’re obsessing about other cr@p just as much that are setting you up for a coronary?
some day I'll be faster wrote:
I read that running beyond 60 minutes or more than an hour is bad for you and leads to earlier death; that studies have shown this. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Is that just something you have to accept if you're going to decide you'd like to see how fast you can be, that you'll have to accept it won't be good for you? So kind of like someone who loves an activity done in the sun, lets say beach volleyball or golfing, accepts that hours and hours of time in the sun will be bad for their skin (even with sunscreen), would a runner that wants to run more than 60 minutes or 20 miles per week have to accept that after those #'s it's about the running game only and may not be good for health? Or are these studies not supported.
Thoughts?
I've fallen down this rabbit hole too many times, here are a few thoughts bc I am about over this topic..
Someday we're all going to leave this beautiful existence, terrifying yet inevitable though. Too often in life, we get wrapped up in thoughts of mortality, what can help or prevent it, yet, in the end, it's inevitable..
Of course, running 26.2 miles on pavement is a bit much, so switch it up to the trails more often, but the take aways from those tests of endurance are life changing. If you're really worried about what running will do to you, take up another endeavor. Take a poll of the majority of runners, and I bet more runners than not report life happiness and self worth that carries over into life's other variables. If you really believe running more than 20 mpw is the do all, end all, than you'll fall for anything in life. We have a fraction of time here to enjoy ourselves, pursue relative excellence, and maybe inspire others along the way.
Random thought wrote:
Someone said upthread already that the doom-and-gloom studies aren’t designed well enough to be conclusive.
Anyone consider that since as a cohort runners tend to have more other comorbidities like OCD, eating disorders, etc., that could be skewing the numbers? Maybe it’s not your 100mpw even though your middle aged but the sleepless nights because you’re obsessing about other cr@p just as much that are setting you up for a coronary?
Yes, this is precisely the problem. There are plenty of people running 100mpw, but they aren't a typical cross-section of the population so it's very hard to make conclusions about the effects of running 100mpw in a cross-sectional study.
It's simple, your heart is like a battery., the more you stress it, the higher the risk of heart attack is.
We should naturally run and move like animals. You don't need stressful training sessions to be in good shape.