What are you doing to mitigate heart disease caused by running?

Here's a better study.

TLDR: On humans with decent stats. They found the mortality of the "strenuous" group was equal to "sedentary", so no actual penalty for strenuous, as opposed to moderate jogging, but no advantage either.

"Dose of Jogging and Long-Term Mortality

The Copenhagen City Heart Study"

http://www.onlinejacc.org/content/65/5/411.abstract

.

Results Compared with sedentary non-joggers, 1 to 2.4 h of jogging per week was associated with the lowest mortality (multivariable hazard ratio [HR]: 0.29; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.11 to 0.80). The optimal frequency of jogging was 2 to 3 times per week (HR: 0.32; 95% CI: 0.15 to 0.69) or ≤1 time per week (HR: 0.29; 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.72). The optimal pace was slow (HR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.24 to 1.10) or average (HR: 0.38; 95% CI: 0.22 to 0.66). The joggers were divided into light, moderate, and strenuous joggers. The lowest HR for mortality was found in light joggers (HR: 0.22; 95% CI: 0.10 to 0.47), followed by moderate joggers (HR: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.32 to 1.38) and strenuous joggers (HR: 1.97; 95% CI: 0.48 to 8.14).

Conclusions The findings suggest a U-shaped association between all-cause mortality and dose of jogging as calibrated by pace, quantity, and frequency of jogging. Light and moderate joggers have lower mortality than sedentary nonjoggers, whereas strenuous joggers have a mortality rate not statistically different from that of the sedentary group.

James o’keefe is a fcking moron and can kiss my dck

Alan55 wrote:

Conclusions The findings suggest a U-shaped association between all-cause mortality and dose of jogging as calibrated by pace, quantity, and frequency of jogging. Light and moderate joggers have lower mortality than sedentary nonjoggers, whereas strenuous joggers have a mortality rate not statistically different from that of the sedentary group.

Is strenuous jogging the same thing as running?

Alan55 wrote:

Conclusions The findings suggest a U-shaped association between all-cause mortality and dose of jogging as calibrated by pace, quantity, and frequency of jogging. Light and moderate joggers have lower mortality than sedentary nonjoggers, whereas strenuous joggers have a mortality rate not statistically different from that of the sedentary group.

This study is garbage. They divided the participants up into sedentary, light, moderate and strenuous runners. There were about 400+ in the sedentary group, 570 in the light group, 250-60 in the moderate group and . . . wait for it . . . just 40 in the strenuous group. The mortality rate in the strenuous group was 2. And the strenuous group was basically defined by running more than 4 hours a week. What many of us would consider a hobby jogger would be classified in this study as a member of the strenuous group.

Genetics, diet, stress, sitting all day at work, isolation, and air quality are all much larger factors in mortality that whether you run a lot or a little.

It's also ignoring healthspan. Staying in good physical condition helps keep you functioning at a higher level for longer.

If I live three years longer doing light exercise, but start struggling with daily activity because of age related fitness decline or muscle mass loss ten years early since im not offsetting with training...I know which one I would prefer.

I'm trying to figure out how to be a light jogger. Per the chart, I can run less than once per week and be a light jogger. So once per month/year/decade is good enough? Unsurprising that the light jogger group had so many.

This is a critical factor:

Skinnyfat/low muscle mass runners go into old age vulnerable to decrepitude. Lack of weight training coupled with low-protein/high carb diets set you up for disability and early mortality in old age. If you reach 60 and are not able to do ten pullups (men) and have a waistline that is substantially increased from age 20, then all the miles in the world are working against rather than for you.

YMMV wrote:

LM wrote:

It's also ignoring healthspan. Staying in good physical condition helps keep you functioning at a higher level for longer.

If I live three years longer doing light exercise, but start struggling with daily activity because of age related fitness decline or muscle mass loss ten years early since im not offsetting with training...I know which one I would prefer.

This is a critical factor:

https://www.mcknights.com/news/clinical-news/low-muscle-mass-explodes-risk-of-death-in-seniors-study-finds/

Skinnyfat/low muscle mass runners go into old age vulnerable to decrepitude. Lack of weight training coupled with low-protein/high carb diets set you up for disability and early mortality in old age. If you reach 60 and are not able to do ten pullups (men) and have a waistline that is substantially increased from age 20, then all the miles in the world are working against rather than for you.

I largely agree. This is one of the reasons why at 35 I plan to start doing a short lifting focused block in the winter, gaining 1-2 lbs each block. Yea, I'll slow my running and cycling subtlety, but I want the strength and muscle size for healthy aging.

I'm 72.

I listened to the O'Keefe Ted Talk. Interesting. It confirms what I learned from Dr. Kenneth Cooper 25 years ago. Health and miles look like a ski jump. A little running dramatically decreases mortality risk., similar to going down a ski jump. Then, somewhere between 12 and 30 miles, mortality begins to ramp up a little with increased mileage. Now, it doesn't increase back to the sedentary level. Instead, it looks like the ramp of a ski jump. Yes, it's more risk than ideal, but you're still way healthier than a sedentary person.

Cooper's premise, IIRC, was that the culprit was chronically high cortisol levels that never dropped due to distance training. At younger ages, the body could recover quickly, but with age, the body couldn't recover and as a result, it stays in a chronically high cortisol level.

My subsequent research indicates that chronic inflammation is also a factor.

I take supplements to reduce cortisol and inflammation (not anti-inflammatory OTC drugs) because there are links between high cortisol and inflammation with many of the diseases of aging... COPD, heart disease, cancer, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, diabetes, and more.

I also run less than 20 miles a week, but that's a training decision on what works best for me as a 400/800m M70 runner.

I'm not really interested in just mortality outcomes.

Here's a good study -- large sample sizes, including athletes at the higher end of frequency and intensity (about 4X more than the "recommended dose" of weekly exercise ... or normal training as most LR fans would call it).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6132728/pdf/11936_2018_Article_674.pdf

Thanks. This article is much better than the one that I posted. I didn't look at it carefully enough & it got some well deserved criticism. Conclusion from my reading: some small risks, maybe, but no big deal.

I consider the main risk of higher mileage as being the higher consumption of carbs and seed oils which lead to artherosclerosis. Consume more protein,saturated fats and omega 3's instead and that risk drops massively.

YMMV wrote:

LM wrote:

It's also ignoring healthspan. Staying in good physical condition helps keep you functioning at a higher level for longer.

If I live three years longer doing light exercise, but start struggling with daily activity because of age related fitness decline or muscle mass loss ten years early since im not offsetting with training...I know which one I would prefer.

This is a critical factor:

https://www.mcknights.com/news/clinical-news/low-muscle-mass-explodes-risk-of-death-in-seniors-study-finds/

Skinnyfat/low muscle mass runners go into old age vulnerable to decrepitude. Lack of weight training coupled with low-protein/high carb diets set you up for disability and early mortality in old age. If you reach 60 and are not able to do ten pullups (men) and have a waistline that is substantially increased from age 20, then all the miles in the world are working against rather than for you.

So this study seems to correspond to the lowest group, initially the lowest quintile of LMM, but then it was adjusted with their Specificity v Sensitivity analysis and I couldn't tell if that was more, or less, inclusive. Either way they basically said you're in this group, or your not.

That group was 65+ bottom 20% (ish) of LMM. The risk increase is absolutely INSANE, especially in female. OI = 64 when death probability annually is already 1%?! Yikes. But, what we don't know if how someone in say, the 40th percentile, 50th percentile, or 60th percentile fares. Are you fairly okay if you're "average" for your age group? How much extra benefit does moving up into the upper quintile or quartile seem to yield?

Would be interesting to see one that looks across from trends, instead of the binary yes/no of this study. Either way, it's a pretty decent sample size (admittedly specific to Brazilians) showing a very strong, dramatic trend. Definitely suggests you don't want to be on the skinnier side amongst your peers as you age.

Alan55 wrote:

Thanks. This article is much better than the one that I posted. I didn't look at it carefully enough & it got some well deserved criticism. Conclusion from my reading: some small risks, maybe, but no big deal.

This is my understanding of the trend, yes. I think AFib risk rises quite a bit, but is offset by other benefits and the dangers of increases in calcification as are of yet unknown. All causes mortality seems to be similar to better than sedentary populations. Healthspan seems to be improved though, and as I argued before I would take a small drop in lifespan if it significantly extends my healthspan and QOL.

YMMV wrote:

I consider the main risk of higher mileage as being the higher consumption of carbs and seed oils which lead to artherosclerosis. Consume more protein,saturated fats and omega 3's instead and that risk drops massively.

You don't have to eat more carbs though, so that's not an inherent risk of increased running.

I think we've discussed diet before. I generally agree with most of your tenants, outside of your disdain for vegetables. The higher protein targets for active individuals, increased omega 3, decrease seed oils and processed foods I completely support. I don't love carbs (dislike grains overall), but I'm not sure I see them as being as bad as you do, especially in the context of an active lifestyle.

Most high-mileage runners I know are high-carb as well, in fact use miles to facilitate what I consider a carb addiction. I certainly was, and developed heart problems as a result, which I overcame with major adjustments in diet.

If you are filling the extra energy requirement with healthy, non-seed oil fats instead of more beer, starches and fruit, then you are doing it right. (As far as I can tell, the problems posed by vegetables tend to be more autoimmune issues and likely cancer). Fats not carbs for energy is the message that needs to get out for long-term health.

LM wrote:

YMMV wrote:

I consider the main risk of higher mileage as being the higher consumption of carbs and seed oils which lead to artherosclerosis. Consume more protein,saturated fats and omega 3's instead and that risk drops massively.

You don't have to eat more carbs though, so that's not an inherent risk of increased running.

I think we've discussed diet before. I generally agree with most of your tenants, outside of your disdain for vegetables. The higher protein targets for active individuals, increased omega 3, decrease seed oils and processed foods I completely support. I don't love carbs (dislike grains overall), but I'm not sure I see them as being as bad as you do, especially in the context of an active lifestyle.

Most high-mileage runners I know are high-carb as well, in fact use miles to facilitate what I consider a carb addiction. I certainly was, and developed heart problems as a result, which I overcame with major adjustments in diet.

If you are filling the extra energy requirement with healthy, non-seed oil fats instead of more beer, starches and fruit, then you are doing it right. (As far as I can tell, the problems posed by vegetables tend to be more autoimmune issues and likely cancer). Fats not carbs for energy is the message that needs to get out for long-term health.

YMMV wrote:

I consider the main risk of higher mileage as being the higher consumption of carbs and seed oils which lead to artherosclerosis. Consume more protein,saturated fats and omega 3's instead and that risk drops massively.

LOL, where do you people get all this sort of stuff from?

Man, I am not trying to live forever. I have made it to 40 and I have a loving family and a nice life. I am more frightened of political upheaval than heart attacks. If it s my time to go, I hope it's on the back end of a hard long run. At least 10 miles in so I feel like I got something done that day, you know? I at least want to have a good sweat going. Too many people do the "at the finish line" thing. I want mine to be alone on a nice trail. No drama.