Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Too many marathons very bad for you!
Options
-
30-11-2012 4:58pm
Comments
-
Score!!!
*goes back to bed!*0 -
Interesting that their expert panel of cardiologists are from Kansas City, Missouri, where they have one of the highest rates of obesity in the United States (and by that logic one of the highest obesity rates in the world). Which do you think poses a greater health risk; running too many marathons, or obesity? I think they have their priorities wrong.“In contrast, running too fast, too far, and for too many years may speed one’s progress towards the ?nish line of life.”0
-
Come on Krusty, it's in the Indo, therefore it must be right.
I wonder what Dave Brady would make of that article.0 -
http://www.runnersworld.com/health/too-much-running-myth-rises-again
Here is the Runner's World response. From what I can tell- this "study" is nothing new and comes from the same guys who to appear to have a very vested interest in the fad fitness program, Crossfit. Letsrun has a lot of threads on this right now- generally discounting it.....this just does't pass the "common sense" test for me so....meh0 -
TFBubendorfer wrote: »I wonder what Dave Brady would make of that article.
:D
I can only presume from the article (which as you say must be true) that he (and probably myself as well) died several years ago, but just hasn't noticed yet.
I hope Yiannis Kouros has his life insurance well up to date!!0 -
Advertisement
-
"They cite the example of Micah True, the hero of the book Born to Run about ultra-endurance running.
He died in March, aged 58, on a 12-mile training run in New Mexico. He routinely ran a marathon a day, sometimes more.
They believe that decades of such exertion led him to develop Phidippides cardiomyopathy."
Great example to use someone who runs 170 miles a week on average for 20 years ? - source wikipedia.0 -
Krusty_Clown wrote: »Interesting that their expert panel of cardiologists are from Kansas City, Missouri, where they have one of the highest rates of obesity in the United States (and by that logic one of the highest obesity rates in the world). Which do you think poses a greater health risk; running too many marathons, or obesity? I think they have their priorities wrong.
That's as bad an assumption to take from the BMJ authors, as the Indo takes with its headline. Why bring obesity into the discussion? The authors aren't against regular exercise, they are warning on the damage done by extreme exercise. I've no idea of what they mean by that, but this paper wouldn't have been printed if there wasn't decent research done on a statistically significant amount of data.
The full article costs €29, maybe one of our PhD multi-marathoners might buy it and decipher the research? (I'll chip in a fiver)Extract wrote:Run for your life … at a comfortable speed and not too far
James H O'Keefe1,2, Carl J Lavie3,4
+ Author Affiliations
1Saint Luke's Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Missouri, USA
2University Of Missouri-Kansas City School of Medicine, Kansas City, Missouri, USA
3Department of Cardiology, John Ochsner Heart and Vascular Institute, Ochsner Clinical School, The University of Queensland School of Medicine, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA
4Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA
Correspondence to
Dr James H O'Keefe, Saint Luke's Mid America Heart Institute,4330 Wornall Road, Suite 2000 Kansas City, MO 64111 phone: 816-751-8480 fax: 816-756-3645 jokeefe@saint-lukes.org
During the Greco-Persian War in 490 BCE, Phidippides, a 40-year-old herald messenger (professional running-courier) ran the 26 miles from a battlefield near Marathon, Greece, into Athens carrying momentous news of Greek victory. Upon arriving at the Acropolis, he proclaimed: ‘Joy, we have won!’ and then immediately collapsed and died.1 Fast-forward about 2500 years to an era when the baby-boomer's came of age and long-distance running boomed. The prevailing logic held that aerobic exercise is clearly good for one's health and that, if some is good, more must be better. In 1975, Dr Thomas Bassler, a physician/runner, boldly proclaimed that, if you could run a marathon, you were immune to death from coronary heart disease (CHD).2 This urban myth has long since been disproven; indeed an emerging body of evidence suggests the opposite: extreme endurance exercise may exact a toll on cardiovascular (CV) health.
‘Show me the bodies’
After our recent articles on this topic,1 ,3–5 Amby Burfoot, winner of the 1968 Boston Marathon and Editor-at-Large for Runner's World Magazine, challenged our assertions about the dangers of extreme endurance efforts by demanding, ‘Show me the bodies’. Amby has a good point: the risk of dropping dead in a marathon is remote, about 0.5 to 1 in 100,000 participants.6 But the occasional marathoner or triathlete who dies while strenuously exercising is the ‘canary in the coal mine’. Chronic extreme exercise appears to cause excessive ‘wear-and-tear’ on the heart, inducing adverse structural and electrical remodelling, which offsets some of the CV benefits and longevity improvements conferred by moderate physical activity. Thus, even though chronic extreme exercise may not kill you, it may erase many of the health advantages of regular moderate exercise.
Indeed, regular vigorous exercise is probably the single best step a person can take to ensure robust CV health. In a …0 -
http://www.runnersworld.com/health/too-much-running-myth-rises-again
the fad fitness program, Crossfit.
...what do u mean by that?0 -
To be fair, Crossfit is a fad, given it's fairly new and has an almost like religious following.
Same with the obstacle races, they can be considered a fad. Not necessarily a disparaging remark.
However, if a group connected with Crossfit is putting out ‘dodgy research’ about marathon running, it needs to be questioned. It does seem to be fatally flawed according to Runner’s World article.0 -
Kurt Godel wrote: »That's as bad an assumption to take from the BMJ authors, as the Indo takes with its headline.
I'm not making the connection that those who do not exercise are obese (far from it). What I am suggesting is that the purpose of alarmist articles like this is typically to benefit the authors of the study, who, if health was clearly at the top of their agenda, would (should) be focused on more pressing issues that create a greater risk of MURDER/DEATH/KILL!
Do you not see anything wrong with the headline:
Too many marathons can kill, warn doctors0 -
Advertisement
-
nerraw1111 wrote: »To be fair, Crossfit is a fad, given it's fairly new and has an almost like religious following.
Same with the obstacle races, they can be considered a fad. Not necessarily a disparaging remark.
However, if a group connected with Crossfit is putting out ‘dodgy research’ about marathon running, it needs to be questioned. It does seem to be fatally flawed according to Runner’s World article.0 -
Krusty_Clown wrote: »Which assumption? That Missouri has one of the highest densities of obese individuals in the world, or that obesity presents a greater health risk than exercise?Krusty_Clown wrote: »I'm not making the connection that those who do not exercise are obese (far from it). What I am suggesting is that the purpose of alarmist articles like this is typically to benefit the authors of the study, who, if health was clearly at the top of their agenda, would (should) be focused on more pressing issues that create a greater risk of MURDER/DEATH/KILL!
Do you not see anything wrong with the headline:
Too many marathons can kill, warn doctors
Of course I've a problem with those sort of headlines. I'd like to think that its not the case. However, if a study appears in a peer-reviewed journal, its already been subject to a certain amount of rigorous scientific testing, and should be given a lot more attention than any of the newspaper articles quoted. The newspapers seem to be saying "Born to Run guy died of a heart attack ergo multi marathons kill". Some posters here are saying "I've done multi marathons and didn't die of a heart attack ergo multo marathons don't kill" . If the discussion of this thread follows that line, fair enough, but its not going to prove anything. I'd really like to see the data the study is based on, everything else is conjecture.0 -
Krusty_Clown wrote: »Which assumption? That Missouri has one of the highest densities of obese individuals in the world, or that obesity presents a greater health risk than exercise?
I'm not making the connection that those who do not exercise are obese (far from it). What I am suggesting is that the purpose of alarmist articles like this is typically to benefit the authors of the study, who, if health was clearly at the top of their agenda, would (should) be focused on more pressing issues that create a greater risk of MURDER/DEATH/KILL!
Do you not see anything wrong with the headline:
Too many marathons can kill, warn doctors
The authors did not come up with the headline "Too many marathons can kill, warn doctors", the Independent did.0 -
Kurt Godel wrote: »That's as bad an assumption to take from the BMJ authors, as the Indo takes with its headline. Why bring obesity into the discussion? The authors aren't against regular exercise, they are warning on the damage done by extreme exercise. I've no idea of what they mean by that, but this paper wouldn't have been printed if there wasn't decent research done on a statistically significant amount of data.
The full article costs €29, maybe one of our PhD multi-marathoners might buy it and decipher the research? (I'll chip in a fiver)
I can probably post the full article, but am likely not allowed to0 -
-
I can probably post the full article, but am likely not allowed to
I'd use http://pastebin.com/ if I were you and link to that then.0 -
I read the article- its an opinion piece on various studies, rather than a study. I'm not qualified to comment on any conclusions reached. Key selected quotes (as I see them):In a study of 416 000 adults followed for a mean of 8 years, 40–50 min per day of vigorous exercise reduced risk of death by about 40% (figure 1).7 In that study, at about 45 min, a point of diminishing returns is reached whereby longer exercise efforts do not appear to translate into lower death risk.A trial randomised 60 male patients with CHD to vigorous exercise sessions of either 30 or 60 min.11 The 30 min exercise workouts improved arterial elasticity and produced minimal oxidant stress. In contrast, the 60 min sessions increased oxidant stress and worsened vascular stiffness as measured by pulse wave velocity, particularly in those over the age of 50. MRI scans of runners who have been participating in marathons for decades show a threefold increased incidence of scattered fibrosis and scarring in the walls of the atria, interventricular septum and RV (figure 3).12 Cardiologists from Minnesota evaluated a group of runners who had completed at least 25 marathons over 25 years and found a 60% increase in coronary plaque burden compared with sedentary age-matched controls.1 These findings were replicated by a group from Germany, who showed increased coronary plaque in 108 chronic marathoners compared with sedentary controls.13 This scarring can set the stage for dangerous heart rhythms, such as atrial fibrillation, which is increased approximately fivefold in veteran endurance athletes.10 Ventricular tachycardia and sudden cardiac arrest can also be seen in endurance athletes even in the absence of CHD and hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.Two very recent studies presented in abstract form at major national meetings may revolutionise our thinking about running and its health effects.16 ,17 One is a prospective observational study that followed 52 600 people for up to three decades.17 The 14 000 runners in that study had a 19% lower risk of death compared with the 42 000 non-runners. Yet, when they sub-grouped the runners by weekly mileage, those who ran over 20 or 25 miles per week seemed to lose their survival advantage over the non-runners (figure 4). On the other hand, those who ran between 5 and 20 miles total per week enjoyed a 25% decrease in risk of death during follow-up. The same pattern emerged for speed of running: the fast runners, those running typically over 8 miles an hour, appeared to get no mortality benefit compared with the non-runners, whereas those who fared best usually ran about 6–7 miles per hour—a comfortable jog for most people. In addition, the individuals who ran 6 or 7 days per week appeared to lose the mortality benefits, whereas the survival advantages accrued best for those who ran 2–5 days per week.Conclusion
The take home message for most is to limit one's vigorous exercise to 30–50 min/day. If one really wants to do a marathon or full-distance triathlon etc, it may be best to do just one or a few and then proceed to safer and healthier exercise patterns. On the other hand, light or moderate intensity exercise does not present the dose-dependent risks associated with excessive endurance exercise. A routine of moderate physical activity will add life to your years, as well as years to your life. In contrast, running too fast, too far, and for too many years may speed one's progress towards the finish line of life.0 -
Kurt Godel wrote: »I read the article- its an opinion piece on various studies, rather than a study. I'm not qualified to comment on any conclusions reached. Key selected quotes (as I see them):
It is a meta-analysis which is a valid method how studies like this are often carried out.0 -
Seems legit to me and utilises massive sample sizes in their own study and studies they reference. Headline in Indo is obviously a little over the top.
Would be interested to see if I have of the negative heart health effects they mention0 -
These findings were replicated by a group from Germany, who showed increased coronary plaque in 108 chronic marathoners compared with sedentary controls0
-
Advertisement
-
Anita Blow wrote: »Obesity is completely irrelevant.
Lets briefly discuss the counter-argument; how many people have taken up exercise in order to complete a marathon? How many have given up smoking (which kills 443,000 Americans every year)? How many have returned from an obese state (which kills 300,000 Americans every year)? How many people's lives have been prolonged, because they set themselves the goal of completing a marathon? You think that figure would be greater than 1 in every 500,000 Americans? So do I.0 -
Krusty_Clown wrote: »I did not say it was relevant to their study. I said they would be better off focusing their efforts on problems that are more prevalent. To quote their statistics, this issue affects 1 in 100,000 marathon participants. Let's very generously assume that 20% of Americans have completed a marathon (though I suspect the actual figure would be less than 10%). So, based on these quite generous numbers, this issue could possibly affect 1 out of every 500,000 Americans. At what point does something stop being statistically relevant and become mere coincidence? A similar number of Americans are killed falling out of bed every year (approximately 600). Perhaps the subject for another study, in which the recommendations might be that everyone should sleep on the floor, or avoid getting out of bed altogether?
Lets briefly discuss the counter-argument; how many people have taken up exercise in order to complete a marathon? How many have given up smoking (which kills 443,000 Americans every year)? How many have returned from an obese state (which kills 300,000 Americans every year)? How many people's lives have been prolonged, because they set themselves the goal of completing a marathon? You think that figure would be greater than 1 in every 500,000 Americans? So do I.0 -
All you say KC is true but doesn't invalidate this study. I'm sure somebody else is researching into the diseases you highlighted. The above study won't stop me exercising.Krusty_Clown wrote: »I did not say it was relevant to their study. I said they would be better off focusing their efforts on problems that are more prevalent. To quote their statistics, this issue affects 1 in 100,000 marathon participants. Let's very generously assume that 20% of Americans have completed a marathon (though I suspect the actual figure would be less than 10%). So, based on these quite generous numbers, this issue could possibly affect 1 out of every 500,000 Americans. At what point does something stop being statistically relevant and become mere coincidence? A similar number of Americans are killed falling out of bed every year (approximately 600). Perhaps the subject for another study, in which the recommendations might be that everyone should sleep on the floor, or avoid getting out of bed altogether?
Lets briefly discuss the counter-argument; how many people have taken up exercise in order to complete a marathon? How many have given up smoking (which kills 443,000 Americans every year)? How many have returned from an obese state (which kills 300,000 Americans every year)? How many people's lives have been prolonged, because they set themselves the goal of completing a marathon? You think that figure would be greater than 1 in every 500,000 Americans? So do I.0 -
The study also ignores any type of 'quality of life' factors.
The level of exercise I do these days has increased my quality of life immeasurably. If it happens to mean I kick the bucket at 85 instead of 90 then so be it. One thing it certainly does is massively reduce the chances of me dropping dead of a heart attack at 50.0 -
tbh there is nothing wrong with the study or it's findings but there is in the amateur journalism to find a sensational headline every two weeks for their paycheque.
Hospitals 'letting patients die to save money’
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9385674/Hospitals-letting-patients-die-to-save-money.html#
Calling someone 'fatty' could become a hate crime
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9297496/Calling-someone-fatty-could-become-a-hate-crime.html
Obesity a 'derogatory' word, says Nice
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9252311/Obesity-a-derogatory-word-says-Nice.html
Revealed: sex hormone plan to feminise Hitler
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/8701024/Revealed-sex-hormone-plan-to-feminise-Hitler.html
Why not brushing your teeth can kill you
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/7972823/Why-not-brushing-your-teeth-can-kill-you.html
Smoking in pregnancy 'breeds criminals'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/8134439/Smoking-in-pregnancy-breeds-criminals.html
Limit TV watching to 2 hours to live longer, say scientists
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9386569/Limit-TV-watching-to-2-hours-to-live-longer-say-scientists.html
Want to lose weight? Then eat extra helpings of yoghurt and nuts
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/8592503/Want-to-lose-weight-Then-eat-extra-helpings-of-yoghurt-and-nuts.html
Fried food heart risk 'a myth'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9035809/Fried-food-heart-risk-a-myth.html0 -
All you say KC is true but doesn't invalidate this study. I'm sure somebody else is researching into the diseases you highlighted. The above study won't stop me exercising.
'Survival of the fittest': The guy who does 1-2 hours of intensive exercise every day doesn't live the longest. I would hope that wouldn't come as a shock to anyone. 'High-intensity exercise sessions lasting beyond 1–2 h' causes stress to the cardiovascular system, but typically, any damage to the CV system is repaired over the course of a week. Isn't that kind of the point of these workouts? And yes, if you do them all of the time, eventually, the healing process will be affected. Again, not rocket science.
'Cardiologists from Minnesota evaluated a group of runners who had completed at least 25 marathons over 25 years'. Of course running for 25 years is going to leave it's mark. In the same way that smoking, drinking, or sitting on your ass for 25 years is going to have some form of physical finger-print. I've been to Minnesota. They live on a diet of cheese-curds and fortified wine. Coronary plaque is what holds them together.
'Mice after being forced to run to exhaustion every day for 4 months showed the same cardiac enlargement'. Seriously? How does this relate to runners in any possible way? Even the utra-nuts don't subject themselves to that level of madness. Thankfully the mice (who incidentally survived), returned to full health, soon after being released from the 'Iron Mouse' program.
The article holds up Caballo Blanco as an example to substantiate their argument. The guy lived with the Tarahumara Indians, surviving on a diet of berries, peyote and cactus-brewed alcohol. He died at age 58, living among a people whose average life expectancy is 45 years. Sounds like a success story to me!
The only thing you can really surmise from the study article, is that the right amount of exercise, is somewhere between 'none' and 'running to exhaustion every day for four months'.0 -
Krusty_Clown wrote: »
The article holds up Caballo Blanco as an example to substantiate their argument. The guy lived with the Tarahumara Indians, surviving on a diet of berries, peyote and cactus-brewed alcohol. He died at age 58, living among a people whose average life expectancy is 45 years. Sounds like a success story to me!
Brilliant0 -
Seems legit to me and utilises massive sample sizes in their own study and studies they reference. Headline in Indo is obviously a little over the top.
Would be interested to see if I have of the negative heart health effects they mention
http://www.runnersworld.com/health/too-much-running-myth-rises-again
See especially how the data was normalised, which would make the findings essentially meaningless.0 -
Krusty_Clown wrote: »I did not say it was relevant to their study. I said they would be better off focusing their efforts on problems that are more prevalent. To quote their statistics, this issue affects 1 in 100,000 marathon participants. Let's very generously assume that 20% of Americans have completed a marathon (though I suspect the actual figure would be less than 10%). So, based on these quite generous numbers, this issue could possibly affect 1 out of every 500,000 Americans. At what point does something stop being statistically relevant and become mere coincidence? A similar number of Americans are killed falling out of bed every year (approximately 600). Perhaps the subject for another study, in which the recommendations might be that everyone should sleep on the floor, or avoid getting out of bed altogether?
Lets briefly discuss the counter-argument; how many people have taken up exercise in order to complete a marathon? How many have given up smoking (which kills 443,000 Americans every year)? How many have returned from an obese state (which kills 300,000 Americans every year)? How many people's lives have been prolonged, because they set themselves the goal of completing a marathon? You think that figure would be greater than 1 in every 500,000 Americans? So do I.
If every researcher focused on problems that were more prevalent there would be only one subject under research in the world!
The authors (in another article) acknowledge the many health benefits of exercise before explaining that there may be a specific adverse effect of excessive exercise in some but not all athletes:
"A daily routine of physical activity is highly beneficial in the prevention and treatment of many prevalent chronic diseases, especially of the cardiovascular (CV) system. However, chronic, excessive sustained endurance exercise may cause adverse structural remodeling of the heart and large arteries......Not all veteran extreme endurance athletes develop pathological remodeling, and indeed lifelong exercisers generally have low mortality rates and excellent functional capacity." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22953596
So it seems there is sufficient justification (emerging evidence that excessive exercise can at times lead to cardiovascular pathology, even though in general cardiovascular effects of exercise are beneficial) to research the area. So that if the adverse effects are confirmed, means of prevention or treatment may be devised so that people can continue to exercise for the positive health effects.
IMO what they'll find with this is that only a minority of people with a specific genetic predisposition will be at risk (similar to hyponatremia which will only be fatal if you are one of the few who are genetically prediposed to not being able to control a particular hormone). So research which learns more about health effects (positive or adverse) of running is worthwhile but reading about it in the appropriate journals may be more advisable than newspapers.0 -
Advertisement
-
Krusty_Clown wrote: »I did not say it was relevant to their study. I said they would be better off focusing their efforts on problems that are more prevalent. To quote their statistics, this issue affects 1 in 100,000 marathon participants. Let's very generously assume that 20% of Americans have completed a marathon (though I suspect the actual figure would be less than 10%). So, based on these quite generous numbers, this issue could possibly affect 1 out of every 500,000 Americans. At what point does something stop being statistically relevant and become mere coincidence? A similar number of Americans are killed falling out of bed every year (approximately 600). Perhaps the subject for another study, in which the recommendations might be that everyone should sleep on the floor, or avoid getting out of bed altogether?
Lets briefly discuss the counter-argument; how many people have taken up exercise in order to complete a marathon? How many have given up smoking (which kills 443,000 Americans every year)? How many have returned from an obese state (which kills 300,000 Americans every year)? How many people's lives have been prolonged, because they set themselves the goal of completing a marathon? You think that figure would be greater than 1 in every 500,000 Americans? So do I.0
Advertisement