Jog slowly and not more than 2.5hrs a week or it will KILL YOU

rom · 17-02-2015 11:11pm

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/2051676/Tom%20Public/Marathon%20Talk/Does%20too%20much%20running%20kill%20you.doc

Great break down of this from marathon talk
http://www.marathontalk.com/podcast/episode_266_gemma_steel.php

. Basically the sample size is so small that the error bars for the results state that the results are you are half to twice as likely to die do what the media latched on to what the results said. So in a sense the report proves nothing due to error bars need to be taken into the account. The sample of people who fell into this category was like 50. So the media latched onto the red dot but didn't take the error bars into account.

Rantan · 19-02-2015 12:25pm

been dipping in and out of this thread so if Im repeating something thats already been discussed appologies.

It seems like there is something very obvious(to me anyway) that has been missed in all this debate around the affects of running.

Surely someone somewhere has surveyed the elite/professional/Olympic runners from say the 1920s, 30s, 40s etc and compiled mortality stats?

Quick wiki check on 1936 top 10 marathon finishers ages at death:
88
77
89
92
80
87
43(pulmonary embolism)!!
30(killed in WW2)
67
84
avg = 64.5(the 30 is dragging it down)
life expectancy for males born in 1911 = 61

I am assuming these guys ran more than 2.5hrs per week and probably had comparatively good lifestyles by their standards. It would be a relatively easy exercise to compile the data for the next 10 - 20 years and gather an idea of avg life expentency for a group of high mmile runners who would have roughly similar lifestyles.

sorry - dossing long enough now...back to work

tjis

daRobot · 19-02-2015 12:30pm

Without having any empirical evidence to know for sure, I personally think running on hard flat surfaces, has quite a negative effect on the body due to the impact of each step hitting the ground with such force.

I don't run often for that reason, and stick to swimming, rowing etc.

Also, an awful lot of people I know who run very frequently, look wrecked. Trim, yes, but not healthy.

walshb · 19-02-2015 12:38pm

daRobot wrote: »

Also, an awful lot of people I know who run very frequently, look wrecked. Trim, yes, but not healthy.

What's healthy?

Ososlo · 19-02-2015 12:38pm

daRobot wrote: »

Without having any empirical evidence to know for sure, I personally think running on hard flat surfaces, has quite a negative effect on the body due to the impact of each step hitting the ground with such force.

I don't run often for that reason, and stick to swimming, rowing etc.

Also, an awful lot of people I know who run very frequently, look wrecked. Trim, yes, but not healthy.

Can you elaborate a bit? Do you mean they look too thin?
Do they look less healthy than the overweight people you know?

Rantan · 19-02-2015 12:39pm

not sure I would agree on the flat surfaces argument?

Im 6' 4' 13 stone.

Granted when I started I was a heavy hitter in terms of form etc

however over the years I have managed to refine my form and foot strike to a point where I don't hit the ground with huge force.
I do think it is possible to run in a way that reduces impact to a manageable level..that's my personal opinion and based on my own experience and linking my own improved form over time with injury reduction... so not based on anything more scientific

walshb · 19-02-2015 12:40pm

I choose to run on solid surfaces to help prevent ankle twists. Sure, hard surfaces may be more damaging to my muscles, but running on softer ground is riskier as regards twists.

Dubgal72 · 19-02-2015 12:42pm

Rantan wrote: »

been dipping in and out of this thread so if Im repeating something thats already been discussed appologies.

It seems like there is something very obvious(to me anyway) that has been missed in all this debate around the affects of running.

Surely someone somewhere has surveyed the elite/professional/Olympic runners from say the 1920s, 30s, 40s etc and compiled mortality stats?

Quick wiki check on 1936 top 10 marathon finishers ages at death:
88
77
89
92
80
87
43(pulmonary embolism)!!
30(killed in WW2)
67
84
avg = 64.5(the 30 is dragging it down)
life expectancy for males born in 1911 = 61

I am assuming these guys ran more than 2.5hrs per week and probably had comparatively good lifestyles by their standards. It would be a relatively easy exercise to compile the data for the next 10 - 20 years and gather an idea of avg life expentency for a group of high mmile runners who would have roughly similar lifestyles.

sorry - dossing long enough now...back to work

tjis

Take out the outliers (oldest and youngest) and the average age is 76.9

vanderlyle · 19-02-2015 12:43pm

Dubgal72 wrote: »

Take out the outliers (oldest and youngest) and the average age is 76.9

Or take the median age and you get 82

robinph · 19-02-2015 12:46pm

Rantan wrote: »

been dipping in and out of this thread so if Im repeating something thats already been discussed appologies.

It seems like there is something very obvious(to me anyway) that has been missed in all this debate around the affects of running.

Surely someone somewhere has surveyed the elite/professional/Olympic runners from say the 1920s, 30s, 40s etc and compiled mortality stats?

Quick wiki check on 1936 top 10 marathon finishers ages at death:
88
77
89
92
80
87
43(pulmonary embolism)!!
30(killed in WW2)
67
84
avg = 64.5(the 30 is dragging it down)
life expectancy for males born in 1911 = 61

I am assuming these guys ran more than 2.5hrs per week and probably had comparatively good lifestyles by their standards. It would be a relatively easy exercise to compile the data for the next 10 - 20 years and gather an idea of avg life expentency for a group of high mmile runners who would have roughly similar lifestyles.

sorry - dossing long enough now...back to work

tjis

That is already a better data sample than they had in the original "study" in that we know far more about how active those guys really were at their peak than for the Copenhagen study, and you also know the causes of death for the two early deaths.

Quick, get your report written up and published in the Lancet. I suggest the tabloid style heading of "New report shows that marathon running will cause you to die during WW2!".

Rantan · 19-02-2015 1:01pm

robinph wrote: »

That is already a better data sample than they had in the original "study" in that we know far more about how active those guys really were at their peak than for the Copenhagen study, and you also know the causes of death for the two early deaths.

Quick, get your report written up and published in the Lancet. I suggest the tabloid style heading of "New report shows that marathon running will cause you to die during WW2!".

heres an idea,,,,(maybe im getting carried away........)

anyone interested in taking this further and chomping the figures in a bit more detail?

Its easy get certain data online(whether it would stand up to official scrutiny is another thing) but it would give a pretty decent indicator and give me an excuse to run in comfort or else think a bit more about my next ultra??

We could adopt a type of "WikiStats" model...take the example I did above - took me about 10mins,,,,if we had 10 people doing this during one or two tea breaks/lunch it wouldn't be long before you ran up a pretty large sample population?? Take a particular event each and extend it to top 20 or all runners.. and see how much data exists online....

anyone??

Dubgal72 · 19-02-2015 1:04pm

I'm in, why not.

robinph · 19-02-2015 1:22pm

Rantan wrote: »

anyone??

Olympic Marathons through time are probably the best set to use going back long enough. Big city marathons have only existed for 30 years in any significant numbers, and the Boston Marathon has been around for 100+, but their data is going to be very heavily tilted towards US and rich western Europeans who could afford the boats trip for the really old races.

I'd put more stock into an analysis of that data than the original study this thread was on about.

ECOLII · 19-02-2015 1:32pm

daRobot wrote: »

Without having any empirical evidence to know for sure, I personally think running on hard flat surfaces, has quite a negative effect on the body due to the impact of each step hitting the ground with such force.

I don't run often for that reason, and stick to swimming, rowing etc.

Also, an awful lot of people I know who run very frequently, look wrecked. Trim, yes, but not healthy.

The body (in the absence of dyfunction or deficiency) is perfectly able to handle the loading, it imbalances, running on niggles etc which ultimately can cause negative long term effects but the knee for example doesn't actually absorb shock as most people think.

Your comment about healthy is actually one I completely agree with although I would go further and say sports training in general. Health and performance are completely separate.

Personally I wouldn't consider myself a healthy person despite regular exercise, generally accepted healthy appearance and relatively decent diet.

Rantan · 19-02-2015 1:36pm

robinph wrote: »

Olympic Marathons through time are probably the best set to use going back long enough. Big city marathons have only existed for 30 years in any significant numbers, and the Boston Marathon has been around for 100+, but their data is going to be very heavily tilted towards US and rich western Europeans who could afford the boats trip for the really old races.

I'd put more stock into an analysis of that data than the original study this thread was on about.

nations represented from top ten '36

Japan
GB
Finland
S Africa
Sweeden

consistently developed nations alright, one Indian down the field

robinph · 19-02-2015 1:38pm

Here you go for the top 10 at the 1932 Olympic Marathon:
71.105
79.205
74.235
79.334
85.056
66.178
70.204
36 killed in Auschwitz
65.13
88.343
Average age = 71.479

I'm already feeling pretty good about long distance running not being overly dangerous to ones health.

robinph · 19-02-2015 1:40pm

Rantan wrote: »

nations represented from top ten '36

Japan
GB
Finland
S Africa
Sweeden

consistently developed nations alright, one Indian down the field

The Japanese athletes were actually Korean also.

Rantan · 19-02-2015 1:44pm

robinph wrote: »

Here you go for the top 10 at the 1932 Olympic Marathon:
71.105
79.205
74.235
79.334
85.056
66.178
70.204
36 killed in Auschwitz
65.13
88.343
Average age = 71.479

I'm already feeling pretty good about long distance running not being overly dangerous to ones health.

Nice one! interesting to see what one little world war can do to random stats!!

libelula · 19-02-2015 1:45pm

Ososlo wrote: »

Can you elaborate a bit? Do you mean they look too thin?
Do they look less healthy than the overweight people you know?

Ara sure don't ya know all that activity can't be good for ya. Burn yourself out so ya will. You'll have no knees by the time you're 50 and you'll be a skinnymalink. So ya will. And where's the fun in that? Ha?

Rantan · 19-02-2015 1:48pm

Rantan wrote: »

been dipping in and out of this thread so if Im repeating something thats already been discussed appologies.

It seems like there is something very obvious(to me anyway) that has been missed in all this debate around the affects of running.

Surely someone somewhere has surveyed the elite/professional/Olympic runners from say the 1920s, 30s, 40s etc and compiled mortality stats?

Quick wiki check on 1936 top 10 marathon finishers ages at death:
88
77
89
92
80
87
43(pulmonary embolism)!!
30(killed in WW2)
67
84
avg = 64.5(the 30 is dragging it down)
life expectancy for males born in 1911 = 61

I am assuming these guys ran more than 2.5hrs per week and probably had comparatively good lifestyles by their standards. It would be a relatively easy exercise to compile the data for the next 10 - 20 years and gather an idea of avg life expentency for a group of high mmile runners who would have roughly similar lifestyles.

sorry - dossing long enough now...back to work

tjis

APOLOGIES:
my sums were wrong in the above....now that I have opened an excel sheet..I can get it right - the avg from 36 should actually be 73.7!

rom · 19-02-2015 1:51pm

Rantan wrote: »

been dipping in and out of this thread so if Im repeating something thats already been discussed appologies.

It seems like there is something very obvious(to me anyway) that has been missed in all this debate around the affects of running.

Surely someone somewhere has surveyed the elite/professional/Olympic runners from say the 1920s, 30s, 40s etc and compiled mortality stats?

Quick wiki check on 1936 top 10 marathon finishers ages at death:
88
77
89
92
80
87
43(pulmonary embolism)!!
30(killed in WW2)
67
84
avg = 64.5(the 30 is dragging it down)
life expectancy for males born in 1911 = 61

I am assuming these guys ran more than 2.5hrs per week and probably had comparatively good lifestyles by their standards. It would be a relatively easy exercise to compile the data for the next 10 - 20 years and gather an idea of avg life expentency for a group of high mmile runners who would have roughly similar lifestyles.

sorry - dossing long enough now...back to work

tjis

For the same reason the study can't be trusted this can't be also. The sample size is too small.

robinph · 19-02-2015 2:08pm

rom wrote: »

For the same reason the study can't be trusted this can't be also. The sample size is too small.

Yep.

The data set is too small to make any real claim about life expectancy being 70+ for marathon runners when compared to and age of 61 for the equivalent general population. But if making that claim it would be based on more useful information than the original study.

In the original study they had two deaths for unknown reasons from an equally small data set, but used those deaths to suggest that running a lot was bad for you. From Rantans data we can clearly see that the death at age 30 in the set should be discounted from making any claims about shortened life expectancy for marathon runners, as they died due to a war. That makes Rantans data far more useful and there are no daft claims being made due to dodgy data where someone probably died due to being run over by a bus.

The only thing missing from getting data about Olympic marathon runners is the numbers available as there are relatively few of them through history. In another 30 years when there is better data available for people having done the mass participation marathons and how long they all lived it will be more reliable information.

Rantan · 19-02-2015 2:18pm

rom wrote: »

For the same reason the study can't be trusted this can't be also. The sample size is too small.

10 minutes on my tea break is hardly "a study"!!

If you read my further posts I am looking for volunteers to help in extending the data to give a bigger picture as Robinph has kindly obliged, any help would be appreciated??

walshb · 19-02-2015 2:19pm

I though the list posted about the runners was very interesting. Never find a perfect answer/sample, but the list helps to debunk the article claims.

robinph · 19-02-2015 2:32pm

I'd say that is it of note that from the 20 peoples ages of death above, not one of them died at an age younger than the average life expectancy for the time of natural causes... other than the guy who had a heart attack(?). It's not proof that you live longer by being fit and healthy, but that is a far, far safer claim to be made on that data than the claim of you dying younger due to exercise as claimed by the original study based on their data.

Rantan · 19-02-2015 3:17pm

busy lunch break....

the life expectancy of all the top 10 finishers in 8 marathons from 1926 - 1952

60 runners
Avg Life expectancy; 75.02

2no 100+ guys in there

think I'll extend it to include the top 20 if the stats are available?

annapr · 19-02-2015 4:54pm

Rantan wrote: »

busy lunch break....

the life expectancy of all the top 10 finishers in 8 marathons from 1926 - 1952

60 runners
Avg Life expectancy; 75.02

2no 100+ guys in there

think I'll extend it to include the top 20 if the stats are available?

This is interesting but only meaningful if compared to men who didn't run marathons... And would have to be controlled for social class, etc. I'm holding your stats to a higher standard than the original study!

The Irish Times got into this topic today quoting a different study I think...

annapr · 19-02-2015 4:57pm

ECOLII wrote: »

The body (in the absence of dyfunction or deficiency) is perfectly able to handle the loading, it imbalances, running on niggles etc which ultimately can cause negative long term effects but the knee for example doesn't actually absorb shock as most people think.

Your comment about healthy is actually one I completely agree with although I would go further and say sports training in general. Health and performance are completely separate.

Personally I wouldn't consider myself a healthy person despite regular exercise, generally accepted healthy appearance and relatively decent diet.

Interesting comments, Ecoli.... Why not? Do you think that focusing on high performance is not healthy? Or not related to overall health? Would like to understand your perspective.

Clearlier · 19-02-2015 4:58pm

annapr wrote: »

This is interesting but only meaningful if compared to men who didn't run marathons... And would have to be controlled for social class, etc. I'm holding your stats to a higher standard than the original study!

The Irish Times got into this topic today quoting a different study I think...

I haven't looked closely but the author who has previous on this and appears to be making it one of his goals in life to 'prove' that 'excess' running is dangerous was quoted so I'd be surprised if the data source was any different. It's a very poor article IMO and I was sufficiently annoyed to try and comment on it but I can't seem to log in even after resetting my password so I've had to swallow my ire!

Ososlo · 19-02-2015 5:01pm

annapr wrote: »

The Irish Times got into this topic today quoting a different study I think...

Yeah they're at it again:rolleyes:
Why the fcuk can't they just leave us alone!!!! More articles on Ireland being well on it's way to being the fattest nation in Europe please! Currently second and it's only going one way!

Jog slowly and not more than 2.5hrs a week or it will KILL YOU

Comments