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

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

2456

Comments

  • #32
    average_runner
    Registered Users Posts: 12,844 ✭✭✭✭average_runner


    PDCAT wrote: »
    By their reasoning, should the same not apply to all sports people who push their body to the limits? Example's. Cyclist, Boxers, GAA Players and many others.
    All these sports people train just as many hours and would surely have intense sessions with raised heart rates.


    Surely sex must be dangerous also :rolleyes:


  • #33
    kit3
    Registered Users Posts: 2,677 ✭✭✭kit3


    average_runner wrote: »
    Surely sex must be dangerous also :rolleyes:

    Well, you certainly can get hurt if Ososlo's mother is to be believed ;)
    Ososlo wrote: »
    My mother. She's so cool:D The subject of S&M arose and she says in a really matter of fact way, "yeah sure isn't it all very well and good until someone gets hurt":pac:


  • #34
    Dubgal72
    Registered Users Posts: 4,272 ✭✭✭Dubgal72


    glasso wrote: »
    I love running but maybe there is some truth to the fact that prolonged strenuous activity over a period of time is maybe not the best for our bodies, and maybe specifically the heart.
    Jim Mac of Donore will be able to answer that. He's over 75 and still winning world championship medals. He has run long, hard and far for 50 years, from Olympics to world championships. You only have to look at the general age profile of Donore athletes (and other clubs I'm sure) to see how untrue that 'science' is. Tommy Hayward, 93 and still driving :)


  • #35
    kit3
    Registered Users Posts: 2,677 ✭✭✭kit3


    Reckon my Dad had a hand in writing that article - if I ever mention running (which is rare now) he launching into "Did I ever tell you about the boy X, he collapsed and died when he was running - heart exploded" :eek: He claims to know at least 4 people who died running. Find it kinder not to mention it to him at this stage - only told him about doing my first marathon the day before I did it & that was just because someone let the cat out of the bag :rolleyes:


  • #36
    ghogie91
    Registered Users Posts: 1,121 ✭✭✭ghogie91


    "Oop... I almost forgot. I won't be able to make it fellas. Veronica and I trying this new fad called uh, jogging. I believe it's jogging or yogging. it might be a soft j. I'm not sure but apparently you just run for an extended period of time. It's supposed to be wild" - Ron Burgundy

    I believe in Ron


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    ankers99
    Registered Users Posts: 52 ✭✭ankers99


    Focus should be Quailty in years not quantity of years. If running is the cause of my death then i will die happy in a pair of runners. If i was offered 70 years sitting on my hole watching brain dead tv or 65 years of acheivements in running it would be an easy option 2 all the way. I think ill aim to do die at 60 now by actually putting some effort in my training :)


  • #38
    Clearlier
    Registered Users Posts: 4,454 ✭✭✭Clearlier


    Can we lock the thread please or move it to the Health and Fitness board? The article* is about jogging not running. We're on the A/R forum here.























    *as much as total nonsense such as that merits the description


  • #39
    carter10
    Registered Users Posts: 391 ✭✭carter10




  • #40
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    carter10 wrote: »

    seem rational and well explained. some good points there - basic message is like most things - good in moderation. worth watching.


  • #41
    ultraman1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,742 ✭✭✭ultraman1


    http://m.runnersworld.com/health/the-supposed-dangers-of-running-too-much?cid=socHE_20150204_39926397&adbid=10153074427847090&adbpl=fb&adbpr=23403427089
    Mite ne of interest...


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    so what's the big issue with the argument that yes running/ jogging is great for you but that maybe over a certain distance /time per week it's not good for you anymore and it's in fact bad for your heart in the long term.


  • #43
    PaulieC
    Registered Users Posts: 6,182 ✭✭✭PaulieC


    glasso wrote: »
    so what's the big issue with the argument that yes running/ jogging is great for you but that maybe over a certain distance /time per week it's not good for you anymore and it's in fact bad for your heart in the long term.

    They didn't say that though. They presented sketchy scientific data to present an unproven story as fact.


  • #44
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    PaulieC wrote: »
    They didn't say that though. They presented sketchy scientific data to present an unproven story as fact.

    I was referring to the ted talk there. the one posted above.


  • #45
    ECOLII
    Closed Accounts Posts: 558 ✭✭✭ECOLII


    Performance based sport is not good for you from a health perspective in isolation, I don't think anyone would argue that, the whole basis of training is too stress and adapt, this stress is how we improved (i.e causing microtears within muscle fibres as a simplistic example)

    However the training should not be looked at in isolation given that lifestyle is closely linked with performance, so while the stress of training may have an impact on overall health to an extent, the sleep, hydration, nutrition aspects as well as some of the positive endocrine system effects from training will outweigh these negatives so looking from a more overall perspective the finding's (even if they did link exercise to health outcomes here, which they do not) cannot be used to derive a conclusion simply because they do not take into account all health implications of training.

    Bad journalism based on bad science with an agenda (this is not the first type of study conducted by this group along these lines)


  • #46
    rom
    Registered Users Posts: 5,134 ✭✭✭rom


    Based on the numbers I would expect 20% of Denmark to be joggers. It must be hard to get anywhere with the footpaths full of them speeding around. However this is not the case. The most popular sport is football and players get from point a to point b by jogging or sometimes running. In Ireland its something like 1% of people are in an athletics club where there may be another 2% who jog outside of people the club system. A figure of 20% is probably only seen in Kenya. If the sample set is wrong then any resultant findings are wrong.

    PS there are lots of journals out there. Some more respected than others due to the review process while others are good if you need to dry out your runners.


  • #47
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    but what about what that cardiologist is saying in the TED video. It's effectively the same message as the outcome of the Danish study, except there is no sample size deficiency to attack. He is saying, run over a few hours or 25 miles a week and you're harming your heart.


  • #48
    Clearlier
    Registered Users Posts: 4,454 ✭✭✭Clearlier


    glasso wrote: »
    but what about what that cardiologist is saying in the TED video. It's effectively the same message as the outcome of the Danish study, except there is no sample size deficiency to attack. He is saying, run over a few hours or 25 miles a week and you're harming your heart.

    The cardiologist is one of the authors of the article. I haven't the ability (not sure I have the desire either) to listen to a TED talk at the moment but I'm guessing that you'll find a relationship between the article and the talk.

    You got me to read the article.

    He has an interesting hypothesis. It's as yet unproven. The article acknowledges that only a correlation in the data exists and calls for more studies to identify a causal link. It tacitly acknowledges the weakness of the study by stating that no recommendations can be made for the general public
    Further studies are needed to explore the mechanisms by which excessively strenuous exercise adversely affects longevity before the pattern of association between exercise intensity and long-term mortality can be incorporated into physical activity recommendations for the general public.

    You should also note that the article does not say that strenuous activity kills you. It merely claims that the benefits of gentle activity are negated by strenuous activity. I understand that both the Telegraph and you are creating clickbait but I still think that the title of this thread and the writing in most of the telegraph article is irresponsible.

    Moderate joggers had a significantly higher mortality rate compared with light joggers, but it was still lower than that of sedentary nonjoggers, whereas strenuous joggers had a mortality rate that was not statistically different from that of sedentary nonjoggers

    Given that the study as of yet lacks the necessary volume of data to tell us anything and that even when it does it will only show correlation and that even if the hypthesis is proven correct then 'strenuous jogging' will mean that your mortality rate is similar to that of a sedentary person then considering the quality of life benefits to running I don't think that I'll let this article dissuade me from running or encouraging others to run.


  • #49
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    Clearlier wrote: »
    The cardiologist is one of the authors of the article. I haven't the ability (not sure I have the desire either) to listen to a TED talk at the moment but I'm guessing that you'll find a relationship between the article and the talk.

    You got me to read the article.

    He has an interesting hypothesis. It's as yet unproven. The article acknowledges that only a correlation in the data exists and calls for more studies to identify a causal link. It tacitly acknowledges the weakness of the study by stating that no recommendations can be made for the general public



    You should also note that the article does not say that strenuous activity kills you. It merely claims that the benefits of gentle activity are negated by strenuous activity. I understand that both the Telegraph and you are creating clickbait but I still think that the title of this thread and the writing in most of the telegraph article is irresponsible.




    Given that the study as of yet lacks the necessary volume of data to tell us anything and that even when it does it will only show correlation and that even if the hypthesis is proven correct then 'strenuous jogging' will mean that your mortality rate is similar to that of a sedentary person then considering the quality of life benefits to running I don't think that I'll let this article dissuade me from running or encouraging others to run.

    there is no relationship between the original article and the talk that I can see.
    If you have time enough to type out a long post you probably have the time to watch that video. I would recommend watching it
    again, there is no argument that jogging/running IS good for you, but maybe not beyond the level of 25 miles a week, where it can become harmful.
    Maybe it's the fact that maybe a fair number of people here are running beyond that level and are hence unwilling to admit that there is any possibility of a potential risk in later life.


  • #50
    Dubgal72
    Registered Users Posts: 4,272 ✭✭✭Dubgal72


    glasso wrote: »
    there is no relationship between the original article and the talk that I can see.
    If you have time enough to type out a long post you probably have the time to watch that video. I would recommend watching it
    again, there is no argument that jogging/running IS good for you, but maybe not beyond the level of 25 miles a week, where it can become harmful.
    Maybe it's the fact that maybe a fair number of people here are running beyond that level and are hence unwilling to admit that there is any possibility of a potential risk in later life.
    I started to watch the tedx talk. Started. It was painful. His delivery was exruciating. I'll psych myself up to going back to it but it won't be pretty. TED, and more pertinently TEDx, standards are very hit and miss in the last few years. Go into these talks with your critical faculties fully switched on. Also read the comments. :)


  • #51
    Clearlier
    Registered Users Posts: 4,454 ✭✭✭Clearlier


    glasso wrote: »
    there is no relationship between the original article and the talk that I can see.
    If you have time enough to type out a long post you probably have the time to watch that video. I would recommend watching it
    again, there is no argument that jogging/running IS good for you, but maybe not beyond the level of 25 miles a week, where it can become harmful.
    Maybe it's the fact that maybe a fair number of people here are running beyond that level and are hence unwilling to admit that there is any possibility of a potential risk in later life.

    Hey glasso,

    It's not a time thing, I haven't access to audio at the moment. The argument (briefly summarised) that the article makes is that jogging for up to 2 hours per week at a pretty slow pace (not adjusted for age/gender etc. IIRC) is associated with longer life compared to sedentary person or someone who exercises in excess of that. It makes tentative attempts at positing the reasons for this but (sensibly) doesn't attempt to draw any definite conclusions.

    I don't think that it's reasonable to conclude that the people on the A/R forum are unwilling to admit that there is any possibility of a potential risk in later life just because they run at levels that according to the study would lead them to expect similar mortality outcomes to sedentary people. You may have noted ecoli's comments earlier in the thread. I've already said that I consider it to be an interesting hypothesis. I'm interested in the study. I'm not that interested in an article which prematurely draws conclusions from it.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    Sorry I misread your post and in my mind substituted time for ability.
    I think that it's worth watching anyway when you can.
    As a personal viewpoint I love running myself and the reason that keeps getting me going out is the feeling that it gives you afterwards (more so than the fitness side and other benefits which is of course great). I do wonder though if this recent trend towards ultra-marathons and the training that goes with that (or maybe even high weekly mileage runners going for low normal marathon distance times) is healthy for one's body. The possible dangers may not be apparent due to a cumulative effect, so it's not something that can be easily proved or disproved.


  • #53
    annapr
    Registered Users Posts: 3,936 ✭✭✭annapr


    There are tons of evidence of the benefits of any activity, vs. inactivity. With every activity, there will be extremes and there probably is a point beyond where it's beneficial, but I agree with all the critics here of this study. It's too easy for the lazy press to take a headline from a study like this, which then becomes accepted as fact.

    For another view on the benefits of aerobic exercise (posted this earlier today on the DCM graduates thread):

    David Linden, professor of neuroscience at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine (therefore a credible dude), was being interviewed about his book, "Touch" and was asked how he looks after his own brain:
    "What I do to strengthen and protect my brain is physical exercise. The single best thing you can do for your cognitive function, particularly when you are in middle age (ahem!), is is to get out of your chair and move your body around. It is a much bigger effect than any of these brain training games or puzzles or things that people want to sell you… the benefits are enormous… reduces anxiety, prevents depression, it improves cognitive function... if there’s a single thing to do for your brain health, do 30 mins of aerobic exercise a day"

    He wasn't saying only 30 mins, he was saying at least 30 mins...


  • #54
    ankers99
    Registered Users Posts: 52 ✭✭ankers99


    So if Im less active and I will live longer. Might live till 70 watching episodes of Dr Phil or die at 65 running the roads. I will have option No. 2 and die happy in shorts. In fact my new goal is to die at 60 by putting a better effort in :)


  • #55
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    annapr wrote: »
    There are tons of evidence of the benefits of any activity, vs. inactivity. With every activity, there will be extremes and there probably is a point beyond where it's beneficial, but I agree with all the critics here of this study. It's too easy for the lazy press to take a headline from a study like this, which then becomes accepted as fact.

    For another view on the benefits of aerobic exercise (posted this earlier today on the DCM graduates thread):

    David Linden, professor of neuroscience at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine (therefore a credible dude), was being interviewed about his book, "Touch" and was asked how he looks after his own brain:
    "What I do to strengthen and protect my brain is physical exercise. The single best thing you can do for your cognitive function, particularly when you are in middle age (ahem!), is is to get out of your chair and move your body around. It is a much bigger effect than any of these brain training games or puzzles or things that people want to sell you… the benefits are enormous… reduces anxiety, prevents depression, it improves cognitive function... if there’s a single thing to do for your brain health, do 30 mins of aerobic exercise a day"

    He wasn't saying only 30 mins, he was saying at least 30 mins...

    nobody is disputing that exercise is good for you and that you most definitely should do it. there is a big difference between 30 minutes walking around and 30 minutes caning it at 6 minute mile pace and even then it's more about going over the hour mark or more at high intensity if you listen to the guy in that talk.


  • #56
    Krusty_Clown
    Registered Users Posts: 19,495 ✭✭✭✭Krusty_Clown


    glasso wrote: »
    nobody is disputing that exercise is good for you and that you most definitely should do it. there is a big difference between 30 minutes walking around and 30 minutes caning it at 6 minute mile pace and even then it's more about going over the hour mark or more at high intensity if you listen to the guy in that talk.
    What specifically are you trying to say? Are you suggesting that we should all back off on the pace, and keep it to 2.5 hours a week? Or are you just raising awareness of something that has already been discussed at length here before?


  • #57
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 54,539 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    I tend to agree with the general point (for the general person) that intense and intentional pushing yourself day in day out on the roads is probably as harmful as it is beneficial. No real need for it. Moderate/comfortable pace and distance where the HR doesn't get too high, the recovery time is decent, and the muscles recover quickly is all the general population need.

    Nothing worse seeing someone in agony and pushing and pushing at 6-7 minute mile pace. I feel like grabbing them and saying: "Look, you aren't able for it. Tone it down and relax a bit. You will benefit more. Drop the pace, enjoy the bloody run and you will likley benefit more."

    I was on a treadmill yesterday and a woman beside was moaning with the intensity. She was traveling at about 9 minutes mile pace. Normal enough woman. She just kept going and going, forcing herself beyond anything comfortable. Ridiculous!


  • #58
    DubOnHoliday
    Registered Users Posts: 1,292 ✭✭✭DubOnHoliday


    walshb wrote: »

    I was on a treadmill yesterday and a woman beside was moaning with the intensity. She was traveling at about 9 minutes mile pace. Normal enough woman. She just kept going and going, forcing herself beyond anything comfortable. Ridiculous!
    Each to their own opinion but I would be applauding people pushing themselves out of their comfort zone.


  • #59
    Ososlo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,420 ✭✭✭Ososlo


    walshb wrote: »
    I tend to agree with the general point (for the general person) that intense and intentional pushing yourself day in day out on the roads is probably as harmful as it is beneficial. No real need for it. Moderate/comfortable pace and distance where the HR doesn't get too high, the recovery time is decent, and the muscles recover quickly is all the general population need.

    Nothing worse seeing someone in agony and pushing and pushing at 6-7 minute mile pace. I feel like grabbing them and saying: "Look, you aren't able for it. Tone it down and relax a bit. You will benefit more. Drop the pace, enjoy the bloody run and you will likley benefit more."

    I was on a treadmill yesterday and a woman beside was moaning with the intensity. She was traveling at about 9 minutes mile pace. Normal enough woman. She just kept going and going, forcing herself beyond anything comfortable. Ridiculous!
    But if no one ever pushed their limits physically then we'd have no amazing athletes in any field! Everyone would just be casually doing their thing with no competition or challenge. What would be the point? Even the elites have to feel the pain. More so!
    Nobody would have climbed Everest or discovered far off lands if we all stayed feeling comfortable all the time. Sounds kinda boring!!! Not a world I'd wanna live in. That 9 min mile woman could be the champion of tomorrow. ..


  • #60
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 54,539 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    Ososlo wrote: »
    But if no one ever pushed their limits physically then we'd have no amazing athletes in any field! Everyone would just be casually doing their thing with no competition or challenge. What would be the point? Even the elites have to feel the pain. More so!
    Nobody would have climbed Everest or discovered far off lands if we all stayed feeling comfortable all the time. Sounds kinda boring!!! Not a world I'd wanna live in. That 9 min mile woman could be the champion of tomorrow. ..

    I am not talking about fit and elite and talented runners. I am talking about the general population. Killing themselves running 6 and 7 and 8 and 9 and 10 min mile pace day in day out for what type of gain? That is what the article seems to be getting at.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    menoscemo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,915 ✭✭✭✭menoscemo


    walshb wrote: »
    I am not talking about fit and elite and talented runners. I am talking about the general population. Killing themselves running 6 and 7 and 8 and 9 and 10 min mile pace day in day out for what type of gain? That is what the article seems to be getting at.

    It's not good training to be running flat out day in and day out no matter how talented or fast you are.
    I have never heard anyone around here recommending it around here....


Advertisement