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

Firedance · 06-02-2015 11:17am

walshb wrote: »

That is not what I said. I cleared it up in subsequent posts. I said that within a short time training then 9 minutes for the category of young and fit and reasonably healthy should be easy enough. If after training and you are struggling hard to hit 9 mins then maybe stop trying, and just concentrate on being comfortable. I didn't mean to imply completely STOP. Keep it at a pace that you can manage and that isn't stressing you too much.

BTW, the article mentions anything above 7mph, which is about 8 mins 45-50 pace, so not completely off topic.

with respect you said 'Well, if they are not they should give it up. If you can't manage a 9 minute mile then do some other activity...' When I read that I felt quite offended as you are talking directly to me and anyone else like me.

there are some days 9 min miles are out of my reach, that's fine by me though. I will keep training and eventually I'll get there, it does not have to be soon. I would never tell or advise another runner that if they're not at a particular pace/level by a particular stage they should give it up. The encouragement that we all give each other is hugely important and is something that for the most part makes the running community some of the best out there.

walshb · 06-02-2015 11:19am

Firedance wrote: »

with respect you said 'Well, if they are not they should give it up. If you can't manage a 9 minute mile then do some other activity...'
.

I take that back. It was more a harsh statement. The article says to maybe run at a comfortable pace 2-3 times per week. If that is 10/11/12 it doesn't matter as long as it's comfortable and achievable, and not too stressful. Sound advice for the joe soaps. I just feel that 9 mins should be comfortable for a certain group of the population. I am a normal joe, relatively young, and reasonably fit, and 9 mins run for me would put me to sleep. That's not boasting, as 9 minutes isn't at all fast.

pconn062 · 06-02-2015 11:56am

walshb, quit your nonsense, this is the only warning.

walshb · 06-02-2015 12:04pm

pconn062 wrote: »

walshb, quit your nonsense, this is the only warning.

Am I banned from posting on this thread?

pconn062 · 06-02-2015 12:09pm

walshb wrote: »

Am I banned from posting on this thread?

No, just move away from the pointless talk about what paces people should and shouldn't run at.

walshb · 06-02-2015 12:11pm

pconn062 wrote: »

No, just move away from the pointless talk about what paces people should and shouldn't run at.

Ok, with all due respect I believe all my posts were civil and polite and direct. If I have broken charter rules that is fine. I accept that. I answered posts directed at me honestly and truthfully, as well as respectfully. I have a view on the article in question. If it disagrees with most here so be it. I'll bow out on this one.

06-02-2015 12:30pm

Netwerk Errer wrote: »

Much more comprehensive study but in the early years. Tit for tat stuff anyway, when I die, I die. A bit morbid but it's more of a quality of life issue for me.

If we want to live our lives in fear of everything we do, we might as well seal ourselves up in a quarantine tent and never leave and that still gives no guarantees.

in the early years exactly, cumulative stress damage is not likely to produce any/many cases of people dropping in the early years, just might mean that you have an enlarged heart with hardened arteries aged 70, or not.

Anyways, I'll leave it as I think there's not much more to say on the discussion. I'm not out to discourage running in any way which I'll continue to do myself and but just wanted to air another side of it.

robinph · 06-02-2015 1:30pm

Dave Moorcroft sticks his oar in as well:

parkrun UK Facebook wrote:

A great response from former 5,000m World Record holder David Moorcroft in the Telegraph's Letters section (9th letter down) toward the recent claim 'Fast running is as deadly as sitting on couch, scientists find'.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters/11393697/Letters-Scottish-devolution-is-driving-England-to-want-its-own-parliament.html

Dubgal72 · 06-02-2015 1:47pm

robinph wrote: »

Dave Moorcroft sticks his oar in as well:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters/11393697/Letters-Scottish-devolution-is-driving-England-to-want-its-own-parliament.html

Couldn't resist copying and pasting his closing remarks

"While I agree that “jogging a few times a week at a moderate pace” is great, running has benefits regardless of the speed you go. But I’ll be sure to warn my faster contemporaries – Seb Coe, Steve Cram, Steve Ovett – that they may soon wish they hadn’t broken all those world records."

tunguska · 06-02-2015 2:07pm

walshb wrote: »

Ok, with all due respect I believe all my posts were civil and polite and direct. If I have broken charter rules that is fine. I accept that. I answered posts directed at me honestly and truthfully, as well as respectfully. I have a view on the article in question. If it disagrees with most here so be it. I'll bow out on this one.

Fair play to you, i dont always agree with what you're saying but you do argue your case really well.

Ososlo · 06-02-2015 2:20pm

tunguska wrote: »

Fair play to you, i dont always agree with what you're saying but you do argue your case really well.

Plus one. It'd be a terribly boring world if no one ever tested the limits

"I might not agree with what you say but I will fight to the death your right to say it." Can't remember who said that but good quote.

pconn062 · 06-02-2015 2:48pm

tunguska wrote: »

Fair play to you, i dont always agree with what you're saying but you do argue your case really well.

walshb wrote: »

Ok, with all due respect I believe all my posts were civil and polite and direct. If I have broken charter rules that is fine. I accept that. I answered posts directed at me honestly and truthfully, as well as respectfully. I have a view on the article in question. If it disagrees with most here so be it. I'll bow out on this one.

Ososlo wrote: »

Plus one. It'd be a terribly boring world if no one ever tested the limits

"I might not agree with what you say but I will fight to the death your right to say it." Can't remember who said that but good quote.

Move on guys, it's been dealt with. No-one is limiting free speech here, just no point going round in circles with a redundant and pointless argument.

TFBubendorfer · 06-02-2015 3:03pm

Not sure if we need yet another article talking about the same study, but some might be interested in what the NYT has to say about it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/06/upshot/no-more-running-probably-isnt-bad-for-you.html?abt=0002&abg=1

ultraman1 · 06-02-2015 3:13pm

Ososlo wrote: »

"I might not agree with what you say but I will fight to the death your right to say it." Can't remember who said that but good quote.

Think it mite of been Dr quirky..or one of the admins on Rsp

tunguska · 06-02-2015 3:24pm

ultraman1 wrote: »

Think it mite of been Dr quirky..or one of the admins on Rsp

Well played my good man, well played

Ososlo · 06-02-2015 3:29pm

ultraman1 wrote: »

Think it mite of been Dr quirky..or one of the admins on Rsp

Yes it was one of the great Enlighteners of our times. Voltaire or Dr. Quirky I think...

ultraman1 · 06-02-2015 3:36pm

Ososlo wrote: »

Yes it was one of the great Enlighteners of our times. Voltaire or Dr. Quirky I think...

with great power comes great responsiblity....if I quoted some of Dq's thoughts I may get a ban..slightly off topic

annapr · 06-02-2015 3:51pm

robinph wrote: »

Dave Moorcroft sticks his oar in as well:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters/11393697/Letters-Scottish-devolution-is-driving-England-to-want-its-own-parliament.html

Great letter. He nailed it.

robinph · 06-02-2015 4:50pm

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

Not sure if we need yet another article talking about the same study, but some might be interested in what the NYT has to say about it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/06/upshot/no-more-running-probably-isnt-bad-for-you.html?abt=0002&abg=1

More articles highlighting that the study is a waste of the ink used to print it* is better than more flawed studies based on the original flawed study being done and making it into the press.

*Hopefully it wasn't actually printed and no trees were harmed in the writing of the study.

ECOLII · 06-02-2015 5:02pm

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

Not sure if we need yet another article talking about the same study, but some might be interested in what the NYT has to say about it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/06/upshot/no-more-running-probably-isnt-bad-for-you.html?abt=0002&abg=1

we are all a bit too quick to believe medical studies that tell us what we want to hear.

This was actually a point that someone highlighted when discussing it yesterday

What a better way to justify the waning motivation of New Years resolution's by saying that they shouldn't keep up the dramatic improvement of lifestyle changes made after the boozy festivities.

Either way the article served its purpose (to generate maximum viewership) as sadly people are paying more attention to poor research like this and will become ingrained in public perception along with other myths such as running is bad for your knees and every other "medical" statement you will be told when people first find out you run.

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