#16

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/athletics/london-marathon/9220155/Woman-30-dies-less-than-a-mile-from-London-Marathon-finishing-line.html

Not the picture I was expecting to find. I guess you can be a fit as you like but an underlying condition can catch you out.

I had a ECG carried out last year as part of a medical just for peace of mind

Thankfully this is very rare. RIP


Its a lot less rare than u think.imo anyone who does competitive/strenuous sports should have their heart checked out before they decide to do them.and I speak from experience.my heart problem was found completely by accident.
Rip to the woman by the way.

1 person has thanked this post
robinph Moderator
#17

JohnnyCrash said:
Was strongly thinking of doing my first marathon this year at 48.This has put me rethinking

Why?

3 people have thanked this post
#18

kennyb3 said:
RIP.

The number of people treated is unbelievably high at 13% of the field.


Is 13% higher than average?

Is there any particular reason for the 13%? The weather looked perfect.

Is it due to the large number of charity runners who might be undertrained and have been roped into it by friends and family?

(Not insinuating that charity runners are undertrained - I've been severely undertrained and never ran for charity)

seamus Dental Plan!
#19

dev123 said:
Is 13% higher than average?
I guess it depends on what "treated" means. It could be as simple as giving someone a bottle of water and an energy bar because they can't go on.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if one-eighth of the field had to stop due to cramping, knee/foot injury or hitting the wall.

JohnnyCrash Registered User
#20

robinph said:
Why?

Thought it was pretty obvious Then again,probably being over dramatic

#21

JohnnyCrash said:
Thought it was pretty obvious Then again,probably being over dramatic


1 person from 37,000 died during an 8 hour period.

If you put 37k random people in a big room for 8 hours, the likelihood is that at least one would die. I think this is the point that Robinph was making.

2 people have thanked this post
JohnnyCrash Registered User
#22

menoscemo said:
1 person from 37,000 died during an 8 hour period.

If you put 37k random people in a big room for 8 hours, the likelihood is that at least one would die. I think this is the point that Robinph was making.
Would probably be a lot less likely if they were'nt all running for 3 or 4 hours

#23

JohnnyCrash said:
Would probably be a lot less likely if they were'nt all running for 3 or 4 hours


Really? I don't think so In fact I reckon people running 3-4 hours are less likely to die than the average person

Again, I think you have missed the point.

#24

Sad news.

The donations to her page are flying up. Around £1,000 every couple of mins. £63,000 now.

Of the 10 previous deaths at London, 5 were a result of heart disease that apparently the runners were unaware of.

robinph Moderator
#25

JohnnyCrash said:
Thought it was pretty obvious Then again,probably being over dramatic


Do you believe that it is better for you health to not run?

TFBubendorfer Moderator
#26

JohnnyCrash said:
Would probably be a lot less likely if they were'nt all running for 3 or 4 hours


If you are a runner then:

- you are MORE likely to die in the hours you are actually running.
but
- you are LESS likely to die in the hours you are not running.

Overall, your life expectancy goes up if you're a runner. But this case illustrates how average life expectancy can mean very little in one specific case.

2 people have thanked this post
Peckham Registered User
#27

dev123 said:


Is 13% higher than average?



Seems very high. It's broadly in line with the proportion treated by medics in Boston this year, and that was twice as high as the previous year due to the pretty extreme conditions.

JohnnyCrash Registered User
#28

robinph said:
Do you believe that it is better for you health to not run?

Dont think i implied that anywhere?

robinph Moderator
#29

Peckham said:
Seems very high. It's broadly in line with the proportion treated by medics in Boston this year, and that was twice as high as the previous year due to the pretty extreme conditions.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-17811481
BBC News
During the 2012 London Marathon, 4,923 runners and members of the public needed assistance, but the bulk of these consultations were for minor concerns. In 2011, 6,000 needed help - many for heat exhaustion linked to the hot weather on the race day.


Less people treated this year, but as said it will include anyone given any kind of assistance.

robinph Moderator
#30

JohnnyCrash said:
Dont think i implied that anywhere?


So what were you saying then?

JohnnyCrash said:
Was strongly thinking of doing my first marathon this year at 48.This has put me rethinking

Want to share your thoughts?

Login here to discuss!