IT - Taking a risk in the long run

depadz

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sciencetoday/2009/1112/1224258652648.html

OI

4 miles in 45 - 50 minutes??? This stinks of horse ****. Everyone on this forUm runs faster than that. 4 miles in 50 mins is walking.

Domer

I do agree with the bit about people who start running for the sole purpose of running a marathon, complete the challange and then never run again! Running a marathon should be a progression from being a regular runner... Running is a journey, not a destination.... or some similar idiom!

tunney

Domer wrote: »

I do agree with the bit about people who start running for the sole purpose of running a marathon, complete the challange and then never run again! Running a marathon should be a progression from being a regular runner... Running is a journey, not a destination.... or some similar idiom!

More importantly people shouldn't be striving to do marathons but rather seeing the merit also in running 10kms (or other distances) fast.

Krusty_Clown

OI wrote: »

4 miles in 45 - 50 minutes??? This stinks of horse ****. Everyone on this forUm runs faster than that. 4 miles in 50 mins is walking.

The article is about healthy living. If everyone ran 'no more than three or four four-mile sessions per week, each session run in 45-50 minutes' than yes, we would be a much more healthy population. He's saying that this is the minimum effort required to stay healthy, however, running faster than this does not offer any additional health benefits. Makes sense to me!

plodder

I think he is overplaying the cardiac risks and without quoting the statistics (ie the actual death rates), he is creating an impression that it's more dangerous than it actually is. He's also perpetuating the widely held view that running (long distances) is dangerous for your joints. That's a more complex issue, than what he suggests.

And while it's true that moderate exercise is perfectly adequate to stay healthy, he doesn't address at all, the motivational side to it. It isn't just elite athletes, and recreational runners who run marathons. There's a myriad of reasons for running one.

[edit]One last thing. If someone asked me, I'd say it makes more sense to spend a few years, training for, and competing at shorter distances, before contemplating a marathon. But, it's a fact, that the marathon has a special allure, which draws people in (which can't be a bad thing). It's how I got involved in running.

louthandproud

If I had a euro for everyone that asked me what I was going to do instead of running now that I had completed the Marathon, or assumed that I only was running in order to complete a marathon in the first place.

gaffo7

dont agree with your comment OI, bit of a sweeping comment. I know plenty of beginners who regularly run 4 miles and it takes them 45-50 minutes, maybe a lot slower than most people but think its bit of an insult to say that its walking at that pace.

"Everyone on this forUm runs faster than that. 4 miles in 50 mins is walking. "

how can you say that with any degree of certainty.

connie_c

I think the author is missing the point on why people run marathons. I think its about ordinary people wanting to do something incredible. I dont see it as a natural progression from running around the park. My girlfriend thinks Im mental and she runs regularly . A few of my friends run 2 or 3 miles on a threadmil in the gym on a regular basis. None of them are automatically thinking of the marathon.

Im doing my first marathon next year. The way I look at it you dont climb mount everest or swim the english channel to get healthy. You do it for the challange and because its there.

For me running a marathon a year ago was a crazy idea but now that I'm fit I want to see if I'm capable of something huge. I'm not doing it to get healthy and don't expect it to make me healthier as I'm sure most people don't who sign up.

Also the point about people training for a marathon and then falling away from running afterwards. I dont see this as a problem. Let them at it. Who cares if they don't keep it up. They probably play another sport.

Condo131

I agree with Krusty. On the whole, the article seems pretty balanced to me, with a few exceptions:

"However, the fact remains that during the marathon itself, and for several hours afterwards, the heart and blood enter a danger zone that increases the risk of a cardiac event, particularly in middle-aged runners with silent coronary-artery disease."

Notwithstanding the findings, there has been plenty of research showing that those that train for marathons are far less likely to incur coronary events than the general public.

In addition the recorded incidence of coronary incidents in marathons is low and anyone with CHD, middle age or otherwise, shouldn't be running marathons without getting serious medical advice.

"Also, regular high-mileage running exerts a heavy toll on leg joints."

Again there is plenty of research showing that it's a case of 'use it, or lose it'. Anyone with a biomechanical weakness is going to be found out quickly enough - the rest of us will (hopefully) run away into old-age!:)

OI

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

The article is about healthy living. If everyone ran 'no more than three or four four-mile sessions per week, each session run in 45-50 minutes' than yes, we would be a much more healthy population. He's saying that this is the minimum effort required to stay healthy, however, running faster than this does not offer any additional health benefits. Makes sense to me!

I just find it difficult to believe that the maximum health benefits of running can be achieved with such moderate levels of exercise. Even aside from the motivational aspect, which I find essesntial. I'm not saying you need to run marathons but I'm not sure that covering 4 miles in 45 - 50 mins 3 / 4 times a week would be much better than walking 3 / 4 times a week for the same duration. Maybe it isn't but it kind of defeats the purpose of running and why the majority of people run - to run races / improve times.

In terms of maximum health benefits, he's the expert, I can't really argue, it's just hard for me to say that someone who can run a 10k in 45 mins is not fitter / healthier than someone who can run 4 miles in 50 mins. You don't need to run marathons though, I agree with that.

The Rook

It's articles like this that give my wife nightmares about me running !!

shels4ever

tunney wrote: »

More importantly people shouldn't be striving to do marathons but rather seeing the merit also in running 10kms (or other distances) fast.

True. But marathons are seen to be the top end of the sport no matter how log it takes. I was asked by a colleague in work

Him Are you running the marathon,
me no i'm training for a cross country race,
him How far is that
me 6 k
Him Sue you dont need to train for that......

I just shut up...

yop

shels4ever wrote: »

True. But marathons are seen to be the top end of the sport no matter how log it takes. I was asked by a colleague in work

Him Are you running the marathon,
me no i'm training for a cross country race,
him How far is that
me 6 k
Him Sue you dont need to train for that......

I just shut up...

LOL aye, its funny the ignorance of some people, it case of "I want to finish the event today and not tomorrow" that makes a person train!
Bring him out for a 3km cross country

Iron Enthusiast

It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how[/B] the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat."

Sounds like he already knew what point he wanted to make before he did his research and wrote the article. Sure there is some sense in it, but I'm sure somebody wlse could write another article arguing the complete opposite, by just quoting the info that supports their argument.

Sounds like an armchair judgement to me

OI

gaffo7 wrote: »

dont agree with your comment OI, bit of a sweeping comment. I know plenty of beginners who regularly run 4 miles and it takes them 45-50 minutes, maybe a lot slower than most people but think its bit of an insult to say that its walking at that pace.

"Everyone on this forUm runs faster than that. 4 miles in 50 mins is walking. "

how can you say that with any degree of certainty.

ok, a slightly off the cuff comment , but it's not that sweeping, I don't think. I've popped into most of the training logs here at some stage or another and over four miles, I would say everyone with a training log runs faster than 12.5 min miles. Those who don't run faster than that are still generally training for a goal, have just started out and will quickly improve beyond that level. So, no I don't believe I'm insulting anyone here.

If a/r/t is a microcosm of the running world, then nobody is a recreational runner happy to plod along at 12.5 min miles indefinitely just for fitness, there is no challenge in that. It's a moot point by the author unless there is a whole other world who run at that pace purely for fitness, certainly doesn't interest me, or if people are honest, anyone else here. Accepting the fact that a/r/t logs are conjusive to goal setting, I suppose otherwise, they would post in fitness.

gaffo7

fair enough OI, I dont mean to deviate to much from the topic of the op which is the article in question i just feel that because this forum is not specifically for runners of a specific standard we should respect that there are a lot of people out there who train at 10-12 minutes a mile and this is a big effort for them.

littlebug

OI wrote: »

ok, a slightly off the cuff comment ,

If a/r/t is a microcosm of the running world, then nobody is a recreational runner happy to plod along at 12.5 min miles indefinitely just for fitness, there is no challenge in that. It's a moot point by the author unless there is a whole other world who run at that pace purely for fitness, certainly doesn't interest me, or if people are honest, anyone else here. Accepting the fact that a/r/t logs are conjusive to goal setting, I suppose otherwise, they would post in fitness.

I don't believe A/ R/ T is a microcosm of the running world and I know plenty of people who are happy to plod along with a couple of slow 3/ 4 miles runs every week on the road or treadmill and have no interest in races or going beyond that. Someone finishing a 10k in 68 minutes would roughly equate to your 45 min 4mile and that's a time that plenty of people do in their first 10k (yes me ). 50 mins would more likely be run/ walk. However the health gains in going from zero fitness to that are colossal and maintaining that level of fitness still requires some effort for most people. For some people it's about targets and goals and for others it's just about maintaining a reasonable level of fitness.

nerraw1111

It seems to be a personal opinion and hastily thrown together. He did only quote two studies in an area that must have thousands. That's not to say that the studies he quoted are incorrect.

But he doesn't put the results in context. How much does it increase the risk of a cardiac event? Would such a risk be higher or lower than a couch potato?

As an aside, he also got one the most basic facts on marathons wrong regarding the Greek legend of Pheidippides. He ran 150 miles before runnign an additional 25.

He uses this 'fact' that he collapses after 25 miles, not 175, to say that maybe he was trying to deliver another message i.e. marathon running is dangerous.

hot to trot

I have read something similar to this before about ultra running. I do agree to a certain extent, in that, the heart is a muscle and can fatigue like any other muscle. This is why we need to rest after exercising especially when doing events that last for longer periods than we train.

Its the training that is the key but I also think that the body has a self protection mechanism built in so that when the heart is struggling at its own endurance limit - it makes us slow down so that the demands are also lowered.

It is also true how such little exercise per week makes a huge difference to health. A lesson that the general public cant seem to take on, unfortunately.

spurscormac

There are plenty of holes in his arguments as has been outlined on here - So who's gonna take him to task and email the Editor of IT and hopefully get published tomorrow?

henryporter

A lot of this guys views tend to border on extreme , so I wouldn't let the article bother me. The IT seems to like courting controversy with such outlandish pseudo journalism on the basis of appearing to give a balanced opinion.

If more proof is needed see http://www.gavinsblog.com/2004/12/01/responses-to-reville/