Too many marathons very bad for you!

Kurt Godel

mithril wrote: »

My first reaction as well. A peer reviewed article in what appears to be an authoritative journal is probably genuine science, even if you don't like the conclusions. But when you look at another cardiologist's comments on the study in runners world ,it's much least clear cut.

http://www.runnersworld.com/health/too-much-running-myth-rises-again

See especially how the data was normalised, which would make the findings essentially meaningless.

Its pretty standard to normalize data in order to make it fit a regression line. Or, to use the same language as used in RW, its a common statistical method to manipulate, equalize, or twist data, and then use that data scientifically. It might seem counter-intuitive that accurate scientific results can still be expected, but thats the nature of statistics. It doesn't neccessarily mean that you'll get different results by manipulating the data in a different way either. If the science behind this article is to be disproved, I'd much rather it was disproved using science. The RW rebuttal is populist in the extreme, and is written with a clear agenda.

The newspaper headlines are stupid, crass, and sensationalist- and the citing of Micah True's death in the report is a clearly populist hook designed to get attention of the ultrarunning community. But no-one would be discussing this but for crass newspaper headlines, so they have performed some useful function. Until the science behind this report is disproven, its worth paying attention to.

SnappyDresser

I think the reseach look convincing.
I have decided that I will only run 1 or 2 marathons a year from now on.
I have always limited myself to 1 hour very hard running anyway as cant be bothered running for hours on end. Definitely no more multiple marathons.
The research has to be taken seriously. It is in the nature of runners to deny anything that is negative about our sport.
The results should give everyone food for thought...

menoscemo

i008787 wrote: »

I think the reseach look convincing.
I have decided that I will only run 1 or 2 marathons a year from now on.
I have always limited myself to 1 hour very hard running anyway as cant be bothered running for hours on end. Definitely no more multiple marathons.
The research has to be taken seriously. It is in the nature of runners to deny anything that is negative about our sport.
The results should give everyone food for thought...

Most multi Marathoners run most of their marathons slowly and don't over exert themsleves in each one.
I know Plenty of guys that train harder and cover way more miles than 90% of multi-marathoners but yet have never ran a marathon in their lives. Are they in danger as well? Or is it just the act of covering 26.2 miles in one go that increases the health risks?

mithril

Kurt Godel wrote: »

Its pretty standard to normalize data in order to make it fit a regression line. Or, to use the same language as used in RW, its a common statistical method to manipulate, equalize, or twist data, and then use that data scientifically. It might seem counter-intuitive that accurate scientific results can still be expected, but thats the nature of statistics. It doesn't neccessarily mean that you'll get different results by manipulating the data in a different way either. If the science behind this article is to be disproved, I'd much rather it was disproved using science. The RW rebuttal is populist in the extreme, and is written with a clear agenda.

The newspaper headlines are stupid, crass, and sensationalist- and the citing of Micah True's death in the report is a clearly populist hook designed to get attention of the ultrarunning community. But no-one would be discussing this but for crass newspaper headlines, so they have performed some useful function. Until the science behind this report is disproven, its worth paying attention to.

A long time ago I did a primary degree in statistics, so I am am familiar with the technique, how it can be used , and how it can be abused. It's valid if you are taking two different base groups say of different ages, and making adjustment for the fact that that older people in general have more health problems. What you are legitimately doing is trying to make the two samples more comparable to see what other factors might be influencing the outcome you are really interested in. However, normalising the benefits to health of participating in regular exercise is not legitimate. If he is normalizing out potential health benefits from running as described in the article, then its not meaningful.
In fairness, I have not read the original article and would be surprised if it got through a peer review and was published if that is what he is doing.

Oisin11178

menoscemo wrote: »

Most multi Marathoners run most of their marathons slowly and don't over exert themsleves in each one.
I know Plenty of guys that train harder and cover way more miles than 90% of multi-marathoners but yet have never ran a marathon in their lives. Are they in danger as well? Or is it just the act of covering 26.2 miles in one go that increases the health risks?

In the majority of my marathons I run just above recovery heart rate and am over it later that day. Thats the key to surviving them and recovering quickly. I do all my training handy to.

menoscemo

Oisin11178 wrote: »

In the majority of my marathons I run just above recovery heart rate and am over it later that day. Thats the key to surviving them and recovering quickly. I do all my training handy to.

Exactly, that's why it is a sensationalist bull shi*t headline.
Most people equate running marathons with pushing the body to the limit and that is not necessarily the case.
That's why we have pacers
I am almost certain that I did way more damage to my body in running a 5k today than I did pacing DCM last month. Yet you don't see the headline 'running too many 5ks is very bad for you'

Dilbert75

Having seen this first on the Independent website, I'm glad to have read this discussion here. It seems, from the sections of the paper that are quoted, that the key point here is that training gently and occasionally racing hard is going to do you more good than harm. If you run flat out every day it'll catch up with you sooner or later. Doesn't take a genius to figure that out though.

Krusty_Clown

Dilbert75 wrote: »

If you run flat out every day it'll catch up with you sooner or later.

Yes, but even the mice in their experiment who were 'forced to run to exhaustion every day for 4 months', recovered when withdrawn from the ‘Iron-Mouse’ training regimen. The question nobody seems to be asking is "How much faster were the mice, after they had completed the Iron-Mouse training program"? Additionally, if they spit the mice into two groups, and gave one group protein shakes after each workout and the other group just cheese, which group of mice would be more ripped at the end of the experiment?

rom

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

Yes, but even the mice in their experiment who were 'forced to run to exhaustion every day for 4 months', recovered when withdrawn from the ‘Iron-Mouse’ training regimen. The question nobody seems to be asking is "How much faster were the mice, after they had completed the Iron-Mouse training program"? Additionally, if they spit the mice into two groups, and gave one group protein shakes after each workout and the other group just cheese, which group of mice would be more ripped at the end of the experiment?

Very valid point but is is possible to get shakers that size ?

ultrapercy

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

Yes, but even the mice in their experiment who were 'forced to run to exhaustion every day for 4 months', recovered when withdrawn from the ‘Iron-Mouse’ training regimen. The question nobody seems to be asking is "How much faster were the mice, after they had completed the Iron-Mouse training program"? Additionally, if they spit the mice into two groups, and gave one group protein shakes after each workout and the other group just cheese, which group of mice would be more ripped at the end of the experiment?

Did any of the mice in the experiment get Iron Mouse tattoos?

RayCun

Where did they get Garmins that would fit them?
(and did their fur cause problems for the HRM?)

TFBubendorfer

Here's another take on that research:

http://sock-doc.com/2012/12/aerobic_endurace_bashing/

Though, to be honest, I gave up halfway through the article ...

theboyblunder

Conclusion

The take home message for most is to limit one's vigorous exercise to 30–50 min/day. If one really wants to do a marathon or full-distance triathlon etc, it may be best to do just one or a few and then proceed to safer and healthier exercise patterns. On the other hand, light or moderate intensity exercise does not present the dose-dependent risks associated with excessive endurance exercise. A routine of moderate physical activity will add life to your years, as well as years to your life. In contrast, running too fast, too far, and for too many years may speed one's progress towards the finish line of life.

I got four things from this thread

1. Most of my runs are in the 45-50 min range. So im prob all right jack. So is almost everyone else on here (might take out a life insurance policy on Oisin11178 though )
2. I am slightly more nervous about donadea now though
3. Im glad im not a mouse
4. that last sentance of the conclusion is one of the most embarrassing ive ever seen pass peer-review. I'm an academic myself and we usually dont write crap like that, id say they had the manuscript down to the journalists the second it was accepted.

Aimman

If you wait a couple more weeks, there will be an article about how doing lots of marathons will extend your life.

It's along the same lines of Good/Bad news articles that continuously come out about Red Meat, Wine and White Bread.

ecoli

Aimman wrote: »

It's along the same lines of Good/Bad news articles that continuously come out about Red Meat, Wine and White Bread.

You mean people are saying that a lamb kebab to go with your couple of bottles of wine and a bit of bread the morning after to soak up the remnants of your fry is bad for you :eek:

Sacksian

Gives me a chance to quote one of my favourite Fry & Laurie lines:

"Well of course too much is bad for you, that's what "too much" means you blithering twat. If you had too much water it would be bad for you, wouldn't it? "Too much" precisely means that quantity which is excessive, that's what it means. Could you ever say "too much water is good for you"? I mean if it's too much it's too much. Too much of anything is too much. Obviously. Jesus."

@2:12 of this sketch...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XV4yK-26smM

pre

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

Yes, but even the mice in their experiment who were 'forced to run to exhaustion every day for 4 months', recovered when withdrawn from the ‘Iron-Mouse’ training regimen. The question nobody seems to be asking is "How much faster were the mice, after they had completed the Iron-Mouse training program"? Additionally, if they spit the mice into two groups, and gave one group protein shakes after each workout and the other group just cheese, which group of mice would be more ripped at the end of the experiment?

Ha Ha Brilliant

tunguska

I think theres some truth in the article. I've done a fair bit of research into the effects of extreme exercise on the body and the long term results are never good. I know guys who've been flogging themselves in racing and training for years and they're in bits. They're lean and can run like hell, but you can see the damage in their beat up faces. Everything I've ever read on the subject of longevity and staying healthy has come to the conclusion that moderate intensity exercise(yoga, tai chi)is the way to go. Cant see myself being one of those lads still racing when Im 50. It'll be the greens of augusta national and yoga for me.

robinph

Doing an hour plus every day at race pace is bad for you seems to be the essence of what their study came up with. Didn't we know that already?

TFBubendorfer

robinph wrote: »

Doing an hour plus every day at race pace is bad for you seems to be the essence of what their study came up with. Didn't we know that already?

Maybe the thread should have been titled too many 5ks/10ks very bad for you.

TRR

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

Maybe the thread should have been titled too many 5ks/10ks very bad for you.

Only if you can't run either under 40 minutes

rom

I agree too many marathon's are bad for you. Sure we all knew that.

dtipp

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/health/2012/1204/1224327433310.html

RandyMann

I wonder can this relate to sprinters also? I mean high intensive/100% effort sessions, are they as damaging even if they are of short duration?

TFBubendorfer

RandyMann wrote: »

I wonder can this relate to sprinters also? I mean high intensive/100% effort sessions, are they as damaging even if they are of short duration?

The average Joe won't do much sprint training, therefore it won't make the same headlines.

.
.
.

Oh, you meant if it's actually damaging? Needs some scientific research!

RandyMann

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

The average Joe won't do much sprint training, therefore it won't make the same headlines.

.
.
.

Oh, you meant if it's actually damaging? Needs some scientific research!

Felt damaging tonight anyways...:)

mithril

It's not only participation in "extreme" endurance activities though that is targeted in the report.
The level of exercise that is suggested as optimal is very low.
40 minutes, 3 or 4 times a week, at about 10 KM/H.
Once you cross this threshold, the benefits of exercise on the cardiac function start to reverse and running at a high volume or intensity produces a health outcome similar to that of a sedentary individual.
So jogging good, running bad is what the report seems to be indicating.

theboyblunder

http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/content/29/15/1800.full

This one says we're grand

SnappyDresser

theboyblunder wrote: »

http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/content/29/15/1800.full

This one says we're grand

I think you are saying the above tongue in cheek.
I read it that if one was say someone who started to run marathons to improve general health perhaps after years of poor lifestyle that running marathons may make the situation worse.
The years of abuse will not get better due to running.
Many people over 50 who are running should also be on statins.

TFBubendorfer

i008787 wrote: »

Many people over 50 who are running should also be on statins.

:eek: I hope you're kidding.