Is endurance exercise really good for us?

Daqster

Just reading about Jeff Polack there (director of Above The Rim, Fresh Prince of Bel Air) who died while out jogging and it got me thinking, is endurance exercise really good for us? I remember Anthony Quinn's son died jogging also and Steve Crams brother a few years back also.

Am not referring to enjoyable leisure type ways of getting our circulation going and our hearts pumping, such as walking, slowly swimming, sex, riding a bike but more strenuous walking, stair climbing while rushing, treadmill running, exercise biking at deliberately difficult gear settings, non leisurely hiking, intense jogging, running for long periods of time etc etc.

In short: is pushing our bodies into stressful states during "exercice" actually good for us?

My guess is no, it's not.

Of all the elderly people I know, who have a good quality of life, they tend to be the type that did feck all endurance type exercising. More they type to eat well and only partake in activities that raised their heart and pumped their circulation if it was of the relaxing type, such as walking in the park, cycling, maybe a little non competitive tennis, attended the odd swinging party, a little pool swimming etc etc.

Any of my parents friends that partook in jogging, running themselves ragged on threadmills and cycling stationary bikes, in a foolish attempt at getting "fit".. all died. Yup, they're all dead I'm afraid. Every last one of them, gone to meet their maker, as their couch potatoe partners were left behind to grieve alone, no doubt passing their time listing their loved ones left lycra for Just Eat vouchers on Adverts.

Seriousily though, there was actually one Doctor back in the 60s who actually warned against jogging if you were of average fitness. something unheard of today. I think this should be more common. People pushing themselves to do activities they feel uncomfortable doing should be warned against. I remember our GAA coach telling us to keep running until we puked, perhaps he just seen An Officer and A Gentleman or something, but who knows what damage people are doing to their bodeis, that will only manifest themselves down the line, by pushing the body that hard.

So what do you reckon. Do you think endurance exercise is really good for us?

Of do you think, as I do, that people should only do what they find almost effortess and perhaps just build from there without ever stressing the body to such a degree that you are really an adrenaline junkie, not a fitness freak you think you are.

/Lies down on sofa, that's enough movement for today.

SweepTheLeg

I run to keep my heart healthy and to not be fat.

wazky

Sitting on the sofa eating yourself stupid is a much a better plan, try do as little as possible to not strain the heart.

looking_around

I think this is something along the lines, your heart only has "x" amount of beats and when their used up, you die?

Hence why over doing the cardio is bad or something.
Idk, I'm not googling for evidence atm either but..

everything in moderation is the way to go.

Inspector Coptoor

High Intensity Interval Training is better than steady pace training, particularly on a bike or rower.

Jogging on hard surfaces for prolonged distances at heavy body weight is a recipe for cortisol releasing, joint destroying disaster.

Inspector Coptoor

looking_around wrote: »

everything in moderation is the way to go.

Including moderation

Teyla Emmagan

You don't maintain a body like this with exercise.

wazky

Inspector Coptoor wrote: »

Including moderation

Who's this moderation they keep telling me to drink with?

Pen.Island

Humans can outlast any animal through endurance. FACT.

ScumLord

Humans are long range hunter gatherers, that would typically require spending the entire day tracking an animal or foraging in forests.

The vast majority of people don't use even half their potential.

thecatspjs

If you eat well, that is most of the battle and you will probably live a long life. Strenuous exercise is optional but ya gotta move a little bit every day.

PizzamanIRL

No, just because a few known people died doesn't mean it's bad for you now all of a sudden.

hmmm

In my hiking club we have a stack of older people who have been fit all their life. Some were only ever hikers, some ran marathons etc. All would be 'endurance' type people of one sort of another, used to walking or running long distances. They're the fittest group of older people I know, and most look at least 10 years younger than they actually are - certainly if I compare them to people their age who never did anything, their quality of life is a million times better.

Eating in moderation comes naturally if you exercise regularly. You'll put that bun down if you know you'll have to walk up a mountain with a bigger belly as a result.

Inventive User Name

looking_around wrote: »

I think this is something along the lines, your heart only has "x" amount of beats and when their used up, you die?

:rolleyes:

Wattle

I like exercise and I find it's good for maintaining positive mental health. I do swimming in short intense bursts and also go for a brisk walk every second day. I don't want to spend two hours working out cos I've other things I want to do. All I'm really aiming for is to get the sweat up and feel the positive buzz of exercise. I don't really understand people that do triathlons and the like. I know it's a personal challenge but it is a mental amount of exercise to do. I can't help thinking that such extremes are bad for the body in the long term.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

ScumLord wrote: »

Humans are long range hunter gatherers, that would typically require spending the entire day tracking an animal or foraging in forests.

The vast majority of people don't use even half their potential.

the majority of that was spurts of running, then stop, then run then stop then run then stop not run for 40 miles in one go, then do it again the week after

looking_around

Inventive User Name wrote: »

:rolleyes:

yes, you rolling eyes says alot about my sarcastic comment

Normally when the "endurance exercise" is brought up, it's about keeping your heart rate at a certain level for a length of time.

NuckingFacker

No, every person I know who was a serious athlete in their early years are fecked - knees gone, hips gone, arthritis..etc etc. I used to run cross-country, fairly seriously. My knees are ballixed and my hips are much the same - worn out. Moderate excercise, same as moderate drinking.

Pen.Island

NuckingFacker wrote: »

No, every person I know who was a serious athlete in their early years are fecked - knees gone, hips gone, arthritis..etc etc. I used to run cross-country, fairly seriously. My knees are ballixed and my hips are much the same - worn out. Moderate excercise, same as moderate drinking.

You know that if you ran without shoes that probably wouldn't happen.

Chefrio

Too much cardio damages your body, just look at the state of most long distance runners compared to 100m sprinters.

Killgore Trout

Jogging is hardly endurance exercise. It's a bit more strenuous than walking. Healthy adults should be able to walk for hours without calling it endurance.

JJJJNR

omega 3 is good for the heart, glucosamine is supposed to be good for the joints adults should take both.

Daqster

ScumLord wrote: »

Humans are long range hunter gatherers

They are in there arse. Sure, humans have done that, seen many documentaries where they followed them, but to imply that's our what we are, by design, is a nonsense. We're fruit eaters that have evolved to be eat an omnivorous diet, that's all.

Besides, even at that, not a chance we have to track animals long range to nourishes us. Nothing about humans suggest that we are made with long range tracking in mind.

entropi

Chefrio wrote: »

Too much cardio damages your body, just look at the state of most long distance runners compared to 100m sprinters.

That doesn't mean anything. They train for different events, are built different genetically and have natural ability for those events...that's why they look different.

Too much exercise, well this is almost a throwback to the "when is a man/woman too fit" threads over the last week. Do you want to exercise in moderation? Grand. Do you want to exercise for longer distances, putting in up to 140km a week? Go right ahead, as long as you are actually doing exercise that doesn't compromise your health.

Better to exercise than to just sit around on the couch for the most part.


The argument that humans are not meant for this kind of exercise is wrong. We were built for endurance and stamina with occasional bursts of speed.

Chefrio

entropi wrote: »

That doesn't mean anything. They train for different events, are built different genetically and have natural ability for those events...that's why they look different.

Too much exercise, well this is almost a throwback to the "when is a man/woman too fit" threads over the last week. Do you want to exercise in moderation? Grand. Do you want to exercise for longer distances, putting in up to 140km a week? Go right ahead, as long as you are actually doing exercise that doesn't compromise your health.

Better to exercise than to just sit around on the couch for the most part.


The argument that humans are not meant for this kind of exercise is wrong. We were built for endurance and stamina with occasional bursts of speed.

We may be capable of it, but it damages our bodies.

Reekwind

ScumLord wrote: »

Humans are long range hunter gatherers, that would typically require spending the entire day tracking an animal or foraging in forests.

The vast majority of people don't use even half their potential.

Yeah, that I don't accept. It may have been the case tens of thousands of years ago but for millennia most people have lived lives that do not require sprinting or long distance running. Walking and manual labour yes, both were very much part of the agricultural lifestyle, but not running. The latter hasn't been required of us on a daily basis since the Agricultural Revolution

pragmatic1

Pen.Island wrote: »

Humans can outlast any animal through endurance. FACT.

Yep. Humans are the endurance kings of the animal world.

Duck's hoop

Inspector Coptoor wrote: »

High Intensity Interval Training is better than steady pace training, particularly on a bike or rower.

Better than what? And for what?

There's a reason Bradley Wiggins will put tens of thousands of miles into the road in winter and spring.

NuckingFacker

pragmatic1 wrote: »

Yep. Humans are the endurance kings of the animal world.

I'm doubting that. I took the dog for a walk there and I was waay more knackered than it was after a couple of miles. That hairy fecker looked good for about another three or four.

El_Dangeroso

Ultra-endurance athletes do have scarring on their heart indicating that we are not supposed to run 300k in a week on a regular basis.

Having said that, how many of us are really in danger of too much exercise vs. too little? It's kinda like saying don't drink water because 5 litres of it a short space of time will kill you.

Theresalwaysone

If ever there was a thread to use as an IQ test...

This thread is to judging boardsies IQs as being a fan of 'How I met your mother' is to friend choosing/culling.

prince of peasants

Daqster wrote: »

Of all the elderly people I know, who have a good quality of life, they tend to be the type that did feck all endurance type exercising.
/Lies down on sofa, that's enough movement for today.

They probably did feck all endurance excercise because they didnt have to. People nowadays are use to travelling everywhere by motor transport.
Back in them days a lot of people cycled or walked.

Endurance is great for the body. I run 32 miles a week. It's great, I can eat what I like and lose weight quickly because of it.

WoollyRedHat

I don't know but you make a compelling scientific arguement old chap.

entropi

Chefrio wrote: »

We may be capable of it, but it damages our bodies.

There is potential for anything you do to damage your body. Moving the wrong way while sitting/standing/whatever? You could find yourself with a prolapsed disc or other damage. Running on too hard or improper surface? Most likely going to cause joint damage over time even with appropriate footwear.

The body is tough, it can withstand a lot of punishment. Sure look at how many people make a new year resolution to join a gym, get fit/lose weight/insert goal here and most of them will be back to old habits after 12 weeks. The body is not only the physical, it comes down to strong mentality too.

Capt'n Midnight

Pen.Island wrote: »

Humans can outlast any animal through endurance. FACT.

nope, we can't compete with migratory birds or fish or marine mammals. Swifts spend most of their lives aloft - if they could figure out how to give birth in the air they would , sharks don't sleep.

But on land we are in the top ten, animals like African hunting dogs might do better than us. But at the hottest part of the day we are top dog because we are hairless and expose a smaller surface to the equatorial sun. And unlike the hunting dogs we can climb trees.

We don't have have claws or fangs. But we can also throw stones from a greater distance and more accurately than anything else. "Never bring a knife to a gun fight" Oh yeah we've been using fire for perhaps a million years. Tool use dates back earlier to about 2.5 million years the Oldowan toolkit was the original Swiss Army Knife, or perhaps 3.5 million years if it can be confirmed.

Anyone know when the first slingshot was invented ?


Like cats we are lazy opportunists. It's an energy saving behaviour so we need less food in the long run. But like cats we can be energetic if it means lunch. The big difference is in our style of hunting. Springbok will jump in the air if they see a cheetah or leopard because both can calculate the odds of an ambush relative to the fitness of the prey, it saves energy. If they see hyenas or hunting dogs then there is no prancing about , it's heads down and run like your life depended on it.


So yes we'd all capable of running marathons if we weren't so lazy.

Capt'n Midnight

Daqster wrote: »

They are in there arse. Sure, humans have done that, seen many documentaries where they followed them, but to imply that's our what we are, by design, is a nonsense. We're fruit eaters that have evolved to be eat an omnivorous diet, that's all.

Besides, even at that, not a chance we have to track animals long range to nourishes us. Nothing about humans suggest that we are made with long range tracking in mind.

We have many differences to apes

we are hairless - swimming or hunting at noon ?
we have lots of body fat - swimming or intermittent food ?
a lot of our ancestors ate shellfish

There isn't a lot of fruit out on the savannah, a lot of fruit eaters tend to climb out of trouble rather than run away


we can be very patient

Irlandczyk

This guy seems to be doing pretty well at 69...

allthedoyles

My Cardiologist disagrees completely with the OP

Radiosonde

Irlandczyk wrote: »

This guy seems to be doing pretty well at 69...

Apart from the heart attack?

Dyr

I always get a giggle out of people pointing out that we were endurance hunters a few thousand years ago


a) those buckos did'nt have much of a life expectancy so its not really a relevant argument for longevity

b) I'd bet that humans only went chasing food all day when there were no easier alternatives, we ain't dumb.

Capt'n Midnight

Bambi wrote: »

I always get a giggle out of people pointing out that we were endurance hunters a few thousand years ago


a) those buckos did'nt have much of a life expectancy so its not really a relevant argument for longevity

The bible mentions three score and ten
high infant mortality , starvation, injury and disease were the main killers. If you survive those then life expectancy wasn't much less than today. Many of the improvements recently have been involved massive intervention to keep people alive, but with a poor quality of life, in their final years. Think of how many people over seventy have had to have surgery or couldn't possible survive on their own.

Life expectancy of a forty year old person has only gone up by about five years in the last 150 years.

b) I'd bet that humans only went chasing food all day when there were no easier alternatives, we ain't dumb.

like I said we are lazy

Dilly.

Bambi wrote: »

I always get a giggle out of people pointing out that we were endurance hunters a few thousand years ago


a) those buckos did'nt have much of a life expectancy so its not really a relevant argument for Longevity.

Yeah I never understand when people reference hunter gatherers in relation to whether we should eat meat, wheat or take anti biotics etc.

ninebeanrows

I would agree it is unwise to suggest a 50-70 year old to go out and start running!

But aside from that you will be prolonging your life a lot further if you go out and do endurance exercise than not.

Obviously there are exceptions where somebody has SADS.

Irlandczyk

Radiosonde wrote: »

Apart from the heart attack?

Indeed, my bad.

Capt'n Midnight

Dilly. wrote: »

Yeah I never understand when people reference hunter gatherers in relation to whether we should eat meat, wheat or take anti biotics etc.

true

unless you are an Inuit or similar then it's unlikely that meat would have ever formed the bulk of your diet as a hunter gatherer. Even today women gather more calories than the men hunt

wheat / rice / cereals and the Harber process for fixing nitrogen are what enables most humans to day to survive


antibiotics , well we have left the golden age thanks to people who didn't take the full course and the marketing gimps who insisted on putting them in worksurfaces and hand cleaner and farmers pumping cattle full of them.

Antibiotic resistance was seen in the 1940's, only now are we restriciting the use of them. But it's too little too late since we've already bred MSRA and resistant forms of TB. Short term profit for long term health problems. I still think that some people shouldn't be given antibiotics unless they can prove they will finish the course - or should be locked up in isolation until they do.

Septicaemia will make a return

Pen.Island

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

nope, we can't compete with migratory birds or fish or marine mammals. Swifts spend most of their lives aloft - if they could figure out how to give birth in the air they would , sharks don't sleep.

But on land we are in the top ten, animals like African hunting dogs might do better than us. But at the hottest part of the day we are top dog because we are hairless and expose a smaller surface to the equatorial sun. And unlike the hunting dogs we can climb trees.

We don't have have claws or fangs. But we can also throw stones from a greater distance and more accurately than anything else. "Never bring a knife to a gun fight" Oh yeah we've been using fire for perhaps a million years. Tool use dates back earlier to about 2.5 million years the Oldowan toolkit was the original Swiss Army Knife, or perhaps 3.5 million years if it can be confirmed.

Anyone know when the first slingshot was invented ?


Like cats we are lazy opportunists. It's an energy saving behaviour so we need less food in the long run. But like cats we can be energetic if it means lunch. The big difference is in our style of hunting. Springbok will jump in the air if they see a cheetah or leopard because both can calculate the odds of an ambush relative to the fitness of the prey, it saves energy. If they see hyenas or hunting dogs then there is no prancing about , it's heads down and run like your life depended on it.


So yes we'd all capable of running marathons if we weren't so lazy.

You are wrong. You can't compare birds to humans. Birds don't need to expend energy to fly, just like a plane can travel without using fuel.

El_Dangeroso

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

true

unless you are an Inuit or similar then it's unlikely that meat would have ever formed the bulk of your diet as a hunter gatherer. Even today women gather more calories than the men hunt

Only if you follow the definition of meat in western standards. Women gather lizards and insects which are highly nutritious and high in protein. Hunter gatherers usually have very little difficulty in procuring protein.

Carbs and fats are far more desirable food sources for them precisely because they are more scarce than protein in the wild. When the Mbuti foragers are surrounded by large amounts of game, but they have no starch, they will say they "have no food."

Protein is very self-limiting, usually at a max of 30% of calories. The inuit don't even have meat as the bulk of their diet, their diet is based mostly on fat, not protein.

Wibbs

Bambi wrote: »

a) those buckos did'nt have much of a life expectancy so its not really a relevant argument for longevity

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Life expectancy of a forty year old person has only gone up by about five years in the last 150 years.

Thank you CM. I love this cavemen died young "fact". It's largely a nonsense. If they made it to 20 their chances of seeing 60-70 weren't much lower than ours and they tended reach such ages in much better health than the average person in the west. If a doctor went back in time most of his or her job would be bone setting, stitching wounds with the odd infection cropping up. Diabetes, obesity, heart disease at 40 etc would be pretty much unknown. Osteoporosis was rare too. Generally their dentition is superior too. No braces required as the dental arch developed properly. They do get cavities, but again at lower rates than modern people who have access to toothpaste and dentists. Cancer? Well environmental triggers would be lesser, but they did get it. Recently it was noted that a Neandertal male likely had and possibly died from lung cancer in his early 40's. Maybe it was environmental? After all Hunter gatherers would have breathed a lot of smoke from campfires.

b) I'd bet that humans only went chasing food all day when there were no easier alternatives, we ain't dumb.

There's something to that. Depending on the environment hunter gatherers can spend less time working to get food than the time the later farmers did.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

the majority of that was spurts of running, then stop, then run then stop then run then stop not run for 40 miles in one go, then do it again the week after

+1 Might explain why high intensity interval training is so effective.

Daqster wrote: »

They are in there arse. Sure, humans have done that, seen many documentaries where they followed them, but to imply that's our what we are, by design, is a nonsense. We're fruit eaters that have evolved to be eat an omnivorous diet, that's all.

Nope we're not. We haven't been fruit eaters for at least 2-3 million years. The evolving shape of our ribcage and intestines show this. Early versions that would lead to us, have much more flaring ribcages and bigger bellies to accommodate longer guts to enable the breakdown of more plant fibre. Our teeth also changed. Indeed with our molars which some have suggested show a plant based diet it has been shown that the design is also very good at chewing meat. By the time we get to Homo Erectus the basic "Human" shape had arrived(from the neck down). We ate meat of various kinds(which also helped us spread through the world), add in lots of root veggies, tubers and the like*, eggs, nuts and fruit, even the odd grains and you have the basic human diet.

Besides, even at that, not a chance we have to track animals long range to nourishes us. Nothing about humans suggest that we are made with long range tracking in mind.

Actually there is. We are very designed for running/walking/tracking long distances. Far more than any other ape. We have narrow hips, long legs etc. Consider our cousins the Neandertals, they were more designed for ambush attacks, close in work. Huge explosive energy going on powering stabbing spears that would make a 44 magnum look like a bit of a scratch. They have shorter stocky short limbed bodies, with wide hips. Not much cop for running. We evolved differently, moved away from close in ambush stuff favouring long range take downs with thrown spears/arrows. The latter tactic generally means more distance tracking as it evolved in more open ecosystems. Grasslands and the like, rather than forests. Projectile weapons are not so great in deep forest. A spear is more likely to hit a tree branch before it hits the prey.

El_Dangeroso wrote:

The inuit don't even have meat as the bulk of their diet, their diet is based mostly on fat, not protein.

IIRC haven't they evolved larger livers than other populations to deal with such a diet?

That's another aspect to humans and diet. We have evolved local adaptations to local foods. One diet for one population might not be good for another. EG Dairy is grand for someone from Dublin, but not so good for someone from Mumbai.




*Veggies as we think of them now, not so much. The majority of veg at your local shop are selectively bred mutants that simply don't exist in the wild. Goes for some fruit too. Hell carrots only became orange in the early medieval.

Chefrio

Wibbs wrote: »

Thank you CM. I love this cavemen died young "fact". It's largely a nonsense. If they made it to 20 their chances of seeing 60-70 weren't much lower than ours and they tended reach such ages in much better health than the average person in the west. If a doctor went back in time most of his or her job would be bone setting, stitching wounds with the odd infection cropping up. Diabetes, obesity, heart disease at 40 etc would be pretty much unknown. Osteoporosis was rare too. Generally their dentition is superior too. No braces required as the dental arch developed properly. They do get cavities, but again at lower rates than modern people who have access to toothpaste and dentists. Cancer? Well environmental triggers would be lesser, but they did get it. Recently it was noted that a Neandertal male likely had and possibly died from lung cancer in his early 40's. Maybe it was environmental? After all Hunter gatherers would have breathed a lot of smoke from campfires.

There's something to that. Depending on the environment hunter gatherers can spend less time working to get food than the time the later farmers did.

+1 Might explain why high intensity interval training is so effective.

Nope we're not. We haven't been fruit eaters for at least 2-3 million years. The evolving shape of our ribcage and intestines show this. Early versions that would lead to us, have much more flaring ribcages and bigger bellies to accommodate longer guts to enable the breakdown of more plant fibre. Our teeth also changed. Indeed with our molars which some have suggested show a plant based diet it has been shown that the design is also very good at chewing meat. By the time we get to Homo Erectus the basic "Human" shape had arrived(from the neck down). We ate meat of various kinds(which also helped us spread through the world), add in lots of root veggies, tubers and the like*, eggs, nuts and fruit, even the odd grains and you have the basic human diet.

Actually there is. We are very designed for running/walking/tracking long distances. Far more than any other ape. We have narrow hips, long legs etc. Consider our cousins the Neandertals, they were more designed for ambush attacks, close in work. Huge explosive energy going on powering stabbing spears that would make a 44 magnum look like a bit of a scratch. They have shorter stocky short limbed bodies, with wide hips. Not much cop for running. We evolved differently, moved away from close in ambush stuff favouring long range take downs with thrown spears/arrows. The latter tactic generally means more distance tracking as it evolved in more open ecosystems. Grasslands and the like, rather than forests. Projectile weapons are not so great in deep forest. A spear is more likely to hit a tree branch before it hits the prey.

IIRC haven't they evolved larger livers than other populations to deal with such a diet?

That's another aspect to humans and diet. We have evolved local adaptations to local foods. One diet for one population might not be good for another. EG Dairy is grand for someone from Dublin, but not so good for someone from Mumbai.




*Veggies as we think of them now, not so much. The majority of veg at your local shop are selectively bred mutants that simply don't exist in the wild. Goes for some fruit too. Hell carrots only became orange in the early medieval.

So what would you suggest an Irish person should eat generally speaking for optimal health?

El_Dangeroso

Wibbs wrote: »

IIRC haven't they evolved larger livers than other populations to deal with such a diet?

That and they have massive issues with excessive bleeding due to too much omega 3 (blood thinning) and have considerable osteoporosis in pre-western contact skeletons, they are a marginal culture that are living on the very fringes of what is possible for humans to adapt to. Not really an optimal example of anything.

El_Dangeroso

Chefrio wrote: »

So what would you suggest an Irish person should eat generally speaking for optimal health?

You didn't ask me but I read an (excessively dry and academic) book called Irish food: 1500 to 1913 that goes into (mind-numbingly boring) detail about pre-famine diets in Ireland. These diets pretty much consisted of mainly potatoes and dairy with small amounts of oats, meat and greens.

The Irish of the time were remarked upon to be a 'very beautiful race', and good bone structure is indicative of good nutrition in childhood.

Potatoes are a very complete food. So if you're of Irish ancestry the answer is probably spuds and milk for the most part.