T Nation

One Running Shoe in the Grave

Another reason to NOT be an endurance athlete, at least not in your 50’s. More evidence of heart damage among people who run a lot. I’d be curious about similar statistics on resistance training. I’d guess being “extreme” as you age may actually kill you faster, in either case.

Here’s the link:

In a five-kilometer race Thanksgiving morning, Ralph Foiles finished first in his age group, earning the 56-year-old Kansan a winner’s medal.

Or was it a booby prize?

A fast-emerging body of scientific evidence points to a conclusion that’s unsettling, to say the least, for a lot of older athletes: Running can take a toll on the heart that essentially eliminates the benefits of exercise.

“Running too fast, too far and for too many years may speed one’s progress toward the finish line of life,” concludes an editorial to be published next month in the British journal Heart.

…Opinion is nearly unanimous among cardiologists that endurance athletics significantly increases the risk of atrial fibrillation, an arrhythmia that is estimated to be the cause of one third of all strokes. “Chronic extreme exercise appears to cause excessive ‘wear-and-tear’ on the heart,” the editorial says.

This just in: Moderation is good for you. Who knew?

Fat people propaganda.

Great piece Puff !

[quote]batman730 wrote:
This just in: Moderation is good for you. Who knew?[/quote]

Does that include weight training intensity, duration, and frequency?

:wink:

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:

[quote]batman730 wrote:
This just in: Moderation is good for you. Who knew?[/quote]

Does that include weight training intensity, duration, and frequency?

;)[/quote]

:frowning:

Whether you spent your life running, lifting, or eating cheeseburgers, one of those things is going to end up being “bad for your heart” and you’re gonna die. Probably because your heart can only go on for so long regardless of what you do.

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:

[quote]batman730 wrote:
This just in: Moderation is good for you. Who knew?[/quote]

Does that include weight training intensity, duration, and frequency?

;)[/quote]

yep, pro bodybuilders though impressive aren’t really optimizing their longevity but it’s not what they are looking for.

I think the point is it’s stupid to run marathons to try and be healthy

[quote]rehanb_bl wrote:

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:

[quote]batman730 wrote:
This just in: Moderation is good for you. Who knew?[/quote]

Does that include weight training intensity, duration, and frequency?

;)[/quote]

I think the point is it’s stupid to run marathons to try and be healthy[/quote]

This.

A marathon may be excessive but, 20-25 miles a week is considered a lot? 5K is long distance? 8 miles per hour is too fast?

I hear the number one killer among humans over the last few centuries is aging. The only way to prevent it is to kill yo self.

What a junky article. Data is very easy to manipulate on long term studies. The type of analysis run can greatly effect the statistical significance.

Running fast is very hard. I wouldn’t doubt elite level running is detrimental to your overall health. Of course doing anything at an elite level is going to be detrimental to your health. There are winners and losers in this world. Which one are you?

Mabye one issue is that there are many men who keep trying to jog daily, who really aren’t designed for it. They keep it up because they became adults in the '70’s and it was fashionable at the time (or during one of the regular jogging resurgences), and because distance running is, to them, the absolute gague of ‘health.’ So…despite it not being right for their particular body, they keep it up, thus leading to certain issues down the road.

shrug ah who knows…It is interesting, though, because only now are we really able to see the results of a lifetime of jogging on a relatively large population.

[quote]xXSeraphimXx wrote:
A marathon may be excessive but, 20-25 miles a week is considered a lot? 5K is long distance? 8 miles per hour is too fast?[/quote]

I thought the same thing. Anybody who just goes out jogging at a slow 10 minute mile pace for 30 minutes every morning will hit 20 miles per week. There are lots of people running 8-10 minute miles for 30 or 40 minutes. BUT the article indicates that it’s people who “run a lot more than 20-25 miles a week loose the mortality advantage” so I don’t think they are talking about the every morning casual joggers…AND it mentions running faster than 8 minute miles gave no benefit over slower running.

"What the new research suggests is that the benefits of running may come to a hard stop later in life. In a study involving 52,600 people followed for three decades, the runners in the group had a 19% lower death rate than nonrunners, according to the Heart editorial. But among the running cohort, those who ran a lot more than 20 to 25 miles a week lost that mortality advantage.

Meanwhile, according to the Heart editorial, another large study found no mortality benefit for those who ran faster than 8 miles per hour, while those who ran slower reaped significant mortality benefits."

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:
What a junky article. Data is very easy to manipulate on long term studies. The type of analysis run can greatly effect the statistical significance.

Running fast is very hard. I wouldn’t doubt elite level running is detrimental to your overall health. Of course doing anything at an elite level is going to be detrimental to your health. There are winners and losers in this world. Which one are you?[/quote]

I thought you were anonym for a minute there. I love it when he searches the original articles in the scientific journals and analyzes the stats for us. Get on it! :slight_smile:


I wondered where the “too much” threshold is for lifting.

In terms of longevity, we can all assume that trying to be huge is not going to help you live longer, as someone already pointed out. There’s a lot of evidence for calorie restriction, and the corresponding slower metabolism that goes along with it, extending life. And I’d assume a lot of max effort lifting could tax your heart. Of course, we’re aware that getting under very heavy loads can compress discs in the back, etc…

I’d assume there’s a sweet spot where lifting is good for you as you age, and where it would have diminishing returns. It would be interesting to know what that is.

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:

[quote]batman730 wrote:
This just in: Moderation is good for you. Who knew?[/quote]

Does that include weight training intensity, duration, and frequency?

;)[/quote]

Yeah, I would definitely say you can overdo lifting, HIIT, protein/calorie consumption, sports and pretty much anything else until it stops being good for you long term. That doesn’t necessarily mean you shouldn’t do it if you feel strongly enough about it. None of us is making it out of here alive after all.

IMO the problem is the whole “if some is good let’s do a ridiculous amount to the exclusion of all else” followed by “whoa, a ridiculous amount isn’t good. Nobody should do that at all but they should do a ridiculous amount of this other thing instead” attitude. For example the whole steady state vs. HIIT thing. Huh, sprint intervals provide benefits that jogging doesn’t. Furthermore, too much jogging (especially without adequate nutrition and strength training) makes you skinny and week and being a serious marathoner may actually kill you. Ergo: nobody, under any circumstances should ever run more than 200m or do any sustained aerobic activity at all.

Maybe, unless you’re looking to be elite in a given sport, it would be healthier to do a some of each without being excessive with any? Maybe sprint sometimes, jog sometimes, lift sometimes, row/cycle sometimes and rest sometimes with a bias toward your individual goals.

just another study where the bottom line will end up being, too much endurance training may hurt and harm athlete # 1, but have no effect on athlete # 2…same with bodybuilding. athlete #1 trains very hard eats his roids and dies young. athlete # 2 does the same and lives a long life.same in every sport…everyone is different.i’m going to keep riding my bike like a mad man, and lifting a few days a week like a mad man.

[quote]Powerpuff wrote:

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:
What a junky article. Data is very easy to manipulate on long term studies. The type of analysis run can greatly effect the statistical significance.

Running fast is very hard. I wouldn’t doubt elite level running is detrimental to your overall health. Of course doing anything at an elite level is going to be detrimental to your health. There are winners and losers in this world. Which one are you?[/quote]

I thought you were anonym for a minute there. I love it when he searches the original articles in the scientific journals and analyzes the stats for us. Get on it! :slight_smile:


I wondered where the “too much” threshold is for lifting.

In terms of longevity, we can all assume that trying to be huge is not going to help you live longer, as someone already pointed out. There’s a lot of evidence for calorie restriction, and the corresponding slower metabolism that goes along with it, extending life. And I’d assume a lot of max effort lifting could tax your heart. Of course, we’re aware that getting under very heavy loads can compress discs in the back, etc…

I’d assume there’s a sweet spot where lifting is good for you as you age, and where it would have diminishing returns. It would be interesting to know what that is.
[/quote]

I don’t think the journal article has been published yet! Honestly I have not idea the effects of overdoing it.

I was 122lbs at 5’10" when I ran a lot, about 60 miles per week. That isn’t a healthy weight.

[quote]batman730 wrote:

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:

[quote]batman730 wrote:
This just in: Moderation is good for you. Who knew?[/quote]

Does that include weight training intensity, duration, and frequency?

;)[/quote]

Yeah, I would definitely say you can overdo lifting, HIIT, protein/calorie consumption, sports and pretty much anything else until it stops being good for you long term. That doesn’t necessarily mean you shouldn’t do it if you feel strongly enough about it. None of us is making it out of here alive after all.

IMO the problem is the whole “if some is good let’s do a ridiculous amount to the exclusion of all else” followed by “whoa, a ridiculous amount isn’t good. Nobody should do that at all but they should do a ridiculous amount of this other thing instead” attitude. For example the whole steady state vs. HIIT thing. Huh, sprint intervals provide benefits that jogging doesn’t. Furthermore, too much jogging (especially without adequate nutrition and strength training) makes you skinny and week and being a serious marathoner may actually kill you. Ergo: nobody, under any circumstances should ever run more than 200m or do any sustained aerobic activity at all.

Maybe, unless you’re looking to be elite in a given sport, it would be healthier to do a some of each without being excessive with any? Maybe sprint sometimes, jog sometimes, lift sometimes, row/cycle sometimes and rest sometimes with a bias toward your individual goals.[/quote]

Yeah I agree with what you wrote.

I wonder if there’s just a higher risk for people who tend to take things ‘too far’ where too far is the point where it’s a not optimal for health. I think I take things too far, in any discipline and that’s my personality (defect or feature, depending on how you see things :wink: ) I’ll stay up all night working on something for days if the obsession du jour calls for it. I can imagine a lifetime of such things can add up and by the time I decided running is my thing I’ve already lived a life lacking in moderation that probably knocked some time of my lifespan =)

I’m still going to run as fast as I can.

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:

[quote]rehanb_bl wrote:

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:

[quote]batman730 wrote:
This just in: Moderation is good for you. Who knew?[/quote]

Does that include weight training intensity, duration, and frequency?

;)[/quote]

I think the point is it’s stupid to run marathons to try and be healthy[/quote]

This.

[/quote]

But…But…Oprah did it.

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:

[quote]rehanb_bl wrote:

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:

[quote]batman730 wrote:
This just in: Moderation is good for you. Who knew?[/quote]

Does that include weight training intensity, duration, and frequency?

;)[/quote]

I think the point is it’s stupid to run marathons to try and be healthy[/quote]

This.

[/quote]

But…But…Oprah did it.
[/quote]

'zackly.