Jog slowly and not more than 2.5hrs a week or it will KILL YOU

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11385044/Fast-running-is-as-deadly-as-sitting-on-couch-scientists-find.html

this story appearing in lots online and offline media sources.

basically saying that jogging too much and / or too fast increases mortality.

joggers and non-joggers compared in a study over a number of years. more sedentary and joggers / runners doing a lot of running / jogging died than moderate joggers.

Krusty_Clown

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larryhusten/2015/02/03/no-too-much-jogging-probably-wont-kill-you/

Krusty_Clown

http://www.runnersworld.com/health/the-supposed-dangers-of-running-too-much

TFBubendorfer

Which study should we believe? This one where jogging more than 2.5 hours per week kills you or one of the previous ones where you need at least 30 minutes of strenuous exercise per day for the good of your health?

Of course you should take notice of research, but in this latest study they had 2 out of 40 "strenuous joggers" die over a 12 year period. Surely no serious scientific would draw any concrete conclusions out of such a small sample size! :eek:

average_runner

Define jogging :eek:

average_runner

glasso wrote: »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11385044/Fast-running-is-as-deadly-as-sitting-on-couch-scientists-find.html

this story appearing in lots online and offline media sources.

basically saying that jogging too much and / or too fast increases mortality.

joggers and non-joggers compared in a study over a number of years. more sedentary and joggers / runners doing a lot of running / jogging died than moderate joggers.

Doesn't mention anything about running helping with depression etc, just ask Ronnie O'Sullivan!

I love running but maybe there is some truth to the fact that prolonged strenuous activity over a period of time is maybe not the best for our bodies, and maybe specifically the heart.

Krusty_Clown

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

http://www.runnersworld.com/health/the-supposed-dangers-of-running-too-much

I saw that, but they would say that wouldn't they... They'd be out of business if running decreased. but yes, of course the numbers are small and maybe not statistically significant.

robinph

Study essentially says that people die.

Some of the people who died sat on the sofa a lot during their life, some of them did a lot of running.

To conclude anything else from it is daft.

walshb

average_runner wrote: »

Doesn't mention anything about running helping with depression etc, just ask Ronnie O'Sullivan!

I would say any kind of cardio or physical exercise would help.

menoscemo

average_runner wrote: »

Define jogging :eek:

According to the article 5mph. Strenuous running (I saw it definied in another article in the Daily mail as 'strenous jogging :rolleyes:) is anything faster than 7 mph

Krusty_Clown

glasso wrote: »

I saw that, but they would say that wouldn't they... They'd be out of business if running decreased. but yes, of course the numbers are small and maybe not statistically significant.

The same can be said of the Telegraph, who depend on newsworthy articles, to sell copy. By the way, I linked to two articles, one provided by Forbes (who don't have a vested interest in running or exercise). I'm not saying that strenuous exercise won't have a negative impact on your health, I'm merely providing links to counter-arguments to sensationalist stories.

If you have concerns with regard to your health, I'd urge you to visit your GP for a check-up, and reduce your weekly exercise to 150 minutes of moderate jogging.

Krusty_Clown

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

The same can be said of the Telegraph, who depend on newsworthy articles, to sell copy. By the way, I linked to two articles, one provided by Forbes (who don't have a vested interest in running or exercise). I'm not saying that strenuous exercise won't have a negative impact on your health, I'm merely providing links to counter-arguments to sensationalist stories.

If you have concerns with regard to your health, I'd urge you to visit your GP for a check-up, and reduce your weekly exercise to 150 minutes of moderate jogging.

I'm just putting this out there as an opinion, no need to personalise things. Obviously this forum is full of running evangelists, being one myself. Healthy to consider other opinions / studies sometime....

DogSlySmile

Looks like I may be headed for an early grave, but at least I'll leave a sexy corpse.

average_runner

glasso wrote: »

I'm just putting this out there as an opinion, no need to personalise things. Obviously this forum is full of running evangelists, being one myself. Healthy to consider other opinions / studies sometime....

It is important to consider other studies, but they need to come from a reliable source with facts to prove it

inigo

Is this yet another case of association, which is all that can be concluded from epidemiological or observational studies? As opposed to causation, which can "only" come from interventional studies...

Ososlo

Say it were proven 100% to be true and we're all headed for early graves, would any of us stop/decrease our running right now? Doubt it!

Krusty_Clown

glasso wrote: »

I'm just putting this out there as an opinion, no need to personalise things. Obviously this forum is full of running evangelists, being one myself. Healthy to consider other opinions / studies sometime....

There's no personalization intended. If anyone believes their health is at risk they need to consult a medical practitioner and act according to medical advice. Basing life decisions on a Telegraph article seems like folly.

average_runner

Ososlo wrote: »

Say it were proven 100% to be true and we're all headed for early graves, would any of us stop/decrease our running right now? Doubt it!

To be honest, I would. Surely the time you spend with your family on this planet is more important than running if it cuts your life short.

Sure with that attitude why dont we all smoke, do drugs and drink crazy amount

PaulieC

average_runner wrote: »

Sure with that attitude why dont we all smoke, do drugs and drink crazy amount

Who says we don't ?

walshb

For the general population I would say 8-9 minute mile pace, or a comfortable pace (2-3 miles distance) 2-3 times per week would be ideal. Very difficult to nail this down. So many permutations, but hard running and intense running (as in really pushing yourself) that puts a lot of strain on the heart and lungs and muscles, and involves long recovery times for the normal joe soap is probably not advisable, and not healthy.

Ceepo

A case of correlation and causation I would think.

Another study found that a high % of the population put up an umbrella when it rains. But that doesn't mean that it rained because they put up there umbrella

adrian522

They have based all this on 2 people dying up to 12 years later? With no idea how they died? It's a crazy small sample size to base anything at all on.

The sample size for Sedentary (over 400) is completely out of step with Strenuous exercise (40). All seems a bit ridiculous.

Pherekydes

The most recent comment on that Telegraph article:

Let me see if I understand their findings. In a study where they looked at 1098 joggers, 28 of them died (2.5%), and in the same time period out of the 413 healthy but sedentary non joggers 128 of them died (31%)....by my rough calculation that means that being healthy and sedentary means you are more than 12 times more likely to die than those who are active...... or am i missing something

walshb

This is a Bernard Manning article: "100 percent of non smokers fcu^ing die!"

adrian522

Pherekydes wrote: »

The most recent comment on that Telegraph article:

They "adjust" for age. The average age of the non-runners was 61 so you would expect a higher number of deaths than for the runners where the average age was late 30's.

robinph

No amount of adjusting for age will compensate for a sample size of two deaths though. The study is a load of rubbish and proves nothing except that it is a pointless study... and that journalists will write any old rubbish to make a scare story.

Those two people died from unknown reasons as well. It is equivalent of saying
yesterday someone died in Dublin of natural causes, therefore Dublin is a dangerous place to be on a Tuesday.

PDCAT

By their reasoning, should the same not apply to all sports people who push their body to the limits? Example's. Cyclist, Boxers, GAA Players and many others.
All these sports people train just as many hours and would surely have intense sessions with raised heart rates.

menoscemo

PDCAT wrote: »

By their reasoning, should the same not apply to all sports people who push their body to the limits? Example's. Cyclist, Boxers, GAA Players and many others.
All these sports people train just as many hours and would surely have intense sessions with raised heart rates.

Yes of course. Sport is bad, being a couch potato is good.

Just the message that the western world needs to hear.......

walshb

PDCAT wrote: »

By their reasoning, should the same not apply to all sports people who push their body to the limits? Example's. Cyclist, Boxers, GAA Players and many others.
All these sports people train just as many hours and would surely have intense sessions with raised heart rates.

I'm sure it does relate to other cardio based and intense sports/pastimes. The article relates to the average man on the street, doesn't it?

average_runner

menoscemo wrote: »

Yes of course. Sport is bad, being a couch potato is good.

Just the message that the western world needs to hear.......

How much did the sugar companies contribute to this study?

average_runner

PDCAT wrote: »

By their reasoning, should the same not apply to all sports people who push their body to the limits? Example's. Cyclist, Boxers, GAA Players and many others.
All these sports people train just as many hours and would surely have intense sessions with raised heart rates.

Surely sex must be dangerous also :rolleyes:

kit3

average_runner wrote: »

Surely sex must be dangerous also :rolleyes:

Well, you certainly can get hurt if Ososlo's mother is to be believed

Ososlo wrote: »

My mother. She's so cool:D The subject of S&M arose and she says in a really matter of fact way, "yeah sure isn't it all very well and good until someone gets hurt":pac:

Dubgal72

glasso wrote: »

I love running but maybe there is some truth to the fact that prolonged strenuous activity over a period of time is maybe not the best for our bodies, and maybe specifically the heart.

Jim Mac of Donore will be able to answer that. He's over 75 and still winning world championship medals. He has run long, hard and far for 50 years, from Olympics to world championships. You only have to look at the general age profile of Donore athletes (and other clubs I'm sure) to see how untrue that 'science' is. Tommy Hayward, 93 and still driving

kit3

Reckon my Dad had a hand in writing that article - if I ever mention running (which is rare now) he launching into "Did I ever tell you about the boy X, he collapsed and died when he was running - heart exploded" :eek: He claims to know at least 4 people who died running. Find it kinder not to mention it to him at this stage - only told him about doing my first marathon the day before I did it & that was just because someone let the cat out of the bag :rolleyes:

ghogie91

"Oop... I almost forgot. I won't be able to make it fellas. Veronica and I trying this new fad called uh, jogging. I believe it's jogging or yogging. it might be a soft j. I'm not sure but apparently you just run for an extended period of time. It's supposed to be wild" - Ron Burgundy

I believe in Ron

ankers99

Focus should be Quailty in years not quantity of years. If running is the cause of my death then i will die happy in a pair of runners. If i was offered 70 years sitting on my hole watching brain dead tv or 65 years of acheivements in running it would be an easy option 2 all the way. I think ill aim to do die at 60 now by actually putting some effort in my training

Clearlier

Can we lock the thread please or move it to the Health and Fitness board? The article* is about jogging not running. We're on the A/R forum here.























*as much as total nonsense such as that merits the description

carter10

carter10

carter10 wrote: »

seem rational and well explained. some good points there - basic message is like most things - good in moderation. worth watching.

ultraman1

http://m.runnersworld.com/health/the-supposed-dangers-of-running-too-much?cid=socHE_20150204_39926397&adbid=10153074427847090&adbpl=fb&adbpr=23403427089
Mite ne of interest...

so what's the big issue with the argument that yes running/ jogging is great for you but that maybe over a certain distance /time per week it's not good for you anymore and it's in fact bad for your heart in the long term.

PaulieC

glasso wrote: »

so what's the big issue with the argument that yes running/ jogging is great for you but that maybe over a certain distance /time per week it's not good for you anymore and it's in fact bad for your heart in the long term.

They didn't say that though. They presented sketchy scientific data to present an unproven story as fact.

PaulieC

PaulieC wrote: »

They didn't say that though. They presented sketchy scientific data to present an unproven story as fact.

I was referring to the ted talk there. the one posted above.

ECOLII

Performance based sport is not good for you from a health perspective in isolation, I don't think anyone would argue that, the whole basis of training is too stress and adapt, this stress is how we improved (i.e causing microtears within muscle fibres as a simplistic example)

However the training should not be looked at in isolation given that lifestyle is closely linked with performance, so while the stress of training may have an impact on overall health to an extent, the sleep, hydration, nutrition aspects as well as some of the positive endocrine system effects from training will outweigh these negatives so looking from a more overall perspective the finding's (even if they did link exercise to health outcomes here, which they do not) cannot be used to derive a conclusion simply because they do not take into account all health implications of training.

Bad journalism based on bad science with an agenda (this is not the first type of study conducted by this group along these lines)

rom

Based on the numbers I would expect 20% of Denmark to be joggers. It must be hard to get anywhere with the footpaths full of them speeding around. However this is not the case. The most popular sport is football and players get from point a to point b by jogging or sometimes running. In Ireland its something like 1% of people are in an athletics club where there may be another 2% who jog outside of people the club system. A figure of 20% is probably only seen in Kenya. If the sample set is wrong then any resultant findings are wrong.

PS there are lots of journals out there. Some more respected than others due to the review process while others are good if you need to dry out your runners.

but what about what that cardiologist is saying in the TED video. It's effectively the same message as the outcome of the Danish study, except there is no sample size deficiency to attack. He is saying, run over a few hours or 25 miles a week and you're harming your heart.

Clearlier

glasso wrote: »

but what about what that cardiologist is saying in the TED video. It's effectively the same message as the outcome of the Danish study, except there is no sample size deficiency to attack. He is saying, run over a few hours or 25 miles a week and you're harming your heart.

The cardiologist is one of the authors of the article. I haven't the ability (not sure I have the desire either) to listen to a TED talk at the moment but I'm guessing that you'll find a relationship between the article and the talk.

You got me to read the article.

He has an interesting hypothesis. It's as yet unproven. The article acknowledges that only a correlation in the data exists and calls for more studies to identify a causal link. It tacitly acknowledges the weakness of the study by stating that no recommendations can be made for the general public

Further studies are needed to explore the mechanisms by which excessively strenuous exercise adversely affects longevity before the pattern of association between exercise intensity and long-term mortality can be incorporated into physical activity recommendations for the general public.

You should also note that the article does not say that strenuous activity kills you. It merely claims that the benefits of gentle activity are negated by strenuous activity. I understand that both the Telegraph and you are creating clickbait but I still think that the title of this thread and the writing in most of the telegraph article is irresponsible.

Moderate joggers had a significantly higher mortality rate compared with light joggers, but it was still lower than that of sedentary nonjoggers, whereas strenuous joggers had a mortality rate that was not statistically different from that of sedentary nonjoggers

Given that the study as of yet lacks the necessary volume of data to tell us anything and that even when it does it will only show correlation and that even if the hypthesis is proven correct then 'strenuous jogging' will mean that your mortality rate is similar to that of a sedentary person then considering the quality of life benefits to running I don't think that I'll let this article dissuade me from running or encouraging others to run.

Clearlier

Clearlier wrote: »

The cardiologist is one of the authors of the article. I haven't the ability (not sure I have the desire either) to listen to a TED talk at the moment but I'm guessing that you'll find a relationship between the article and the talk.

You got me to read the article.

He has an interesting hypothesis. It's as yet unproven. The article acknowledges that only a correlation in the data exists and calls for more studies to identify a causal link. It tacitly acknowledges the weakness of the study by stating that no recommendations can be made for the general public



You should also note that the article does not say that strenuous activity kills you. It merely claims that the benefits of gentle activity are negated by strenuous activity. I understand that both the Telegraph and you are creating clickbait but I still think that the title of this thread and the writing in most of the telegraph article is irresponsible.




Given that the study as of yet lacks the necessary volume of data to tell us anything and that even when it does it will only show correlation and that even if the hypthesis is proven correct then 'strenuous jogging' will mean that your mortality rate is similar to that of a sedentary person then considering the quality of life benefits to running I don't think that I'll let this article dissuade me from running or encouraging others to run.

there is no relationship between the original article and the talk that I can see.
If you have time enough to type out a long post you probably have the time to watch that video. I would recommend watching it
again, there is no argument that jogging/running IS good for you, but maybe not beyond the level of 25 miles a week, where it can become harmful.
Maybe it's the fact that maybe a fair number of people here are running beyond that level and are hence unwilling to admit that there is any possibility of a potential risk in later life.

Dubgal72

glasso wrote: »

there is no relationship between the original article and the talk that I can see.
If you have time enough to type out a long post you probably have the time to watch that video. I would recommend watching it
again, there is no argument that jogging/running IS good for you, but maybe not beyond the level of 25 miles a week, where it can become harmful.
Maybe it's the fact that maybe a fair number of people here are running beyond that level and are hence unwilling to admit that there is any possibility of a potential risk in later life.

I started to watch the tedx talk. Started. It was painful. His delivery was exruciating. I'll psych myself up to going back to it but it won't be pretty. TED, and more pertinently TEDx, standards are very hit and miss in the last few years. Go into these talks with your critical faculties fully switched on. Also read the comments.

Clearlier

glasso wrote: »

there is no relationship between the original article and the talk that I can see.
If you have time enough to type out a long post you probably have the time to watch that video. I would recommend watching it
again, there is no argument that jogging/running IS good for you, but maybe not beyond the level of 25 miles a week, where it can become harmful.
Maybe it's the fact that maybe a fair number of people here are running beyond that level and are hence unwilling to admit that there is any possibility of a potential risk in later life.

Hey glasso,

It's not a time thing, I haven't access to audio at the moment. The argument (briefly summarised) that the article makes is that jogging for up to 2 hours per week at a pretty slow pace (not adjusted for age/gender etc. IIRC) is associated with longer life compared to sedentary person or someone who exercises in excess of that. It makes tentative attempts at positing the reasons for this but (sensibly) doesn't attempt to draw any definite conclusions.

I don't think that it's reasonable to conclude that the people on the A/R forum are unwilling to admit that there is any possibility of a potential risk in later life just because they run at levels that according to the study would lead them to expect similar mortality outcomes to sedentary people. You may have noted ecoli's comments earlier in the thread. I've already said that I consider it to be an interesting hypothesis. I'm interested in the study. I'm not that interested in an article which prematurely draws conclusions from it.