Running more than 20mpw?

Whatever.

I like to run. I like to run a lot. If running is what does me in then I will have offed myself doing something I really enjoyed. Plus, I think I can currently outrun both of my kids which gives me a perverse pleasure.....

I just bought a bunch of life insurance. I wonder if this study is why my wife has been so accommodating of my long runs recently?

I'm sure that this will generate some controversy. I looked at the abstract and noticed that they asked participants the amount of mileage per week and then stratified it into "more than twenty" or "less than twenty." Doesn't seem to say why 20 miles was chosen. It also says that participants were 35 and older but doesn't say if they looked at the amount of time someone had been running (ie- one year vs. twenty years). It seems like that might be important.

I kind of chuckled at this quote in the CNN story:

You can do light to moderate exercise as long as you want. We’re genetically designed for that kind of activity," Dr. James O'Keefe, a cardiologist at the Mid America Heart Institute, told CNN at the time. "We’re just not designed to run 26 miles at a time, or 100, or go on a full-distance triathlon for 12 hours as hard as you can go.”

I'll have to remember not to go all out the next time I "go on a triathlon" for 12 hours.

I think for me, the global warming crisis has resulted in destroying any credibility, the phrase "Scientific Study" ever had. I used to hear the phrase get bandied around and perhaps naively I would assume as it was a scientific study, that equated to fact... I've read completely contrasting and contradictory articles written by highly educated and experienced scientists who studied the same courses at the same universities - the difference being who they worked for and what their employers agenda was. So now when I see an article that mentions "Scientific Study" I flip the page or close the browser. So sorry TURIN2, didn't get past the 2nd line

I think we have a poster child for misinterpretation of research. This study didn't do anything to demonstrate the existence of the "U shaped relationship between running and longevity". The study is based on the assumption that such a curve exists and it seeks to explain it. (You can see this if you follow the link at the start of the second paragraph.)

I prefer the Sweat Science take on the same research. (Partly because he tells me what I'd prefer to believe, but also because I think this blog is usually pretty balanced and reasonable.)
http://www.runnersworld.com/health/will-running-too-much-kill-you
Don

Edited by donw 2014-04-03 8:23 PM

95% of all statistics are misleading.

I don't run in order to live longer. I run in order to run faster.

This really is nothing special at all and can be very misleading.

I will say however, that endurance sports in general are very young and Mayo is doing a lot of research into the long-term effects that endurance training (caveat: at a high level) has on the heart, personally I think 10-15 years down the road we will have a different notion on this but that is a different conversation for another time.

I am intrigued by your ideas and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Shane

Couldn't have said it better myself

It's not cheap and there's a waiting list.

These studies do a very poor job of isolating one factor such as endurance training/racing. you also have to take in consideration every other part of the people lifestyle. In 10-15 years their conclusions will be as brown and stinky as they are today!

If my sources are correct, this is the survey used for the study... I briefly glanced over it and didn't see one question about DIET. I think that's an important thing to consider when talking CVD risk, no?

EDIT: http://www.research.net/s.aspx?sm=BkPfhodQ4Qyybney%2b1l4KztptTrti1T...

Edited by ryanjleone 2014-04-04 6:56 AM

That's only 95% accurate since there are several billion of us still alive

Heh i guess you are right. People on the internet always trump doctors.

It is probably best to interrupt these findings through the lens of the study question. The purpose of the study was to see if there was variability in cardiac risk factors between those who run more than 20 MPW and those who run less than 20 MPW. The results indicate that there was no variability in cardiac risk factors between the two groups. The 20 MPW number was chosen because previous studies have identified that individuals who run more than 20 MPW are no more likely to live longer than those who do not run. Meanwhile, individuals who average under 20 MPW are expected to live longer than individuals who do not run, in aggregate.

The authors do not state that running more than 20 MPW will kill you. In fact, they specifically mention "the paradoxical finding" in the literature that individuals who run more than 20 MPW are not expected to live longer than those who do not run. This study begins to try and understand the confounding factors that might be attributed to the findings mentioned previously.

Smart researchers and smart consumers of research understand that a single study in time is but one data point. The better approach is to broadly read a number of studies about a particular topic and synthesize the literature to reach a conclusion. While I am not a medical researcher, I am an educational researcher. While I could probably poke a few holes in their study, in general the findings seem to be based on sound methods. Additionally, the researchers do not seem to be speaking beyond their data.

Matt

I exercise to look better naked. This has greatly improved my life (if you know what I mean). If I die younger, it will be with a smile on my face, dangit.