Too much vigorous exercise (like running) bad for longevity?

[creekland]

We're currently visiting my Blue Zones (studying) college boy and he showed us this Ted Talk today:

 

 

It's entitled "Run for your life! At a comfortable pace, and not too far" by James O'Keefe.  It seems research is starting to show moderate levels of exercise are much better for us than tons of vigorous exercise (aka - running marathons, running daily, etc, is BAD for health, not good).  It's only slightly better than no exercise according to new studies.

 

We found it very interesting, and it certainly matches the Blue Zones (longevity) studies that show those with good "quality of life" long lived people often have moderate daily exercise, but not "gym" or "running" workouts.

 

What thinks the Hive?  It's new news to me that I plan to incorporate into what I teach at school when in science classes.  I'm sticking with my moderate exercise and not at all worrying that I'm not in shape to run a race.

[kiana]

Makes perfect sense to me. Beating your body up all the time is hard on your body. 

 

That being said, if you love running marathons and it makes you happy, the happiness that you gain from it is probably better for your health than quitting it out of worry. 

 

But if you don't love it, you sure as heck shouldn't do it. 

[regentrude]

Seems intuitive to me.

[KungFuPanda]

It makes sense that you can’t outrun a sedentary lifestyle, but if you just MOVE more than you SIT you’ll stay stronger, healthier, and not damage your knees and feet. I’ve known too many running addicts who KEEP running despite multiple injuries. It has to be more important to be able to move in old age.

[creekland]

Makes perfect sense to me. Beating your body up all the time is hard on your body. 

 

That being said, if you love running marathons and it makes you happy, the happiness that you gain from it is probably better for your health than quitting it out of worry.

 

But if you don't love it, you sure as heck shouldn't do it. 

 

I think it's a bit like the triathlon mentioned in the video.  One would have to choose between wanting to win a coming up Olympics (or whatever) or being around to see one in older age.  That's quite a choice to make.

 

Seems intuitive to me.

 

It does with the reasoning, but so did the previous reasoning.  If a little bit of exercise was good for us, strengthening our cardio vascular system and the many other benefits, then a lot more would be a lot better.  Seems it isn't true.  I'm glad they're doing studies, because either reasoning makes sense.

[creekland]

It makes sense that you can’t outrun a sedentary lifestyle, but if you just MOVE more than you SIT you’ll stay stronger, healthier, and not damage your knees and feet. I’ve known too many running addicts who KEEP running despite multiple injuries. It has to be more important to be able to move in old age.

 

When my guy first mentioned the video, I thought it'd be about damage to the joints, etc, as with most other sports - all pretty "known" stuff from personal experience (with friends/acquaintances, etc). 

 

This one is all about the damage to the cardio-vascular system and doesn't touch joints, etc, at all.  It's a research cardiologist giving the talk.

 

And most certainly, he's not anti-motion.  Quite the contrary!  He's raising the red flag about previous reasoning as to how much exercise is good for our cardio vascular system.

[Greta]

Thanks so much for posting this. It makes total sense that there is going to be a point of diminishing returns, but I did not know where that point lies. It’s nice to have some guidelines.

 

My husband has always been an avid runner (used to run many marathons) and he has atrial fibrillation. His cardiologist said it’s common in distance runners. He has backed off and now only runs about 25 miles a week. From this information, though, sounds like he should cut back even further.

[KungFuPanda]

When my guy first mentioned the video, I thought it'd be about damage to the joints, etc, as with most other sports - all pretty "known" stuff from personal experience (with friends/acquaintances, etc).

 

This one is all about the damage to the cardio-vascular system and doesn't touch joints, etc, at all. It's a research cardiologist giving the talk.

 

And most certainly, he's not anti-motion. Quite the contrary! He's raising the red flag about previous reasoning as to how much exercise is good for our cardio vascular system.

I wasn’t very clear. No, he doesn’t mention joints at all. I’ve just known so many people who believe running despite multiple injuries is worth the pay off. In reality, you’re fine idling at the C2K goals since there are no longevity benefits in training so hard. You’ll damage al sorts of things by pushing SO hard and you can’t FEEL some of the damage you might do.

[Kassia]

I've been running every day for 60-75 minutes (weather permitting) for twenty years now.  I can't imagine giving it up.  I am a slow runner - does that matter?  

Edited February 5, 2018 by Kassia

[creekland]

I've been running every day for 60-75 minutes (weather permitting) for twenty years now.  I can't imagine giving it up.  I am a slow runner - does that matter?  

 

Running slower is definitely better than running faster, as is taking breaks, according to the stats they have in so far.  I'm sure more will be being tested as time goes on, but right now they have a couple of different studies he shows and he says more will be released soon.

[staceyobu]

I'm in several groups for runners and this comes up from time to time. Some people doubt that the current studies actually conclusively show that too much running is bad.  Others say they'd rather lose a few years and spend time alive running.

 

Ultimately, I don't think people are running marathons simply to "get in shape" or be healthy.  I think we get confused because a lot of people run short distances to improve health, so we automatically assume people running further have the same goal.

 

I consider running marathons to be much like climbing a mountain.  It's a goal to be achieved for its own sake.

[fraidycat]

It makes perfect sense to me. Hardcore workouts of any kind are huge stressors in the body. Repeatedly stressing the body is not good for longevity. Hence the phrase “stress killsâ€.

[creekland]

I'm in several groups for runners and this comes up from time to time. Some people doubt that the current studies actually conclusively show that too much running is bad.  Others say they'd rather lose a few years and spend time alive running.

 

Ultimately, I don't think people are running marathons simply to "get in shape" or be healthy.  I think we get confused because a lot of people run short distances to improve health, so we automatically assume people running further have the same goal.

 

I consider running marathons to be much like climbing a mountain.  It's a goal to be achieved for its own sake.

 

Honestly?  I have no problem with folks making choices to fit their desires. 

 

From an educational point of view, I like to keep myself up on current studies because I'm often teaching Bio or Health and like to give students the most up to date info we have.  Many kids (and adults, including fellow teachers) ARE pushing themselves in various sports (including running) because current thought says more is better.  They don't necessarily enjoy it, albeit some definitely do.  They think they are doing it for their health.  With more studies (larger studies) showing there's a sweet spot and more than that appears harmful, I think it's good for them to know - and for all to be able to make educated decisions.

 

I feel the same way about diet, various medicines, and pretty much anything health/Bio related.  Science is still ongoing - fascinating stuff to some of us - and worth sharing with both this and the next generation as new "finds" are made.

[cintinative]

Edited: 

 

I sort of wish he had discussed what constitutes "vigorous" other than just marathon/distance running.  

 

Edited February 5, 2018 by cintinative

[cintinative]

I found this. Apparently they relaxed some of the hours/days per week statements?
 

https://www.runnersworld.com/health/excessive-exercise-proponents-soften-their-views

[creekland]

Edited: 

 

I sort of wish he had discussed what constitutes "vigorous" other than just marathon/distance running.  

 

I guess I don't know for sure, but I'd guess it's exercise that increases heart rate considerably.

[creekland]

I found this. Apparently they relaxed some of the hours/days per week statements?

 

https://www.runnersworld.com/health/excessive-exercise-proponents-soften-their-views

 

I only looked at the date of the Ted Talk now.  I had assumed it was recent due to college boy's studies, but it goes back to 2012.  Yes, there should be far more studies on it than he references in the video at this point, so modifying things to fit is a good idea.  Thanks for the link.  It's all stuff I'll share with kids so they can sort out what they want to do with their lives.   ;)

[Laurie4b]

Yes. there is a reverse J curve or U curve for exercise benefit. 

 

Here are some studies: 

 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/10/171016144846.htm

White men who exercise 3x recommended amount (450 min per week) or more have more build-up in arteries by middle-age than those who didn't. There was no effect shown for black participants. The trend was similar for white women as for white men but not statistically significant. 

 

http://www.onlinejacc.org/content/65/5/411  Copenhagen City study (Note: everyone is white in the study)  This study gives some more specific information. 

 

This is a very large,  longitudinal study: 

 

Jogging from 1 to 2.4 h per week was associated with the lowest mortality (multivariable HR: 0.29; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.11 to 0.80). The risk estimates for the subgroups with greater quantities of jogging were not significantly different from those for the sedentary group; jogging from 2.5 to 4 h per week yielded an HR of 0.65 (95% CI: 0.20 to 2.07).

The optimal frequency of jogging was 2 to 3 times per week (HR: 0.32; 95% CI: 0.15 to 0.69) or â‰¤1 time per week (HR: 0.29; 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.72). The risk estimates for jogging >3 times per week were not statistically different from those for the sedentary group.

Lower mortality rates were associated with a slow jogging pace (HR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.24 to 1.10) and moderate jogging pace (HR: 0.38; 95% CI: 0.22 to 0.66). Notably, the group of fast-paced joggers had almost the same risk of mortality as the sedentary nonjoggers (HR: 0.94; 95% CI: 0.40 to 2.18)

(In terms of what constitutes slow jogging, if you use a treadmill, many of them have a setting where you can see your METS:)

 

It should be emphasized that even slow jogging (6 METs) corresponds to vigorous exercise and strenuous jogging corresponds to very heavy vigorous exercise (≥12 METs), which when performed for decades could pose health risks, especially to the CV system.

 

ETA: From the same link, but summarizing a different study: 

 

Again, however, maximal CV longevity benefits were noted with moderate doses of running (specifically 6 to 12 miles per week), running durations of approximately 50 to 120 min per week, a running frequency of approximately 3 times per week, and a modest pace of approximately 6 to 7 miles per hour. Our findings are aligned in that a U-shaped or reverse J-shaped relationship was noted, whereas higher doses of running were associated with loss of approximately one-third to one-half of the CV mortality benefits linked to moderate doses of running. In fact, the most favorable running regimen for reducing CV mortality in that study was 6 miles per week, 3 running days per week, and a pace of 7 miles per hour.

 

 

Studies do go back and forth, but I try to keep up with them. For myself, I try to shoot for 3 days of vigorous activity a week (2 days that include walking with 30 min of jogging intervals embedded) and one day of Zumba with additional days of more moderate walking, etc. I also try to get in 2-3 strength training workouts per week. Studies have shown different benefits from resistance training, with both being good for cognitive health. 

Edited February 5, 2018 by Laurie4b

[Bluegoat]

Totally doesn't surprise me.  The number of serious runners who seem to have major health incidents has always seemed outsides to me.  It's hard to say for sure with just an anecdotal impression, but it's interesting to have it confirmed.

 

I also see a lot of high performance athletes with pretty serious health issues - my uncle who was a gymnastics coach, for example, isn't yet 60 but has had both knees replaced and likely will need his hips done too.  If parts of the body like that are damaged, I wonder about other parts we can't see.

 

It's interesting to think of what that means in terms of getting kids active.

Edited February 5, 2018 by Bluegoat

[creekland]

It's interesting to think of what that means in terms of getting kids active.

 

Activity is still good - far better than not.  Too much seems to be harmful, but only "almost" up to the levels of inactivity.  Inactivity is the worst on every study I've looked at so far.

 

To put this together with the Blue Zones studies, at least the vast majority of those never did "extra" exercise like running or heading to the gym, but they all stayed active with their daily life - walking places, doing chores, etc, not for an hour or two, but as a way of life.  They weren't couch potatoes.  It definitely seems to match.

[wintermom]

I certainly felt the strain of running marathons. The half marathon distance is great, but double that and it's just too much for me. I know lots of people do it for decades and love it, so there is probably a range of outcomes among populations.

 

I wonder if the research has been done on elite athletes with a professionally developed year-long training program. There are always a build-up period, a more intense period of training, and a rest period. Most sports have a competitive season and an off-season, which allows for this much-needed time to rest and recover for the intensity of the competitive season. 

 

 

[JumpyTheFrog]

I’d like someone to do a study where they measure and track HRV (heart rate variability). Person A might run 30 miles per week but maintain good HRV, while for person B that might be overtraining and lead to lower HRV.

[Kassia]

This kind of scares me since I exercise too much (compulsive exerciser).  :(  

[Seasider]

I've read about this in just the last year - or perhaps it was in an audiobook. Anyway, what I remember is that intense running workouts over years can cause the cardiac muscles to grow thick and/or tough? Something like that. Makes sense to me. I happen to be a fan of joint-sparing exercise, so running has never been my favorite thing.

[staceyobu]

Honestly?  I have no problem with folks making choices to fit their desires. 

 

From an educational point of view, I like to keep myself up on current studies because I'm often teaching Bio or Health and like to give students the most up to date info we have.  Many kids (and adults, including fellow teachers) ARE pushing themselves in various sports (including running) because current thought says more is better.  They don't necessarily enjoy it, albeit some definitely do.  They think they are doing it for their health.  With more studies (larger studies) showing there's a sweet spot and more than that appears harmful, I think it's good for them to know - and for all to be able to make educated decisions.

 

I feel the same way about diet, various medicines, and pretty much anything health/Bio related.  Science is still ongoing - fascinating stuff to some of us - and worth sharing with both this and the next generation as new "finds" are made.

 

LOL. We must know a different set of runners. Everyone who seems to hang in the online running groups just runs to run. I listen to one ultrarunner podcast where they made a race that is 30 miles through Chicago and a bunch of required food stops.  Pizza, burger, chicken wings, etc. Very little discussion of health and longevity. Infinite discussion on running and running and running...

[KungFuPanda]

LOL. We must know a different set of runners. Everyone who seems to hang in the online running groups just runs to run. I listen to one ultrarunner podcast where they made a race that is 30 miles through Chicago and a bunch of required food stops.  Pizza, burger, chicken wings, etc. Very little discussion of health and longevity. Infinite discussion on running and running and running...

 

I think they get addicted to it.  Some sort of runner's high that I've never experienced and cannot appreciate.  I don't think I've ever run more than 6 miles in a single day and that's only because i was legally required to do so.  I never like it and got a second wind exactly once. I'm using this study to justify my non-running-but-active lifestyle.

[Tsuga]

We're currently visiting my Blue Zones (studying) college boy and he showed us this Ted Talk today:

...

 

It's entitled "Run for your life! At a comfortable pace, and not too far" by James O'Keefe.  It seems research is starting to show moderate levels of exercise are much better for us than tons of vigorous exercise (aka - running marathons, running daily, etc, is BAD for health, not good).  It's only slightly better than no exercise according to new studies.

 

We found it very interesting, and it certainly matches the Blue Zones (longevity) studies that show those with good "quality of life" long lived people often have moderate daily exercise, but not "gym" or "running" workouts.

 

What thinks the Hive?  It's new news to me that I plan to incorporate into what I teach at school when in science classes.  I'm sticking with my moderate exercise and not at all worrying that I'm not in shape to run a race.

 

Makes total sense to me. Being underweight and not having enough fat is worse for you, far worse pound for pound, than being overweight.

 

Likewise, people who work out too much get many injuries which can later cause serious problems.

 

Everything in moderation.

[Carrie12345]

I don't know as much about cardiovascular adaptation as I do about skeletal muscle adaptation, but I figure they have similar elements.  Without sufficient time allotted to repair/recovery, which is what increases strength, you're kind of piling damage on top of damage.

 

I do have days when I crave an extra trip to they gym, but I have a rule against serious workouts on consecutive days, even for my teens.  Recovery is just as important as the workout itself.  

[Laura Corin]

This is more-or-less where I am. I was trying to get to a magic number (just 5K) with my running, but it was clearly stressing one knee (my podiatrist has noticed a slight twist in that foot, and orthoses don't seem to be fully compensating for it). 

 

In addition to doing lots of squats to build muscle, I have decided to cut back to slow twenty-minute runs, three times a week.  That should reduce the risk of injury whilst still maintaining the good effects of impact on osteoporosis risk and arthritis protection:

 

https://www.howardluksmd.com/orthopedic-social-media/can-running-prevent-arthritis/

[Bluegoat]

Activity is still good - far better than not.  Too much seems to be harmful, but only "almost" up to the levels of inactivity.  Inactivity is the worst on every study I've looked at so far.

 

To put this together with the Blue Zones studies, at least the vast majority of those never did "extra" exercise like running or heading to the gym, but they all stayed active with their daily life - walking places, doing chores, etc, not for an hour or two, but as a way of life.  They weren't couch potatoes.  It definitely seems to match.

 

Yes.

 

What it makes me think of is the research on what makes kids most likely to become adults who stay active.  It seems to be involvement in several sports in a less intense way and being comfortable in a lot of physical activity settings, rather than the total dedication to one sport that a lot of leagues seem to encourage.  Even if they don't ask for it straight out, if they have a lot of practices in the week that take up all the student's time, or they run camps and such in the off season, the tendency is to keep the kids working always on the one thing.

 

And I think it also means their bodies are being subject to the same kinds of stresses all the time.

 

Taken together it suggests to me a kind of mixed activity profile where you have to be fit, but not highly conditioned just to participate.

[Bluegoat]

I think they get addicted to it.  Some sort of runner's high that I've never experienced and cannot appreciate.  I don't think I've ever run more than 6 miles in a single day and that's only because i was legally required to do so.  I never like it and got a second wind exactly once. I'm using this study to justify my non-running-but-active lifestyle.

 

I have a friend who is a big runner, she works at a running shop leading running groups.  I think it's totally an addiction for her.  She will tell me things like how all her toenails fell off and I am thinking - I'm not sure if that is a really healthy sign.

[SparklyUnicorn]

I have a friend who is a big runner, she works at a running shop leading running groups.  I think it's totally an addiction for her.  She will tell me things like how all her toenails fell off and I am thinking - I'm not sure if that is a really healthy sign.

 

Yup.  My DH works with a guy who is like that.  He is constantly not only running, but doing these crazy physical challenge events where they do one grueling physical thing after another for days.  His body is completely falling apart, and he's not that old.  He really DOES seem addicted to it.

[wintermom]

 

What thinks the Hive?  It's new news to me that I plan to incorporate into what I teach at school when in science classes.  I'm sticking with my moderate exercise and not at all worrying that I'm not in shape to run a race.

 

You can obviously do what you like, but planting a seed in youth that moderate exercise and no racing is the way to stay healthy isn't exactly what the video is suggesting either. There is a huge difference between years of over-training, and never even attempting to achieve a high level of athleticism. It is really motivating to tell youth that they can work hard and do well at something, and steer them toward doing this safely under excellent guidance. 

[SparklyUnicorn]

You can obviously do what you like, but planting a seed in youth that moderate exercise and no racing is the way to stay healthy isn't exactly what the video is suggesting either. There is a huge difference between years of over-training, and never even attempting to achieve a high level of athleticism. It is really motivating to tell youth that they can work hard and do well at something, and steer them toward doing this safely under excellent guidance. 

 

Well and honestly I don't think THAT many people fall into the category of excessive exerciser. 

[Cosmos]

Thanks for posting. I have been running for the past few years. This is the third or fourth time in my life of taking up running and for this go, my progress has been so incredibly slow, probably due to age and overweight. But I have (finally!) gotten to the point of almost exactly the guidelines Laurie posted -- 3 times a week x 30 minutes at 6 mph. I have been strategizing how to increase from there, but now I am rethinking. Instead, maybe I would be better served by incorporating more strength and flexibility training, which I have been very inconsistent at.

[wintermom]

Well and honestly I don't think THAT many people fall into the category of excessive exerciser. 

 

It would be interesting to find out. Sadly, many coaches in competitive sports seem to advocate for excessive exercise in their young athletes, both in the competitive season and the off-seasons. Parents buying into this style of training may not be fully aware of the long-term physical problems that may result. Some see college scholarships and competitive opportunities as a good pay-off for all the training their children are put through. 

 

There are also a fair number of people who are highly driven and welcome the challenge of excessive exercise and will continue to put themselves through this type of training in their adulthood completely voluntarily - sometimes against medical advice. 

 

I believe the key is finding a healthy balance between exercising intensity and frequency over a person's lifetime. 

Edited February 5, 2018 by wintermom

[SparklyUnicorn]

It would be interesting to find out. Sadly, many coaches in competitive sports seem to advocate for excessive exercise in their young athletes, both in the competitive season and the off-seasons. Parents buying into this style of training may not be fully aware of the long-term physical problems that may result. Some see college scholarships and competitive opportunities as a good pay-off for all the training their children are put through. 

 

There are also a fair number of people who are highly driven and welcome the challenge of excessive exercise and will continue to put themselves through this type of training in their adulthood completely voluntarily - sometimes against medical advice. 

 

I'm definitely not one of those people.  :lol:

 

But yeah I am very turned off by what I've seen in sports for kids.  My kids only tried a couple of things when very young, but even at that point it was already stupid.  There also does not seem to be much in the way of recreational sports for kids (or adults for that matter). 

[regentrude]

 There also does not seem to be much in the way of recreational sports for kids (or adults for that matter). 

 

There is, if you do not look for organized team sport leagues.

 

I see all ages do martial arts - from little kids to older adults. And  I see all ages bike, run, and hike. There are groups who do it together, adults at varying levels of proficiency.

And people get together to play soccer or tennis; no "league" or "team", just recreational fun.

 

ETA: This is a small Midwest town, so hardly an area with a strong fitness culture like Colorado or Oregon.

 

 

Edited February 5, 2018 by regentrude

[shawthorne44]

Marathons commemorate the messenger that saved the day by running to deliver the message at Marathon.   Then didn't he keel over dead?  

 

This totally matches what I always believed.  Although to be far I always thought runners were bat-poo-crazy.   As a kid I had an undiagnosed foot problem that meant every running step hurt a littler more than the previous one.   In High School when they really started to push us to run, I told the gym teacher that running hurt.  She said, "No Pain. No Gain"   So, I thought running hurt for everyone and they did it anyway.   Intellectually I now know that isn't true.  

 

I remember in the 80's some young Olympic track athlete died of something heart related.  The news talked about how Olympic and pro level athletes have a lower life expectancy.   I remember thinking it made sense.  Assume that your heart's life span is measured in X # of beats.    If your resting heart rate is 100, your heart will die before someone whose resting heart rate is 60.  If each day's vigorous exercise uses up a week's allotment of heart beats, then having a resting heart rate of 40 won't be a benefit.  

[SparklyUnicorn]

There is, if you do not look for organized team sport leagues.

 

I see all ages do martial arts - from little kids to older adults. And  I see all ages bike, run, and hike. There are groups who do it together, adults at varying levels of proficiency.

And people get together to play soccer, no "league" or "team", just recreational fun.

 

Only recreational thing I've found for my kids was tennis.  And they spent most of their time standing around. 

 

Everything else is competitive. 

 

I tried martial arts myself as an adult some years ago.  I didn't like the sparring stuff because the few times I tried it they paired me with much larger females who also had much higher belts because there weren't many females there.  It was an exercise in futility!  It totally turned me off. 

[madteaparty]

Makes sense. My grandma that lived to 104 and died in her own apartment wasn’t exactly a runner 😂

[SparklyUnicorn]

Makes sense. My grandma that lived to 104 and died in her own apartment wasn’t exactly a runner 😂

 

My paternal grandmother only walked.  She'd take a walk nearly everyday around a few blocks and that was that.  I don't think she ever stepped foot in a gym, played a sport, or ran.  She's 90. 

[kiana]

I tried martial arts myself as an adult some years ago.  I didn't like the sparring stuff because the few times I tried it they paired me with much larger females who also had much higher belts because there weren't many females there.  It was an exercise in futility!  It totally turned me off. 

 

Ugh, that would turn me off too.

 

I went for Aikido because it's non-competitive. Competitive things bring out a part of me I really don't like. 

[JumpyTheFrog]

Marathons commemorate the messenger that saved the day by running to deliver the message at Marathon.   Then didn't he keel over dead?  

 

I think he had already run 100-150 miles in the previous three days before the marathon.

[SparklyUnicorn]

Ugh, that would turn me off too.

 

I went for Aikido because it's non-competitive. Competitive things bring out a part of me I really don't like. 

 

I'm not competitive at all.  Heck, I'd love to find people to play cards with, but I'm afraid I'd end up meeting people who were too competitive!  I just want to have fun and enjoy. 

 

I'm pretty terrible at sports though so who wants to play when they are terrible at something?  It's only embarrassing. 

 

I liked the exercise aspect of martial arts, but again, the sparring was just so stupid for me. 

[JumpyTheFrog]

If your resting heart rate is 100, your heart will die before someone whose resting heart rate is 60.  If each day's vigorous exercise uses up a week's allotment of heart beats, then having a resting heart rate of 40 won't be a benefit.

 

You’re forgetting how vigorous exercise lowers resting heart rate, as long as someone isn’t overtraining. Before I began indoor soccer again, my sitting heart rate was about 80. Now it is about 63. So the days I play I have about 150*60=9000 beats for the game plus 63*60*23=86,940 for the rest of the day.

 

Soccer day: 95,940 heart beats

Pre-soccer day: 115,200 heart beats

 

So (ignoring however much heart rate drops during sleep), vigorous exercise has lowered my total beats per day, even on days I play. I didn’t get this effect from moderate exercise like Jazzercise, which I had already been doing.

[SparklyUnicorn]

Well I kinda forgot, but one of my kids is in a recreational dance class.  It's hard to find them for his age group though.  Last year they had a fairly sizeable group of kids around his age.  This year they had such low enrollment in his age range he was paired with a younger class.  He doesn't mind that, but it's going to get to the point where there won't be any recreational classes for his age as he gets older. 

[skimomma]

Oh boy.  This worried me.  I have a strong family history of cardiovascular issues and exercise for at least one hour daily.  Most of the activities I do are at a moderate heart rate and likely fall into the lower risk category.  However, my very favorite activity, which one can guess at by my user name, requires a much higher heart rate just to keep moving.  Despite years and years of training and striving to improve my technique, I cannot get that heart rate down.  I have noticed, just anecdotally, that an unsettling amount of people tend to drop dead while doing this sport.  Very healthy and active older people.  I was even in a race with a guy that had a heart attack right in front of me (he survived and even raced again the next year).  I have always thought that was a strong possibility for me and now I am even more convinced. 

 

My dd also does this sport and her team does train year round.  However, I am pretty impressed with her coaches.  They cross train in the off season, focussing activity on fun and diversity.  And they cap heart rate levels during in-season training.  Luckily, those kids do have good enough technique to be able to regulate their heart rate better than I do.

[Sugarfoot]

Dr. O'Keefe is a cardiologist at the hospital where my husband did his residency and fellowship. He was also my grandparents' cardiologist. He's brilliant. When his new work on this first came out, my DH and I (along with everyone else who's familiar) were shocked. It goes in an entirely different direction than what was earlier believed/taught/practiced. Dr. O'Keefe and his family were AVID runners, so it has significant meaning there, as well.

 

He wrote a book years ago detailing their lifestyle before the changes this brought about. I have it here somewhere. I'd be happy to find it if you're interested.

[wintermom]

Yes.

 

What it makes me think of is the research on what makes kids most likely to become adults who stay active.  It seems to be involvement in several sports in a less intense way and being comfortable in a lot of physical activity settings, rather than the total dedication to one sport that a lot of leagues seem to encourage.  Even if they don't ask for it straight out, if they have a lot of practices in the week that take up all the student's time, or they run camps and such in the off season, the tendency is to keep the kids working always on the one thing.

 

And I think it also means their bodies are being subject to the same kinds of stresses all the time.

 

Taken together it suggests to me a kind of mixed activity profile where you have to be fit, but not highly conditioned just to participate.

 

This is exactly what True Sport, an educational program developed by the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport advocates.  http://truesportpur.ca/