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

[cintinative]

It also says:

"More importantly to serious runners, there was no evidence of harm at ten or more times the recommended minimum."

 

I missed this. I agree with regenetrude. What was the point of the study exactly?

[plansrme]

I missed this. I agree with regenetrude. What was the point of the study exactly?

 

Exactly!  If your headline is, "Runners are gonna die early," but your study eventually concludes that one can run 20 HOURS/week without, you know, dying early, I question whether you were trying to anything other than get invited to give a TED Talk.  The message that "1.5 hours/week is enough" isn't nearly as sexy as, "Everyone fitter than you is gonna die, so relax and enjoy your bon-bons."

[creekland]

Exactly!  If your headline is, "Runners are gonna die early," but your study eventually concludes that one can run 20 HOURS/week without, you know, dying early, I question whether you were trying to anything other than get invited to give a TED Talk.  The message that "1.5 hours/week is enough" isn't nearly as sexy as, "Everyone fitter than you is gonna die, so relax and enjoy your bon-bons."

 

I don't quite get this.  The TED talk came earlier than the later studies and it was based upon earlier studies.  It made a point of saying moderate is enough and never once said relax and eat your bon bons.  He made a point against that view.

 

Since then more folks have tuned in and done what science does - more studies - trying to see what is true or not based upon previous correlations and trying to pinpoint solid statistical advice for those interested in it.  There will always be anecdotes that don't fit stats.  That's the way stats work.  But for the majority looking to plan their lives, stats give a good guideline about things.

 

I find it interesting that many of you don't converse about such things.  But then again, I tend to eat with my family (and we love similar discussions) or science teachers and we're usually conversing about things science has been finding - the latest at school being a potential "cure" for a form of Huntington's Disease... I like my circle.  I'd leave one that merely talked about fashion, Hollywood, or sports, etc.  I suppose that's why different circles exist to fit us all.   :coolgleamA:  To those not liking these threads, one can opt to not read them.  There are many threads I skip.  ;)

[creekland]

Sorry.  I think I'm tired of talking about diet and exercise.   

 

You do realize there's a very simple solution to this, right?  Skip these types of threads rather than bashing those of us who do like to discuss the topics in a rational way from various angles looking at studies that are out there?

 

At least it seems pretty simple to me...

[HSmomof2]

I finally had a chance to read this thread. I never really liked running but decided a couple of years ago to train and complete a 5k trail run. I ended up really enjoying it and did another 6 months later, I could understand how people get addicted to it. But, long story short, it was too much stress for my body (at least for now). I hope I tolerate more intensity at some point but I'm trying to take it easy on my body.

 

I'm really torn on my thoughts about exercising in general. Mostly I think we need people to move more in general. I mean we have a nation full of obese and seriously unfit people and we're fretting about how much running is too much, that is so far removed from the vast majority I don't see it as very helpful (although for a very small number they do need to hear that there is diminishing returns with exercise and more is not always better). I think a lot of people get discouraged because they see these ideals as something they can't possibly live up to, the face of fitness in America is ridiculously buff (if we could stop photoshopping that would be great and not have fitness models get dehydrated). For the vast majority of people, they need to just hear move more! Just move more then you are doing now, doing any activity you like. We get so caught up in the exact right way to do things that people end up paralyzed and do nothing when they can't meet that ideal. You don't have to be able to do xyz ridiculously hard activity to be fit and active. Walking still counts, start where you are, do something you like. You don't have to time out your workouts by the minute, I'm certain the longest lived didn't spend that much thought into it.

^^^ITA. And I think it’s pretty much the same with diet, too.......

[staceyobu]

I run almost 9 hours a week.  This thread has me so nervous.  I should stop reading it.  Plus I weight train and use my heavy bag, too.

 

I always find a long run helps with my anxiety. ;)

[regentrude]

I find it interesting that many of you don't converse about such things.  But then again, I tend to eat with my family (and we love similar discussions) or science teachers and we're usually conversing about things science has been finding - the latest at school being a potential "cure" for a form of Huntington's Disease... I like my circle

 

We do talk about exercise and diet - but in a completely different way. We share what everybody has been doing for activity - hiking trails, races, bike trips. Because the people I am surrounded by have activity built into their lives not as a remedy recommended by health professionals, but as a lifestyle that makes them feel good.

Same for diet. All my friends cook and like to eat, so we talk about food: what recipes we tried, where there are cool eateries, new ingredients. They don't approach food as something that has to be optimized based on the newest scientific study.

 

I am surrounded by scientists, and we are aware that medical research is still very much in the empiric stage and often woefully inadequate when it comes to rigor. There is usually no clear distinction between causality and correlation. So the scientists I hang out with are inclined to wait until medical research has evolved from the empirical description of a correlation to evidence of actual causal mechanisms. Before I change my lifestyle, I want a clear hypothesis with a causal mechanism that has been tested in clean experimentation, not a collection of empirical correlations.

 

Edited February 6, 2018 by regentrude

[Greta]

I don't quite get this.  The TED talk came earlier than the later studies and it was based upon earlier studies.  It made a point of saying moderate is enough and never once said relax and eat your bon bons.  He made a point against that view.

 

Since then more folks have tuned in and done what science does - more studies - trying to see what is true or not based upon previous correlations and trying to pinpoint solid statistical advice for those interested in it.  There will always be anecdotes that don't fit stats.  That's the way stats work.  But for the majority looking to plan their lives, stats give a good guideline about things.

 

 

 

 

Yes, he updated his recommendations as new information became available, so I respect that.  

 

Plus, the advice to not exercise vigorously for 20 hours or more per week is still relevant to some people.  True, they are a minority, but since I personally know a few people who could benefit from that information, it doesn't seem crazy to me to make that information available.  Professional athletes too.  My guess is that many of them will not choose to back off, and that's their choice to make.  But they have the right to an informed choice.

 

Even though I'm in no danger whatsoever of exceeding the recommended limit, I still find it interesting!  I find the topics of diet and exercise and how they relate to health and longevity to be fascinating.  I was chatting with my husband about this over breakfast, and he doesn't think there was a time when he was ever exercising vigorously for 20 hours or more per week, even when he was younger and was exercising harder than he does now.  But he mentioned several friends by name who do exercise vigorously for more than 20 hours per week.  He said he thinks that 10 hours of exercise per week is his ideal.  I'm doing great if I can get in 6 (I'm not counting walking in this, but activity that puts me in my target heart rate zone, plus weight-lifting).  So I still have lots of room for improvement!  

 

 

ETA:  But since my husband did develop atrial fibrillation, which his cardiologist told him point blank was because he exercises so much, I'm not convinced it takes 20 hrs/wk to start to see damage.  Maybe it takes 20 hours to start to impact longevity in a statistically significant way, but . . . I don't know.  Maybe the true limit just varies considerably from person to person.

Edited February 6, 2018 by Greta

[TechWife]

I haven’t read all of the replies, but I want to add our personal perspectives.

 

Longevity is relative. My husband’s mother was disabled due to heart disease and diabetes. By the time she reached the age of 60 and saw a cardiologist for the first time, he estimated that she had previously suffered a minimum of five heart attacks. She did not live to see 63. Neither of my husband’s brothers lived past 60. One died at the age of 52 from a genetic illness. The other died at 60 from intestinal issues. At 45, my husband as told he was on the road to diabetes. So, he changed his lifestyle. As a runner, he averages somewhere between 30-40 miles each week. A 5K is a short run for him. He enjoys competing against himself, so he runs in a race every 6-8 weeks, on average. He prefers 10K as his racing distance, but he does a half-marathon approximately every six months. He has done one marathon and says “I don’t need to do that again!â€

 

I am as certain as I can be that my husband will outlive his siblings and his mother. Living forever really isn’t a goal for him, nor anyone else. A joint replacement pales in comparison to being disabled because your heart isn’t able to pump blood adequately. Health is individual. Any year I get with my husband is a treasure. No matter what he does, he will die, as we all will. I think the broader question is how well do we want to live?

[Laura Corin]

 

Another thing is that for me, soccer is like meditation. It's the only thing I do where I am consistently completely in the moment, without my thoughts wandering off to other things. The outside world disappears and it's just me, the teams, and the game. I don't feel this way from moderate exercise.

 

I'm so uncoordinated that flow yoga does this for me.  I am concentrating so hard on which limb to put where and how to breathe while I'm doing it that I think about nothing else for the hour.

 

[Bluegoat]

I don't think longevity is the whole story really.  The other question is, is there a point at which there are decreasing or no return on doing more?  Maybe if you run 20 hours a week you aren't more at risk to die earlier than someone who runs half or a quarter of that.  But if there is no real benefit, you've spent a lot of time you might have used differently.  And you are probably also much more likely to suffer injuries with no real health benefit.  Runners in particular often do in their joints and feet so that later they may be forced to become much less active.

[BooksandBoys]

I'm so uncoordinated that flow yoga does this for me. I am concentrating so hard on which limb to put where and how to breathe while I'm doing it that I think about nothing else for the hour.

 

I feel this way when I downhill ski. It’s the only thing I’ve ever found that turns my brain completely off. I love it. I think flow yoga gets close, possibly because I, also, am super uncoordinated. But not quite as well as skiing.

[creekland]

We do talk about exercise and diet - but in a completely different way. We share what everybody has been doing for activity - hiking trails, races, bike trips. Because the people I am surrounded by have activity built into their lives not as a remedy recommended by health professionals, but as a lifestyle that makes them feel good.

Same for diet. All my friends cook and like to eat, so we talk about food: what recipes we tried, where there are cool eateries, new ingredients. They don't approach food as something that has to be optimized based on the newest scientific study.

 

I am surrounded by scientists, and we are aware that medical research is still very much in the empiric stage and often woefully inadequate when it comes to rigor. There is usually no clear distinction between causality and correlation. So the scientists I hang out with are inclined to wait until medical research has evolved from the empirical description of a correlation to evidence of actual causal mechanisms. Before I change my lifestyle, I want a clear hypothesis with a causal mechanism that has been tested in clean experimentation, not a collection of empirical correlations.

 

That doesn't sound so different then.  We just work studies we see into our conversation as folks find them, mainly because we like to discuss what current findings are and to be "up" on what is the latest for our students.  Most (not all) of us have changed our diets by tweaking them, not by falling for some fad, and we discuss whether we like (or see) any changes, etc.  Some choose to eat more healthy.  Others don't (bringing in McD's more often than not).  It's the same with exercise.  Some do the gym and classes or set routines.  Others like myself just try to choose a "moving" lifestyle.  We don't judge or chide.  We merely like the discussion, sharing knowledge, and the ponderings of "I wonder ifs" that come along with it.  We don't care to wait until everything is proven to discuss things - we enjoy the journey along the way.

 

Yes, he updated his recommendations as new information became available, so I respect that.  

 

Plus, the advice to not exercise vigorously for 20 hours or more per week is still relevant to some people.  True, they are a minority, but since I personally know a few people who could benefit from that information, it doesn't seem crazy to me to make that information available.  Professional athletes too.  My guess is that many of them will not choose to back off, and that's their choice to make.  But they have the right to an informed choice.

 

Even though I'm in no danger whatsoever of exceeding the recommended limit, I still find it interesting!  I find the topics of diet and exercise and how they relate to health and longevity to be fascinating.  I was chatting with my husband about this over breakfast, and he doesn't think there was a time when he was ever exercising vigorously for 20 hours or more per week, even when he was younger and was exercising harder than he does now.  But he mentioned several friends by name who do exercise vigorously for more than 20 hours per week.  He said he thinks that 10 hours of exercise per week is his ideal.  I'm doing great if I can get in 6 (I'm not counting walking in this, but activity that puts me in my target heart rate zone, plus weight-lifting).  So I still have lots of room for improvement!  

 

 

ETA:  But since my husband did develop atrial fibrillation, which his cardiologist told him point blank was because he exercises so much, I'm not convinced it takes 20 hrs/wk to start to see damage.  Maybe it takes 20 hours to start to impact longevity in a statistically significant way, but . . . I don't know.  Maybe the true limit just varies considerably from person to person.

 

There are many, many things that will never apply to me (like Huntingtons), but I still find them and research about them interesting.  Most kids are interested too - and for some - the research DOES apply.  I learned of a family who had an adopted daughter with an early onset Huntington's.  The daughter was a student who had graduated some years before so we older teachers knew her.  I don't know that the recent breakthrough will be able to help her, esp since it's being done in the UK, but by sharing, if it's possible, she and her parents will be able to look into it.  Maybe with some more studies it'll be shown not to have helped much, but right now, we all think they feel it's worth checking out.

 

We don't get to live later when "it's all figured out."  We live now and have to use the best info we have.

 

And besides that... for some of us, it's all fascinating to see science in action whether it's a new discovery or dead end.   :coolgleamA:

[hornblower]

I found this thread & the links you & others posted really interesting. Thx creekland! 
 

[creekland]

I found this thread & the links you & others posted really interesting. Thx creekland! 

 

 

Thanks!  And I definitely still plan to share them at school when on the topic - all of it - not just the first post.  I appreciate others bringing the newer studies to my attention because I had overlooked the date of the Ted Talk assuming it was recent since it came from college boy.  I still think the whole thing is worthy for the next generation to understand and think about.  Who knows?  Some might even choose to become researchers later on.  We have students who love research as much as I do and who opt to head that direction in their lives.  Regardless, all of them will have to figure out the level of exercise and activity they want to have as adults.  They ought to have the latest information to base their decisions on.

[Laurie4b]

I don't think longevity is the whole story really.  The other question is, is there a point at which there are decreasing or no return on doing more?  Maybe if you run 20 hours a week you aren't more at risk to die earlier than someone who runs half or a quarter of that.  But if there is no real benefit, you've spent a lot of time you might have used differently.  And you are probably also much more likely to suffer injuries with no real health benefit.  Runners in particular often do in their joints and feet so that later they may be forced to become much less active.

 

I think these are good points. 

 

A lot of longevity research actually does focus on more than length of days. The goal has become to have an active functional life as long as possible and then if there is any downhill in terms of functionality that it is short. You can have length of days without much functionality or quality of life. That's not what most people prefer. The studies posted here are about length of days without regard to quality of life, but I think the point about protecting one's joints is an important one if quality of life (able to function, freedom from pain) is important. People may weigh that out and decide that the benefit now in terms of quality of life is worth a decrease later. That's their choice. I think it's good filter worth thinking through for yourself though. 

[shawthorne44]

I have a good mom friend that is very into running.   She's learning to swim now to do a triathlon.  She wore sandals yesterday and I found myself checking out her toes.  I was happy to see that they were a normal color with nails attached.   That is entirely due to this thread.  

[Seasider]

Vigorous exercise twice a week would probably be enough to lower resting heart rate. I'm not suggesting anyone try HIIT/sprints five days a week.

Know what had the biggest effect on my resting heart rate? Training to SCUBA dive and being active in that sport. There's a lot of mind over matter, in a biofeedback sort of way, especially decades ago diving with equipment that wasn't as streamlined as it is today. Never panic, no matter what, has always been my dive mantra. (Learned that the hard way after hyperventilating on one of my first open water trips!)

 

Anyway, my physician always commented that my resting heart rate - now up from the 55bpm it used to average - was excellent and that I needed to keep doing whatever I was doing, which never really exceeded moderate exercise and SCUBA.

[Carrie12345]

I don't think it is. I personally have chosen to ignore all the "advice" and just do what is intuitive to me: varied diet of minimally processed foods with everything in moderation, active life with everything in moderation there as well. Worked for grandma and will work for me.

 

I find the societal obsession with diet and exercise almost absurd, considering the actual outcomes. Btw, nobody in my circle spends much time thinking and talking about these things. The only place I encounter these discussions is this board.

I’ll talk sensible diet and adequate exercise to anyone even remotely interested. Probably because I’m so sick of sahms all around me trying to sell trendy snake oil. :-/

[JumpyTheFrog]

Know what had the biggest effect on my resting heart rate? Training to SCUBA dive and being active in that sport. There's a lot of mind over matter, in a biofeedback sort of way, especially decades ago diving with equipment that wasn't as streamlined as it is today. Never panic, no matter what, has always been my dive mantra. (Learned that the hard way after hyperventilating on one of my first open water trips!)

Scuba! Now there’s an activity I wouldn’t have thought of in relation to this, but it makes sense.

[Granny_Weatherwax]

I'll give group tennis lessons to all who want to learn!!

 

[Soror]

I’ll talk sensible diet and adequate exercise to anyone even remotely interested. Probably because I’m so sick of sahms all around me trying to sell trendy snake oil. :-/

LOL, I know someone with the cure for cancer :) 

 

I love to talk healthy living with my friends that are interested in such things. I like reading health and fitness news and books. Practice is we just do the best we can, I'm active because I enjoy it and do as much as I have the time and energy for, I pick things I enjoy. 

[creekland]

I’ll talk sensible diet and adequate exercise to anyone even remotely interested. Probably because I’m so sick of sahms all around me trying to sell trendy snake oil. :-/

 

I was just reading an article last night about how the placebo effect is working more now than they ever thought before, so perhaps all we need to do for a side job is come up with a fancy one we name and market.

 

https://www.health.harvard.edu/mental-health/the-power-of-the-placebo-effect

[Greta]

I'll give group tennis lessons to all who want to learn!!

 

 

If you happen to live in Albuquerque, I'll take you up on that offer!