Too Much Exercise May Not Be Better Than a Sedentary Lifestyle 200
jones_supa writes: The importance of exercise has been arriving in spades for geek culture. However, when approaching extremes, a point is reached where vigorous jogging erodes some of the benefits light jogging has over a sedentary lifestyle. "Long-term excessive exercise may be associated with coronary artery calcification, diastolic dysfunction and large artery wall stiffening," wrote lead author Peter Schnohr of Copenhagen's Frederiksberg Hospital in a Danish study (abstract). Although previous research has found that physically active people have at least a 30% lower risk of death compared with inactive people, the ideal amount of exercise remains somewhat uncertain. In this study, strenuous joggers — people who ran faster than 11 km/h for more than 4 hours a week; or who ran faster than 11 km/h for more than 2.5 hours a week with a frequency of more than three times a week — had a mortality rate that is not statistically different from that of the sedentary group.
Medical journalist Larry Husten notes that this study, while interesting, should not be taken as the final word on the subject.
The biggest failure of science: (Score:5, Funny)
I guess we need to rehash this?
Re: (Score:3)
I imagine that people who run that much don't do it because science says exercise is good (as if we needed science to know that), they probably enjoy it. My guess is that people who only mildly enjoy running or not much at all but do it because they believe it's good for you are unlikely to run that much.
And btw Science is such a wide umbrella of institutions, organizations and body of knowledge that it makes little sense to talk about it in general. People running particle accelerators and social scientist
Re:The biggest failure of science: (Score:4, Insightful)
Runners High... It's like Heroin. They are no different than junkies.
Re:The biggest failure of science: (Score:5, Funny)
Runners High... It's like Heroin. They are no different than junkies.
They don't steal your television to fund their habit, so that's one difference.
Re:The biggest failure of science: (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The biggest failure of science: (Score:4, Insightful)
You'd probably like it better if you didn't do it on a treadmill. Get outside! It's much more enjoyable than a treadmill.
Re:The biggest failure of science: (Score:5, Funny)
It's February
Re: (Score:2)
Which hemisphere? ;)
Re:The biggest failure of science: (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
This is true, but misleading.
For men, it is true that the optimum weight/BMI* is "normal" and any increase is bad.
For women, health outcome steadily improves with weight until an extra pound tips you into "obese". That extra pound is associated with a severely adverse health expectancy. Ie it is not the weight that causes the illness, it is being labelled "obese" that is the cause of problems.
*BMI is rubbish anyway: BMI fails to take into account that muscle is denser
Re: (Score:2)
For men, it is true that the optimum weight/BMI* is "normal" and any increase is bad.
Actually no, overweight is the optimum. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu... [nih.gov]
People who are overweight are 0.94 times as likely to die as people who have normal weight. People who are slightly obese are 0.95 times as likely to die as people who have normal weight. People who are very obese are 1.29 and 1.41 times as likely to die as normal weight. Basically - being really heavy is very bad. Being a little on the chubby side is not.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Internet hyperbolic echo chamber strikes again... (Score:5, Informative)
2) Measure things until one of the outcomes reaches "statistical significance".
Look at the small number of participants shown in the original data here, and the conclusion that is being echoed all over the Internet seems dramatically overstated. The original authors acknowledged this and called for further research, as did the editorial accompanying publication, but of course that hardly gets mentioned in all the Internet echo chamber "don't do too much exercise, you might just as well slob around on the sofa" rhetoric.
I can't find a publicly available primary source to cite, but it looks like only a little over a hundred "strenuous" joggers were included in the study, and of those only two actually died. The remaining ones could go jog their normal route and still not travel the length of the error bars here.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, I misread the figures in the parent post. Actually there were only 36 strenuous joggers studied. Go read the Larry Husten link under TFS, he explains the problem here better than I did.
Re:Internet hyperbolic echo chamber strikes again. (Score:5, Informative)
The Forbes [forbes.com] article linked in the summary is telling:
Re: (Score:2)
In your 200+ sample, eight died. Certainly that's more than the seven deaths in 570 light joggers, but we really are stretching the meaning of statistically significant when we work with such small numbers. The tiniest factor that wasn't accounted for could easily make the difference.
Also, given the time period of the study, it's likely there's a great reliance on self-reporting of activity level. Doing the same study today, over ten years should be possible with a much better data set thanks to apps like S
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It is certainly possible that performing very high levels of physical activity is worse for the human body in some respects than performing lower levels. However, this study doesn't support that theory to any statistically useful degree.
Re: (Score:2)
10 years ago in college I was talking with a teacher with a PHD related to wellness and we got on this exact topic. They told me too much exercise is well known to increase arterial plaque and was a major health issue with long distance runners. Great hearts, bad plaque.
So, that's interesting, but why does it happen?
Re: (Score:3)
Here is what they do:
1) Set up some null hypothesis of zero correlation between jogging and health, diet and health, etc (probably at least five per study).
2) Measure things until one of the outcomes reaches "statistical significance".
3) Misinterpret this statistical significance to be the probability their theory is true: jogging really does affect health.
Where is the science in that? Do not blame science.
And do not state the size of the effect.
Here is a nice article about exactly this, titled Mindless statistics [mpib-berlin.mpg.de]
Re: (Score:2)
And do not state the size of the effect.
Well, they do quote the size of the effect in the abstract. And the results clearly have no statistical "power".
This is part of the abstract. HR = hazard ratio. i.e. the relative ratio of dying for the joggers compared to the non-joggers.
And CI is a confidence interval. e.g. For the light joggers they can say with 95% statistical certainty that the risk of dying was
between 10% and 47% of the non-joggers.
The lowest HR for mortality was found in light joggers (HR: 0.22; 95% CI: 0.10 to 0.47), followed by mode
Re: (Score:2)
What is the caloric content of poop?
This question alone should be enough to shut down every single "conventional" conversation about diet and exercise.
Otherwise we are just talking about perfectly spherical cows.
Jogging sucks (Score:4, Insightful)
Lift weights
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, something that I do. Found it funny that the title is "Too much exercise...", then goes on to cite a study about pretty specific types of JOGGING. Sensationalism?
Re:Jogging sucks (Score:4, Insightful)
Lift weights
Lifting weights is incredibly boring. Ride your bike :)
Re:Jogging sucks (Score:5, Funny)
Lifting weights is incredibly boring. Ride your bike :)
Jaws was never your scene, and you don't like Star Wars then?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Woody, is that you? (Score:3)
I feel like I just stumbled into a screening of The Sleeper. [wikipedia.org]
Ummm .... duh? (Score:4, Insightful)
Who hasn't seen some of these joggers who do it obsessively?
I've seen a bunch of people who look skinny and emaciated from being jogging freaks. At a certain point you look like you're ill -- and quite disturbingly so.
Hell, back when I used to go to the gym there used to be one lady on the treadmill ... she stayed on it for hours, and essentially looked terrible to the point it looked like she could probably use some therapy ... she looked anorexic.
That's not healthy, that's obsessive.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Why didn't you do your civic duty as a bro and teach that one lady how to deadlift?
Re: (Score:3)
Exercising increases the release of endorphin on the brain, and some people got addicted to it.
The expression adrenaline junkie is to be taken literally sometimes.
Re: (Score:2)
Um, addicted? No.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If they look skinny and emaciated then they're doing it wrong. Regardless of how much jogging or other exercise you do, if you're eating correctly, you won't be skinny and emaciated.
Re: (Score:2)
I've seen pictures of marathoners, and I've seen pictures of sprinters.
I'd sure as hell would rather look like a sprinter.
Re: (Score:2)
> I find people who do nothing but weight lift obsessively look ridiculous.
There is a guy like that in the gym. Me and my buddy calls him "Hulk".
He DOES usually have some cool chicks hanging with him though...
Holy shit (Score:5, Funny)
You mean there is nothing I can do to live forever?!
Re:Holy shit (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, drink massive amounts of coffee.
Coffee makes you live forever.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry to break the news to you, but....no
Re: (Score:2)
Actually there is. Well, not forever... but insanely long.
Reduce your caloric intake by around 70%. Life will suck. You'll be emaciated and feel miserable. But if animal evidence is any guide, you'll live well into your 100's.
Only if you can be kept in a cage with a little wheel that you can run around on and get fed the same diet of pellets composed of floor scrapings.
Oh. Wait.
Re: (Score:3)
The jury is still out on that one. The studies a still not clear [nature.com] on if reduced caloric intake is effective or if it will work on humans.
A way to protect or extend your telomeres might be the only vaccine for death.
Re: (Score:2)
A way to protect or extend your telomeres might be the only vaccine for death.
HeLa [wikipedia.org] certainly appreciates it.
Re: (Score:2)
It's my understanding the brain does not work that way. Although it grows new stuff to learn, those cells are basically it, and those cells just start wearing out.
Assuming the wildest success for telomere lengthening for every other cell and organ in your body, and you'll still be a drooling idiot at 150.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Since Magic the Gathering keeps getting bigger and bigger, with more people playing it every year than before, you might want to pick another nerd pasttime to make fun of.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe he was going for imp -> impious [thefreedictionary.com] than for im-pious.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, if you're male, sterilization before puberty has a fairly dramatic effect as well - castration has been confirmed in both animal models and from old church records of the castrato versus their peers, and radiation-based destruction of the reproductive precursor cells in rats has shown similar effects.
From what I recall, similar sterilization of females shows a much less conclusive effect.
Re: (Score:2)
You have a reference for this? How much s that attributed to a less testosterone-filled more violent lifestyle?
Re: (Score:3)
Nah, if you live that healthy, chances are someone will kill you because your smugness will be off the charts.
BTW. Those are an old study, it seems while holds true for rodents no effect is shown on other species.
Re: (Score:2)
That's related to the classic guy who bikes all the time and is hit by a bus. I don't play in the street very often, so I think my odds of getting hit by a bus are pretty low. (heart attack and stroke are pretty high though)
Re: (Score:2)
Time is more difficult to escape than gravity.
I'll save science billions of dollars in research (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
well some things shouldn't be done in moderation...
smoking, eating feces, etc
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I'll save science billions of dollars in resear (Score:5, Interesting)
Exactly. My father was a big jogger in the 1970's and 1980's. He ran 5 to 10 miles almost every day.
Around age 68 he had to get a knee replaced. At 73 he had the other knee replaced. The doctors told him that pretty much anyone who jogged that much has to get new knees. Now he still has trouble walking long distances, which sucks for him since he lives in the mountains and loves to hike.
My father has advised me against jogging more than a couple miles twice a week.
Re:I'll save science billions of dollars in resear (Score:5, Informative)
Running is a complex biomechanical activity. Most people I see running are not running with biomechanically-correct form. This probably stems from lack of knowledge of how to run correctly, lack of core strength to run correctly, shoes that do not fit their physiology and personal running form, etc., etc.
Since most people run with poor form, it's not a surprise that most people that jog require knee replacements.
Running, when done correctly, produces minimal stress on knee joints, even at 10+ mph.
Re: (Score:2)
It's all about the shoes. (Score:5, Informative)
Running is a complex biomechanical activity. Most people I see running are not running with biomechanically-correct form. This probably stems from lack of knowledge of how to run correctly, lack of core strength to run correctly, shoes that do not fit their physiology and personal running form, etc., etc.
Since most people run with poor form, it's not a surprise that most people that jog require knee replacements.
Running, when done correctly, produces minimal stress on knee joints, even at 10+ mph.
Modern padded running shoes promote bad form, causing knee and other injuries, and prevent your feet from strengthening, causing planar fascitis and a few other maladies. Your foot is actually well constructed to run, but it can't do it's job wrapped in a ton of leather and foam.
I've had some success with minimalist running shoes (abrasion protection only, no padding, sole is about 1/8" thick)- it's important to enable your feet to strengthen. After a few weeks of walking around in thin shoes, I started running again and it felt like I had new feet- it was awesome.
Wearing thin shoes forces you to land on your forefoot, allowing your very complicated foot to absorb shock like it's supposed to. Wearing thick-soled shoes allows you to land on your heel, and that force is transmitted straight up to your knee. The padding prevents immediate pain but the shock goes through nonetheless.
There's a great book on running, called "Born to Run", that discusses this and many other aspects of running. I highly recommend the book.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
But we haven't been doing it in shoes. Or with feet modified by wearing shoes. Or on pavement, or mostly in cold climates.
I am not sure which of these changes is more important. My best guess is the shoes. It is easy to tell when humans started wearing shoes, the feet are distinctly different. Different feet + padding = different running which may = damaged joints.
T
Re: (Score:2)
I have heard that shoes are the main culprit as well.
I wonder if anyone has studied the knees of Tarahumara people? They run insane amounts and rarely wear shoes.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. My father was a big jogger in the 1970's and 1980's. He ran 5 to 10 miles almost every day.
Around age 68 he had to get a knee replaced. At 73 he had the other knee replaced. The doctors told him that pretty much anyone who jogged that much has to get new knees. Now he still has trouble walking long distances, which sucks for him since he lives in the mountains and loves to hike.
My father has advised me against jogging more than a couple miles twice a week.
Its the same with any form of high impact sports. Former (Australian Rules) football players getting hip replacements in their 40's. A lot have their hamstrings pack it in whilst still in their 20's (effectively ending their career).
Also with lifting weights, its far more important to lift correctly than to lift heavy. Sure you can squat twice as much if you only drop by 2 inches instead of putting your arse below your knees like you're meant to, but the former will leave you with a serious back problem
Re: (Score:3)
I have yet to talk to a doctor that didn't believe that excessive running damages knees.
That's why it's called "excessive."
Re: (Score:2)
30% ? (Score:2, Funny)
"Although previous research has found that physically active people have at least a 30% lower risk of death compared with inactive people"
Wait... don't we all have 100% risk of death?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly what I was thinking. You could maybe have a 30% longer lifespan - which seems unlikely or it would have been noticed, or maybe a 30% lower chance of death within a particular timeframe. Or maybe if was poorly phrased, and should have been "moderate joggers have a 30% greater chance of not dieing". But then why draw the line at 30%? 30,000% would be equally accurate.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why are you including all the people who ever lived in X?
Too much (Score:5, Insightful)
Too Much Exercise May Not Be Better Than a Sedentary Lifestyle
Too Much
Well, that seems true by definition.
Obviously (Score:5, Funny)
To quote Stephen Fry [youtube.com]:
"Of course 'too much' bad for you. 'Too much' of anything is bad for you, you blithering twat. That's what 'too much' means. 'Too much' water would be bad for you. Obviously 'too much' is precisely that quantity which is excessive. That's what it means. Jesus!"
Re: (Score:2)
Divided up over the week, 15 miles is like 3 hours for a slow runner. I used to run over 2 hours a week and I am certainly not an elite athlete. My cousin, also not an elite athlete, used to run double (or more) than this weekly while training to run marathons.
Moderation (Score:2)
As with anything in life, moderation is key.
Take a look at any centenarian, they all do everything in moderation.
Re:Moderation (Score:5, Funny)
"Is it true that you smoke eight to ten cigars a day?"
"That's true."
"Is it true that you drink five martinis a day?"
"That's true."
"Is it true that you still surround yourself with beautiful young women?"
"That's true."
"What does your doctor say about all of this?"
"My doctor is dead."
- An interview with George Burns
Statistical lies and damned lies? (Score:3)
The error range for the strenuous jogging group is absolutely huge and only represents 2 deaths out 36 (or 40, depending on which plot you're looking at). Yeah, the differences between strenuous jogging and sitting on your ass might be technically statistically significant, but are the numbers in these groups sufficient to tell if there's a difference, ie is the study sufficiently powered?
Re: (Score:2)
The error range for the strenuous jogging group is absolutely huge and only represents 2 deaths out 36 (or 40, depending on which plot you're looking at). Yeah, the differences between strenuous jogging and sitting on your ass might be technically statistically significant, but are the numbers in these groups sufficient to tell if there's a difference, ie is the study sufficiently powered?
Not to mention that this depends entirely on the person. If my math is correct, this article is suggesting than running faster than a an 8:45 mile can be dangerous to you. I'm a pretty big guy. I can run an 8:30 mile for 5 miles without becoming short of breath. If I were a foot shorter, perhaps that would be a very strenuous pace for me. I don't see how running that fast could be dangerous for me if I am running at the same number of strides per minute as someone who runs slower than me.
Re: (Score:2)
Awaiting (Score:2)
Awaiting the inevitable comparison between this science and AGW.
Quality over quantity (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't care now long I live. I do care about how well I live. I'd rather be muscular, look good and have the freedom to go snowboarding as much as I want, and die in my 70's, than be out of shape and have difficulty getting around until I'm 100.
Bet you won't be saying that once you hit your 70's. :-)
Running = too much stress (Score:4, Interesting)
I've been running since 1969 (Score:2)
There are a number of "half century" cardio people around encouraged by Dr.Cooper's book Aerobics published in the mid 1960s.(He coined that exercise term.) Cooper was
Too much of anything is bad. (Score:2)
Film at eleven.
Narrow (Score:2)
Even if we ignore the taking steroids angle, sometimes these exercise freaks eat salads after running 60 miles, when they should be downing 5 pound steaks.
Re: (Score:2)
Not to say that there aren't PEDs for distance runners, but steroids improve the performance of sprinters, weightlifters and other athletes who benefit from larger more powerful muscles. Long distance runners wouldn't benefit by artificially increasing their muscle mass.
Re: (Score:2)
It's mostly about energy in vs energy out. Running 100 km at 6.5 km/h with 91 kg of body weight costs approximately 6,500 Kcal according to this random webpage I found. Including normal daily needs you'd need 8700 Kcal for such a day (for scale: this is almost 12 Mc Donalds double Quarter Pounders)
Thus it really depends on the salad. A salad made of 2000g of eruca sativa, 2000 gr of a mix of different lettuce types, 500 gr blue cheese, 500 gr of penne rigate, a couple of table spoons of honey and 600 ml of
Jogging is a bad idea all around (Score:2)
Harrumph (Score:2)
You sound fat.
Who cares (Score:2)
I don't care if I'm really extending my life any longer. We're all going to die, that's a given, and nothing other than medicine and hygiene (both personal and societal) have been statistically shown to significantly increase that life span. What I care about is how I feel while I'm alive. I don't exercise to live longer, I exercise to feel better while I'm alive. That's also why I don't exercise in a gym. Go out and play.
So... (Score:5, Insightful)
So... "everything in moderation"? Just like... everything else? Got it.
Unit conversion (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I would say it is a decently fast jog, but is not a run. I would put that cutoff at around 7:30 miles, and say that it involves some changes in the way you move (less bouncing up and down, getting up on the balls of your feet, etc.) Personally my knees hurt if I jog, but not if I run.
I do my morning 5k in just under 18 minutes on most days as a comparison (usually in the 5:40 per mile range, but on a good day I can do it in a little over 15 minutes.)
Yet another 'news story' to be miscontrued! (Score:2)
See? I shouldn't exercise at all, it'll kill me quicker! Honey, could you get me another beer from the 'fridge? I don't want to get up.
Seriously, I'd like to just shoot so-called 'researchers' who publish crap like this.
Not by my definition. (Score:2)
"Too much exercise"?
"high-intensity, high-mileage joggers"?
I figured the article was going to be discussing triathletes and ultra-marathon runners. Instead, it's talking about:
"people who... ran faster than 7 mph for more than 2.5 hours a week with a frequency of more than three times a week..."
That doesn't seem like very much. Running at 7 mph means doing an 8:35/mile pace, and 2.5 hours per week at that pace means 17 miles. I wouldn't call that "high intensity" and "high mileage".
Re: (Score:2)
At 8:30 miles we are not really talking about running at all, we are talking about jogging.
Active people have a 30% lower risk of death? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Basically do what you like. Don't sweat the little things.
Work on quality rather than quantity and quit reading dumb studies that run around on the Internet.
Re: (Score:2)
What do you mean "valid"? There are many valid studies which find a causal link between heart disease and obesity. Fat people are at higher risk for heart disease than their thinner counterparts. The suitably large sample size should provide some control for factors like stress.
Are stressed out people at higher risk than calm people if you control for BMI? Probably, but that doesn't mean that studies linking obesity and heart disease are not valid.