Heart problems in old endurance athletes

[henrik]

@tommytebco - I know this is all about perspective, but I'd say a 3:28 marathon is a right at the sweet spot of balance in sanity - it's way above average* and you won't be able to do it without considerable training, but it won't require you to become "an athlete" with all the restrictions and damage that implies.

@Ego - Your comment about shortening and intensifying training with the aim of being able to still do it at 80 has given me a lot of thought. Marathon training and running has started feeling a little too damaging at the intuitive level, but I haven't really tried to consider it scientifically yet.

* In 2014, globally, 4:13 for men and 4:42 for women according to the Guardian

[J_]

Ego wrote:"Living a life where everything is kept in balance is a self-imposed tyranny. A tyranny of average. Blah.
The moments that make up an extraordinary life are by definition out of balance, above average and immoderate.
There are situations in life where losing balance is far more sane than keeping it. Excess isn't always bad. In fact, excess is a necessary element in doing anything beyond ordinary".

I agree .
Your definition = applied antifragility

applied to one's body: tinkering with your body to keep fit is ok, but listen carefully, as it warns you about its limits also.

[Ego]

@Ego - Your comment about shortening and intensifying training with the aim of being able to still do it at 80 has given me a lot of thought. Marathon training and running has started feeling a little too damaging at the intuitive level, but I haven't really tried to consider it scientifically yet.

After writing that I went for a run. There was a light misty drizzle and I stumbled upon a path that wove along the edge of tiered rice paddies. I got lost in the moment before realizing that the run was going to be longer than an hour of long-slow-distance training. I need to work on practicing what I preach.

[jennypenny]

Is this only a problem for men? I don't see any women mentioned (did I miss it?). They also all seemed to be caucasian. Thinking back to The Sports Gene, I wonder if only a subset of people are susceptible to this kind of heart trouble from exercise.


The thing I would add is that exercise at that level isn't about fitness. If fitness was the only goal, there would be no need for this level of training. For some, it's a form of self-medicating. The heart issues might look bad, but consider the risks that would come with other forms of self-medicating.

[7Wannabe5]

The thing I find interesting, and perhaps reflective of some lingering Victorian elements in our culture, is that so many middle-aged men who are practically obsessed with exercising and eating right for their heart health, will go for years without having the recommended amount of sexual activity for heart health. Middle-aged men who have sex 2x a week have half the heart attack risk of men who only have sex rarely, and there is no downside for greatly increased frequency except among young athletes who abuse drugs such as Viagra and thereby run the risk of direct injury. Less than 15% of American men between the ages of 50-59 participate in sexual activity even at the lowest recommended frequency. It's like "I will run a 3.28 marathon and eat only chicken breast and broccoli this year" is considered to be a reasonable goal, but " I will engage in sexual activity at least 6 days out of 7 this year" is crazy extreme.

[jennypenny]

Is it the sex that's good for the heart, or the social connection of which the sex is indicative?

That's what I wonder about the A-fib guys. Would they be having trouble anyway because they're wired to take things too far, regardless of whether it's exercise, work, substance abuse, etc.? Hard to say.

I'm not arguing with the article in the OP btw. It's good to know the real risks, especially with something that's considered 'healthy'. I just wonder whether it's a risk to everyone or if the level of risk is the same in all populations.

[7Wannabe5]

jennypenny said: Is it the sex that's good for the heart, or the social connection of which the sex is indicative?

Of course, it is always difficult to sort out the chicken from the egg, but since almost 46% of men between the ages of 50-59 who are married engage in sexual activity once a month or less, the social connection is likely not relevant. People who are partnered but not married have the most sex on average, but still quite similar to the married rates. OTOH, over 70% of single men over the age of 50 have not participated in sexual activity in over a year. These statistics correspond very well with the conversations my single sister and I have had with the generally quite reasonably attractive selection of men we have recently dated.

Frequent sex has also been shown to be very good for middle-aged females, but as always, the heart health statistics are more muddled due to estrogen influence. However, it does appear to be the case that having barrier free sex does have an anti-depressant effect on females due to chemical make-up of semen and it is the case that you risk total atrophy if you go 3 years without sex post-menopause. Anyways, one of the men I am dating lost his virginity in 1972, hits the gym regularly and bikes 12-15 miles every day, so I am hoping to resume good practice myself fairly soon.

[jennypenny]

but since almost 46% of men between the ages of 50-59 who are married engage in sexual activity once a month or less, the social connection is likely not relevant. People who are partnered but not married have the most sex on average, but still quite similar to the married rates.

Are those numbers right? That's awful. Why wouldn't people with partners have sex regularly?

Sorry, I shouldn't derail the thread. It might explain why some people overexercise though. Gotta get those endorphins somehow.

[7Wannabe5]

jennypenny said: Are those numbers right? That's awful. Why wouldn't people with partners have sex regularly?

According to Kinsey, so give-or-take. Sunk-costs and/or emotional fusion.

[JL13]

sex does have an anti-depressant effect on females due to chemical make-up of semen

So using a condom wouldn't have any anti-depressant effects?

[jennypenny]

sex does have an anti-depressant effect on females due to chemical make-up of semen

So using a condom wouldn't have any anti-depressant effects?

Correct. Absorption is necessary.

[tommytebco]

Our discussions are fun.!!

Apparently, my prior high mileage running and my current "lack- nooky" status are dooming me to an early grave.

I sure hope you're wrong.

T
Keeping on keeping on!!

[jennypenny]

Apparently, my prior high mileage running and my current "lack- nooky" status are dooming me to an early grave.

Maybe you should advertise for a woman who's looking for a 'natural' anti-depressant.


I should have qualified my reaction to those stats. I understand why someone who doesn't have a partner might have sex less often. But if you have a partner and they're just lying there next to you every night, well ... have at it. If you feel the need to be polite about it, wake them up first.

[enigmaT120]

Are those numbers right? That's awful. Why wouldn't people with partners have sex regularly?

Because women (apparently not on this forum though) say "No." Actually that doesn't answer the question of why the men don't masturbate. I doubt there has been any causal relationship proven, so I guess it could just as easily be said that men who have higher sex drives are that way because they are healthier in the first place.

[7Wannabe5]

Yeah, well, we gotta do something with the energy we don't expend on buying more shoes. "How much is that doggy in the window... la,la,la,la,la,la...?"

[jennypenny]

Because women (apparently not on this forum though) say "No."

LOL ... my comment wasn't only directed at the men.

Besides, I always thought 'I do' meant 'I will', at least most of the time. I'm not sure I'd stay with someone who didn't want to continue that part of the relationship.

[chenda]

sex does have an anti-depressant effect on females due to chemical make-up of semen

So using a condom wouldn't have any anti-depressant effects?

Correct. Absorption is necessary.

ugh...I think I'll stick with SSRI's

[Chad]

Because women (apparently not on this forum though) say "No."

LOL ... my comment wasn't only directed at the men.

Besides, I always thought 'I do' meant 'I will', at least most of the time. I'm not sure I'd stay with someone who didn't want to continue that part of the relationship.

I know I wouldn't stay with someone who didn't want the sex part of the relationship. So, now we just sleep in the same bed so we can ruin each other's sleep? No thanks.

[enigmaT120]

It's not just a matter of sex or not, but how often. How many people have the same sex drives?

As for staying with the person, go check out the MMM thread about divorce being a weapon of mass financial destruction. I'm sure there's love involved too, but this is a retirement forum.

[7Wannabe5]

enigmaT120 said: It's not just a matter of sex or not, but how often. How many people have the same sex drives?

And even people who have fairly similar drives likely might have different desire cycles and/or proclivities. What it comes down to is clear terms of contract. Default to "No" or default to "Yes?" Is sex like dinner or dessert? Unfortunately, the only method that "works" is clearly communicating something like "I will not tolerate a sexless existence. If you no longer wish to be my partner, I will start looking for a new one next Tuesday." and really mean it and be willing to deal with the fall-out. Most people in our culture don't really make clear contract in this realm because it's not "romantic" or ego-validating. OTOH, it would obviously be foolish to enter into contract with somebody with whom you are initially quite incompatible. Of course, choosing to make strong, self-aware choice to prioritize financial well-being (or anything else, such as providing secure home for kids, dictates of religion) over sexuality is another matter altogether.