This is part transportation, part diet, so I suppose this is the best forum for this discussion.
So I was reading about this Paleolithic diet so many of you are into and I came across this article by a prominent member of that community (who happens to be an MD) that, based on a heart imaging study, makes the claim that "cardio" causes heart disease.
Apparently in that study they found more damaged heart tissue in marathon runners than in a sedentary control. What do you guys make of this? I don't do much running because my joints don't take it well. However, I get around my town primarily by bicycle - usually 10-15 miles a day. I intend to start cycling for fun more often - maybe even start doing races and tours.
But now it sounds like those centuries I want to work up to will be be murder on the heart. Maybe even my commute is damaging it! What?!
Cardio Causes Heart Disease
I just shake my head when people talk about their marathons. Running a marathon ≠ athleticism. And I agree with the OP, there is significant evidence that chronic cardio causes weakening of the heart muscle.
Not to mention some of the other problems associated with excessive cardio, like the inflammatory carbocentric diet needed to fuel that much activity.
I personally know several over 60 former marathoners who have had hip replacements. Yikes... We're just not designed for it. HIIT, like sprints, seems to take less time/energy and provide greater benefit. Like muscles.
Not to mention some of the other problems associated with excessive cardio, like the inflammatory carbocentric diet needed to fuel that much activity.
I personally know several over 60 former marathoners who have had hip replacements. Yikes... We're just not designed for it. HIIT, like sprints, seems to take less time/energy and provide greater benefit. Like muscles.
This observation (cardio-->heart disease) is widely incorporated into paleo folks' regimens. My introduction to paleo was via Mark Sisson, who himself is a former professional triathlon guy and has seen some of his triathlon friends drop dead of heart attacks in their 40s. He also has some residual problems from his career, including that he's unable to do high-impact exercise like running for an extended period (overuse joint injuries).
By his guidelines, I try to keep below 70-75% of my maximum heart rate (MHR) when I'm bicycle commuting. Efforts longer than 30 seconds at a higher exertion level than that seem to cause inflammation and deplete one's glycogen--this is why high-intensity (most) runners and cyclists scarf down so many carbs after an intense session. The insulin roller coaster ride that this causes is a separate but equally serious problem.
That said, it's important to distinguish between what he calls "chronic cardio" (the >70-75% MHR for extended periods) and intermittent sprinting, as well as low-intensity cardio (walking, slow running, moderate cycling). Sprinting about 1x a week is an integral part of Sisson's guidelines. So is HIIT (high intensity interval training 1x/week) and heavy weightlifting (1-3x).
Finally, there's barefoot running, which seems to have some intersection with the paleo community--I would venture to guess that these folks largely stay under that 70-75% MHR threshold naturally--that is, without obsessing over heart rate monitors--because of the modest gait enforced by being shoeless.
By his guidelines, I try to keep below 70-75% of my maximum heart rate (MHR) when I'm bicycle commuting. Efforts longer than 30 seconds at a higher exertion level than that seem to cause inflammation and deplete one's glycogen--this is why high-intensity (most) runners and cyclists scarf down so many carbs after an intense session. The insulin roller coaster ride that this causes is a separate but equally serious problem.
That said, it's important to distinguish between what he calls "chronic cardio" (the >70-75% MHR for extended periods) and intermittent sprinting, as well as low-intensity cardio (walking, slow running, moderate cycling). Sprinting about 1x a week is an integral part of Sisson's guidelines. So is HIIT (high intensity interval training 1x/week) and heavy weightlifting (1-3x).
Finally, there's barefoot running, which seems to have some intersection with the paleo community--I would venture to guess that these folks largely stay under that 70-75% MHR threshold naturally--that is, without obsessing over heart rate monitors--because of the modest gait enforced by being shoeless.
I remember Zev mentioning this to me at the meetup, in addition to mentioning that cyclists tend to have low bone mass density related to low testosterone (for elite cyclists)) and low impact not stimulating bone retention.
I think that it is exciting that we are learning so much about the human body that eventually we may scientifically discover a diet and exercise regimen that hits the sweet spot for humans. I imagine that we may define the exact heart rate, duration and periodization for optimal cardiovascular fitness as well as the exact amount of structural loading for optimal skeletal health. Perhaps analysis will go so far into detail that force vectors at different points of individual bones will identify exactly the sort of stimulus needed. As mentioned in the posts above we are getting there.
I also think that for exercise, technology hurts us by allowing our bodies to go past the limit a part of our body which is compensated by said technology. Your leg muscles and joints will allow you to run 30 miles with shoes, but without shoes how far will the the soles of your feet take you? You can bicycle 200 miles in one day on roads, but how far will you go without paved streets? It comes down to what goal the technology is developed for, and I think there will be a renaissance in equating fitness with physiological metrics instead of performance ones. I hope.
I think that it is exciting that we are learning so much about the human body that eventually we may scientifically discover a diet and exercise regimen that hits the sweet spot for humans. I imagine that we may define the exact heart rate, duration and periodization for optimal cardiovascular fitness as well as the exact amount of structural loading for optimal skeletal health. Perhaps analysis will go so far into detail that force vectors at different points of individual bones will identify exactly the sort of stimulus needed. As mentioned in the posts above we are getting there.
I also think that for exercise, technology hurts us by allowing our bodies to go past the limit a part of our body which is compensated by said technology. Your leg muscles and joints will allow you to run 30 miles with shoes, but without shoes how far will the the soles of your feet take you? You can bicycle 200 miles in one day on roads, but how far will you go without paved streets? It comes down to what goal the technology is developed for, and I think there will be a renaissance in equating fitness with physiological metrics instead of performance ones. I hope.
-
jacob
- Site Admin
- Posts: 17143
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
- Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
- Contact:
Not the first time I heard about it. It's pretty obvious given that the body adapts to what it's doing. Low intensity endurance cardio creates a large but not particularly powerful (it doesn't need to be) heart. Something like weightlifting creates a normal sized heart with thick walls to support the 200+ blood pressures during a heavy lift (due to the pressure in the chest cavity from holding up the torso).
Also, people die after running marathons. It's essentially an inflammation issue from an overused muscle.
That said, running marathons is certainly better than sitting on the couch and eating twinkies. If they checked the sedentary population, they'd probably find more clogging.
Also, people die after running marathons. It's essentially an inflammation issue from an overused muscle.
That said, running marathons is certainly better than sitting on the couch and eating twinkies. If they checked the sedentary population, they'd probably find more clogging.
-
RightClawSouth
- Posts: 123
- Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 3:15 am
-
jacob
- Site Admin
- Posts: 17143
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
- Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
- Contact:
My guess is also that if we ignore all those who run a marathon once or twice just to say they did it, the rest are running marathons because they enjoy it and not for health reasons. In that regard I have no issues. If anyone wants to reduce their life expectancy by doing something fun, that's a simple value judgment and we make those everything we go into a smoke filled bar, eat a hamburger, get in a car, ...
Thanks Zev! Glad to hear this guy isn't fringe. I honestly had no idea that "chronic cardio" could be so harmful.
I agree with Jacob that choosing to habitually run marathons for fun despite the risks is as sensible as any of those other choices we make every day. However, if those runners are as clueless as I was, they may not realize the health risk their choice comes with. In fact, I bet they partially derive their enjoyment from the belief that they are contributing to their good health.
If this misinformation wasn't so widespread, how marathoners would've chosen to take up hiking as hobby instead?
I agree with Jacob that choosing to habitually run marathons for fun despite the risks is as sensible as any of those other choices we make every day. However, if those runners are as clueless as I was, they may not realize the health risk their choice comes with. In fact, I bet they partially derive their enjoyment from the belief that they are contributing to their good health.
If this misinformation wasn't so widespread, how marathoners would've chosen to take up hiking as hobby instead?
The whole point of the original marathon, as far as I understand it, was the heroic absurdity of running that far that fast to let the Athenians know the Persian enemy had been defeated. And the guy dropped dead. So, whether legend or not, running 26+ miles is not anywhere near my idea of fun or healthy. But, then again, I once liked getting kicked in the gut with a spinning back kick as long as I could give as well as get.
@B, Perhaps, to an extent, it depends on what you consider "fringe". The "Cardio Causes Heart Disease" blog entry seems pretty "fringe" to me, but perhaps it isn't to some others.
The concept that vigorous physical exertion increases the short-term risk of sudden cardiac death isn't surprising, new, or unsubstantiated elsewhere in the medical literature. The presentation of additional data to this, or similar, effect doesn't strike me as "fringe".
What makes it "fringe" to me is that it is the thoughts of a neuroradiologist posted on a personal blog, and the thrust of the blog entry seems to be that this article offers greater support for a number of other premises outside of the scope of the article. By presenting these thoughts on a blog, it strikes me as more of a personal thought process, rather than a formal medical opinion. Perhaps if his thoughts were more fully refined, he would present such an argument is in a journal, to allow for a bit more thorough scrutiny. If it matters, I cannot find any record of him previously publishing any thoughts on cardiac disease in the past.
"Fringe" doesn't mean that his comments are invalid or unworthy of consideration-- he could be entirely right. I do find it noteworthy that he doesn't mention that in the same journal issue an article entitled "Is Marathon Running Hazardous
to Your Cardiovascular Health?
The Jury Is Still Out" was presented. Lastly the choice of blog entry title strikes me as a very far-reaching conclusion based on a study of about 100 German men, all over the age of 50, with an average age of 57, who ran at least 5 marathons over a 3 year period.
The concept that vigorous physical exertion increases the short-term risk of sudden cardiac death isn't surprising, new, or unsubstantiated elsewhere in the medical literature. The presentation of additional data to this, or similar, effect doesn't strike me as "fringe".
What makes it "fringe" to me is that it is the thoughts of a neuroradiologist posted on a personal blog, and the thrust of the blog entry seems to be that this article offers greater support for a number of other premises outside of the scope of the article. By presenting these thoughts on a blog, it strikes me as more of a personal thought process, rather than a formal medical opinion. Perhaps if his thoughts were more fully refined, he would present such an argument is in a journal, to allow for a bit more thorough scrutiny. If it matters, I cannot find any record of him previously publishing any thoughts on cardiac disease in the past.
"Fringe" doesn't mean that his comments are invalid or unworthy of consideration-- he could be entirely right. I do find it noteworthy that he doesn't mention that in the same journal issue an article entitled "Is Marathon Running Hazardous
to Your Cardiovascular Health?
The Jury Is Still Out" was presented. Lastly the choice of blog entry title strikes me as a very far-reaching conclusion based on a study of about 100 German men, all over the age of 50, with an average age of 57, who ran at least 5 marathons over a 3 year period.
I hate this discussion. So what should I do instead...
-bicycle riding, risk of death is 1 in 71,000
-competitive athlete, high risk of getting Lou Gehrig's disease, 1 in 45,000 - http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/content/17/6/600.full
-weightlifting, 3.3 injuries per 1000 hours of weightlifting
I could go on (sailing and drowning anybody)?
There's no real escape here. If you do stuff that is physical, you risk yourself physically. The more intense and difficult the physical endeavour the higher the risk.
Also, I hate that this weird divisiveness in the communities in the world of exercise & diet. Who cares - as long as you aren't fat and love the exercise you are doing. Anything is better than:
-drive to work
-sit at my desk
-drive home
-watch tv
Anyways, enough typing. I'm going for a 20k run and I'm going to love it.
-bicycle riding, risk of death is 1 in 71,000
-competitive athlete, high risk of getting Lou Gehrig's disease, 1 in 45,000 - http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/content/17/6/600.full
-weightlifting, 3.3 injuries per 1000 hours of weightlifting
I could go on (sailing and drowning anybody)?
There's no real escape here. If you do stuff that is physical, you risk yourself physically. The more intense and difficult the physical endeavour the higher the risk.
Also, I hate that this weird divisiveness in the communities in the world of exercise & diet. Who cares - as long as you aren't fat and love the exercise you are doing. Anything is better than:
-drive to work
-sit at my desk
-drive home
-watch tv
Anyways, enough typing. I'm going for a 20k run and I'm going to love it.
re: "fringe" -- I would not say that Sisson ISN'T "fringe" because paleo is still largely out of the mainstream, though it seems to be gathering some momentum. I would also concur with Mo's sentiments regarding the newness and limitedness of the data thus far.
It makes intuitive sense to me that sustained, intense cardio isn't healthy, simply because of how it makes me feel during and after. So I'm taking a conservative approach while waiting for the evidence to mount in either direction. One thing that seems unlikely is that this sort of intensity of exercise will ever be proven to be essential to maintaining health.
It makes intuitive sense to me that sustained, intense cardio isn't healthy, simply because of how it makes me feel during and after. So I'm taking a conservative approach while waiting for the evidence to mount in either direction. One thing that seems unlikely is that this sort of intensity of exercise will ever be proven to be essential to maintaining health.
Also I think this guy is *fringe* and admits several times that none of the major medical journals picked up this research...
Also, this topic is hot about once a year in science and fitness blogosphere.
Funny about 10 years ago it was the opposite, weight-lifting was always thought of as dangerous and risky. My guess is that this is a case of the extremely lucrative billion dollar supplement/fitness industry politicizing science and pushing an agenda that makes them more money.
I find most runners simply run and don't have the same shelf full of creatine, fish oil, vitamin E/D/C, protein, etc that most "fitness enthusiasts" have.
Also, this topic is hot about once a year in science and fitness blogosphere.
Funny about 10 years ago it was the opposite, weight-lifting was always thought of as dangerous and risky. My guess is that this is a case of the extremely lucrative billion dollar supplement/fitness industry politicizing science and pushing an agenda that makes them more money.
I find most runners simply run and don't have the same shelf full of creatine, fish oil, vitamin E/D/C, protein, etc that most "fitness enthusiasts" have.
@Mo
I suppose I don't really care if he's considered fringe (I am posting on a forum which celebrates the "extreme" after all).
But I did find surprising, despite the existing medical literature, the assertion that regularly engaging in sustained, intense aerobic exercise could be harmful to the heart (and not only in the short term. Wasn't some of the damage found in the study permanent?).
The paleonu blog post has many failings, but for me all that counts is that it brought this fact to my attention. I was just trying to find out what this Paleolithic diet thing was all about.
I suppose I don't really care if he's considered fringe (I am posting on a forum which celebrates the "extreme" after all).
But I did find surprising, despite the existing medical literature, the assertion that regularly engaging in sustained, intense aerobic exercise could be harmful to the heart (and not only in the short term. Wasn't some of the damage found in the study permanent?).
The paleonu blog post has many failings, but for me all that counts is that it brought this fact to my attention. I was just trying to find out what this Paleolithic diet thing was all about.
Embrace the fringe! Most conventional knowledge is backwards and/or self serving...
I accept marathoning as a recreational activity. Although it seems weird to me, I can see how some people might love it enough to not give 2 cents about the alleged problems... We all do risky activity, to SOME extent.
HOWEVER, let's not pretend it makes anyone super fit or is actually good for you.
AND, I don't think sitting at a desk, or even watching TV are actively bad for you like marathon running might be. They're at the scene of the crime for sure, but the real criminal is lack of exercise, poor diet, so on.
I accept marathoning as a recreational activity. Although it seems weird to me, I can see how some people might love it enough to not give 2 cents about the alleged problems... We all do risky activity, to SOME extent.
HOWEVER, let's not pretend it makes anyone super fit or is actually good for you.
AND, I don't think sitting at a desk, or even watching TV are actively bad for you like marathon running might be. They're at the scene of the crime for sure, but the real criminal is lack of exercise, poor diet, so on.
-
runrunruneateateat
- Posts: 26
- Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2010 7:47 pm
The German study sounded familiar to me and I realized I read about it in the NY Times last year. They interviewed other doctors and looked at a few similar studies and blogged this short piece: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/3 ... ack&st=nyt
I survived (and heretofore will call myself A Survivor).
An even more & relevant reason to lay off long distance running. The average marathon runner craps themselves once in their running lifetime. I admit to almost doing it once out on a 20k, but I found a coffee place just in time.
Apparently the risk of self pant-crapping is 8x higher if you do cross-fit, mostly from the bloated sense of self-worth from paying $200/month at your cross-fit gym.
An even more & relevant reason to lay off long distance running. The average marathon runner craps themselves once in their running lifetime. I admit to almost doing it once out on a 20k, but I found a coffee place just in time.
Apparently the risk of self pant-crapping is 8x higher if you do cross-fit, mostly from the bloated sense of self-worth from paying $200/month at your cross-fit gym.