After reading this article I had to edit today's blog. The intentionally scary title obscures the fact that the research is talking about a very small percentage of athletes who have run far and fast and for decades at that speed and distance. Just like the proven false statement "running is bad for your knees," the title provides another excuse to sit on the couch for people so inclined.
The race is not always to the swift, but to those who keep on running.
251 Maintenance Weeks
Fitness Minutes: (56,078) Posts: 990 12/2/12 6:35 P
It's one study in Britain (I'm assuming in Britain since it was conducted by a British group), and who knows what considerations were done in the study or how in depth it went into each participant's past, genetics, etc., or even how many participants there were in the study.
Everyone is different. Honestly, how many 32 year olds pass out during an Ironman? Maybe that woman will have issues later in life, even though she was active early in life, while others will reap benefits. Does this study also take into consideration people who started later in life? I didn't start running until I was 46, I did my first triathlon at 47, and my first marathon at 51. I plan to do a half ironman, maybe next fall. Personally, I will continue to work out at whatever pace I feel like and I will push myself to whatever level I can based on what my body will take and how I'm feeling in general.
I guess behind all my rambling is that I have two points: 1) How in depth was the study? 2) Did they take into consideration when someone started endurance training, and 3) Everyone is different and we will all age differently, and in some people extreme exercise won't be helpful, and 4) This is only ONE study. Apparently I can't count, because that's four points, not two. Must be oxygen overload from my run this morning, but I'll offset it with oxygen deprivation at underwater hockey tonight. I'll put my doctor on notice.
Thanks for the article, Gary. It was interesting.
"God gave you your body as a gift, so you should take care of it." - My Mom
Fitness Minutes: (190,933) Posts: 6,401 11/29/12 12:22 P
I agree, have fun and take care and not to push to hard to often seems to work for me. I like to run 30 miles or more a week, most runs in the 9 to 10min range. But my thought is more about heart rate then pace, staying in a moderate to intense ( like a 6 on the 1 - 10 scale ) zone for most my runs makes more sense for me, injury wise and recovery wise.
"The future ain't what it used to be" Yogi Berra Life is full of obstacle illusions. -- Grant Frazier
Pounds lost: 0.0
Fitness Minutes: (51,134) Posts: 1,183 11/29/12 12:17 P
I run about a 10 minute mile, and about 20 miles a week. Why 20 miles instead of 15? I LOVE TO RUN. So yeah, I'm doing it for motives other than health. It's still better than when I was doing NO exercise, eating junk and slowly killing myself this time last year.
Very intersting article. Course if I ever could do an 8 minute mile I might worry LOL! But I'm slow and so I'm not too worried. There is always some new research that indicates what we were told before is wrong, no matter what it was LOL. When my kids were babies we were told to put them to sleep on their stomachs to prevent them aspirating milk if they spit up. Now we are told that causes crib death. We just can't win. Take what we need, do the best we can, weigh the pros and cons, and enjoy life. There are a lot of much more dangerous things we could be doing.
Last is just the slowest winner."-C Hunter Boyd
Fitness Minutes: (190,933) Posts: 6,401 11/29/12 11:36 A
SparkPeople, SparkCoach, SparkPages, SparkPoints, SparkDiet, SparkAmerica, SparkRecipes, DailySpark, and other marks are trademarks of SparkPeople, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
SPARKPEOPLE is a registered trademark of SparkPeople, Inc. in the United States, European Union, Canada, and Australia. All rights reserved.