JPMacG

Very interesting. My dad was a physicain, having received his medical training at NYU in the late 1940s. He believed that excessive exercise was actually bad for the heart, and forbid my brother to participate in track in high school He also believed that restricting salt was a bad idea, and that the relationship between cholesterol and heart disease was dubious. I wrote this up as old medical teachings that had been proven incorrect. One by one his old beliefs are turning out to be not as incorrect as I thought.

Racer Ex 

I love this quote:

"Those who ran 1 to 20 miles per week at an average pace of about 10 or 11 minutes per mile — in other words, jogging — reduced their risk of dying during the study more effectively than those who didn’t run."

So I'm wondering if these studies only apply to dying during the study? And perhaps the underlying message is to stay away from participating in studies? They seem risky these things.

In any case it's bad statistical analysis to say something reduces your risk of dying. I believe that number is somewhat firm.

And D-Sack, if you're looking for technical expertise and vetting of a cardiac study on the 50+ thread in an Internet bike forum, you need a redirect. I'm sure there are more learned forums who might even specialize in the subject matter.

T-Roo is applicable in commenting on the efficacy of a study who's conclusion is how to live longer. I've found longevity to be a particularly Dunbarian goal at best. I'd rather be a monster on the bike and appear much younger than my actual age up to the point where I either keel over from a massive cardiac event or am stuck down by a teenage driver texting about getting tickets to the lastest Kardashian movie, than I want to be parked in some nursing home in a diaper at 100 with fading memories of a bland existence.

In the former case I just hope there aren't any default platitudes about "he died doing what he loved". I don't imagine I'd "love" either of those deaths, which would be what I was doing at the moment of passing. Having a heart attack or getting run over.

AzTallRider

If your goal is merely to stay alive, then this particularly study supports that thought. If your goal to maintain a robust and active life up until you die, then I suggest you read Younger Next Year, and crank up your efforts.

Barrettscv 

The young ladies think I'm a much younger man, that's all that matters ;-)

Jim J

Maybe we need a study of the study and then have another study of the study of the initial study! That's what they do in Washington!

I'll take my chances! After over 35 years of running and biking and feeling as good as when I was much younger...must be doing something right!

NOS88

You're giving them WAY too much credit.

Dudelsack 

Well, I'm not exactly a statist, but this stuff has important public health considerations and is worthy of tax-payer funding research, I would think.

Someone on this forum around Christmastime posted a clever YouTube video that suggested that as little as 30 minutes of moderate exercise a day was really all you need.

When you get right down to it, there are other factors that go into our choosing cycling as a hobby/avocation/addiction. Give me the choice between walking on the treadmill 30 minutes each day or wandering about the countryside and the choice is easy. Plus, I dig the endorphins, I like the fact that I can eat a bit more without gaining weight, and I like it that, let's face it, babes dig cyclists, especially bent riders.

BikeArkansas

It seems pro atheletes, especially bike riders, were a subject for this study. Did the amount of PEDs taken by these cyclists come into play. Some of those stronger and illegal PEDs are very tough on the body, or I understand that from what I have read. It appears that most, if not all, pro cyclists take some sort of PED. Just asking.

chasm54

There is lots of apparently contradictory research on this stuff. For example, there is recent evidence that just a few minutes per month at maximum intensity provides considerable health benefits, including lowering insulin resistance. There is also plausible research to suggest that "exercise" is really immaterial, and that just staying active. - walking, gardening, cleaning the house, but above all avoiding spending much time in a chair - is the recipe for health. Then there is the fact that those who do serious, vigorous exercise seem to retain more of their mental and physical functions than those who don't.

My personal take on this is that first, one needs to decide what one wants. Is just good health the aim? If so, either do a little intensive exercise or a lot of gentle exercise, whatever suits your lifestyle. But most of all, don't sit around for hours at a time.

Do you want to play sports? Or to be as fit as possible, for as long as possible? Then exercise harder, for longer. Build up to this over a long period. Make most of your training extensive rather than intensive, and as your base gets bigger incorporate greater intensity.

And listen to your body. I have found after a lot of experimentation that I do better - and lose more weight - by maintaining my food intake but increasing my activity, as opposed to just cutting down on calories. YMMV.

And if you want to run back-to-back marathons, or ironman events, or enter a three-week stage race in France in July, do your heart a favour and build up to it slowly.

Racer Ex 

Decompression sickness isn't worth it. Unless she's Christie Brinkley c 1980 hot.

big john

I'll assume you've experienced the former, not sure about the latter.

Timtruro

Great book with a strong premise, ya gotta work at it.

Dudelsack 

Yeah, our average speed is so much higher than everyone else's, and we operate in a high pressure zone. When we stop, so does to high pressure zone, and sometimes we experience decompression sickness. Babes dig guys convulsing in pain.

downtube42

Re: Randonneuring and health. At least the way I do randonneuring, it's a very long low-to-moderate intensity workout. But I'm under no illusion that it's "good" for my health. It is, however, good for my life.

WPeabody 

My mother was into healthy eating, lived at a high altitude, jogging and skiing until she died of cancer at 67. My father was a retired fighter pilot, very fit and active, rode a mountain bike worked with horses and lifted hay bales, until he died of cancer at 79. This has helped me understand this: It is better to do what you like best, and get yourself in shape to do the things you like to do best, so you can live each day to the fullest. Take each day as it comes, and not worry about how long you will live. Sounds hokey maybe, but as the years have passed, I'm finding this to be more and more a reality.

goldfinch

Doesn't science interest you? Even though we might not learn a lot from one study researching these issues is the way to knowledge, not nonsense. I find the information on salt and exercise intriguing. Nonsense is being dismissive because you don't like what is said.

downtube42

The scientific method demands skepticism. This is an unproven hypothesis needing further study. Inconsistent data is mentioned. Many qualifiers ("may", "in some individuals") are found in the abstract and in the conclusion. There's a long way to go before people should change behavior based on this hypothesis. Treating it as nonsense, to be ignored, is quite appropriate except for another group of scientists interested in pursuing the theory.

bobthib

Please refer to the bottom graphs.

Assume the vertical axis (Y) is your health. The horizontal line (X) is your lifetime.


FIG 1.





FIG 2.


Do you want to be like the majority of Americans and languish and suffer in your final years (Fig 1), a burden on family and society, or do you want to live life to the fullest until the very end (Fig 2)?

donheff

Yeah, Younger Next Year convinced me I wanted to follow curve 2 and then fall off the cliff at the end. Unfortunately there are no guarantees. You could always contract some degenerative disease or fall victim to some genetic problem. But lots of exercise does push toward scenario 2. The "excess" described in the subject article is so far beyond what most people can/will do that it isn't worth worrying about for 98% of active people.

bobthib

Some things we can control, others we cannot.

I'm BRCA2 positive (the breast cancer gene) and 10 yrs ago I had it. Couldn't walk across the street without sitting to rest. I decided then to change everything about my life that I could change and not worry about the rest.

goldfinch

I agree that the subject needs further study, but that is a long way from being "nonsense" which is dismissive. And depending on personal history and family history maybe a particular person may need to consider changing his behavior.

esldude

https://peakperformance.runnersworld....hats-going-on/

More interesting stuff on this topic. I particularly was struck by the lowest hazard ratio for exercising only twice per week. My guess would be working the heart hard it is like any other muscle. It only recovers fully in something like 72 hours. Hitting it hard more often than that might not be most beneficial even if it only shows up as a health problem in a fraction of the people doing that.

https://www.drjohnm.org/2012/01/cw-is...lly-that-safe/

https://www.drjohnm.org/2010/04/do-i-exercise-too-much/

Written by a pro-cycling heart doctor. Many of his other blog postings are quite worthwhile also.

unterhausen

I intend to read the article since it probably does apply to me. It's well known that aging endurance athletes suffer from increased incidence of atrial fibrillation, which supposedly isn't particularly life threatening. Regular exercise doesn't cure everything that can go wrong with your heard while aging, that's pretty obvious. One of the members of the randonneuring group I belong to just died on a ride, apparently from heart related issues.[h=1][/h]

cehowardGS

Well, excess sex will do the same thing. At my age, bring on all the excesses, what do I have to lose!! ha ha..

digibud

Excess sex? Liar. Doesn't exist.