[kingkongrevenge]

The link is worthless. Some researchers say runners live long ... because their model says runners live long. Tautology.

Why didn't they just look at dead olympic athletes? That would be an interesting and potentially worthwhile study. Actually, I know why: that study would have been hard work whereas for this garbage all they had to do was plug a canned data set into some silly unverified pharma model they tweaked for their own agenda.

http://www.theheart.org/article/243897.do

Endurance sports can mess up your heart rhythm.

Here's the first google result for "runners die young": http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/ehn273v1.pdf

"The current report demonstrates a high prevalence of advanced coronary atherosclerosis and myocardial scar formation in see- mingly healthy marathon runners aged >50 years."

[xiaoma]

I've repeatedly cited gigantic peer-reviewed studies including the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (1999) one in which participants were split into many groups based upon differing levels of activity from sedentary to daily runners. Each one has shown dose-dependent gains from cardio-vascular exercise. And in each case, you've shrugged off the research and then come back with something like this.

From your links: "Heidbüchel's study included only a small, highly selective population of endurance athletes, predominantly cyclists, who engage in a particular type of strain, with preexisting arrhythmias."

So even when you specifically searched for "runners die young", it came back with a paper that states that marathon running is part of a healthy lifestyle and then goes on to talk about possible risks for those who race without sufficient training or who are trying to undo decades of unhealthy living. Over half of the participants were former smokers. The paper does not in any way claim that "endurance sports can mess up your heart rhythm" nor is the quotation you took out of context representative. In fact, it said:

"Marathon running is part of a healthy lifestyle. There is overwhelming evidence for the cardiovascular protective effects of physical activity."

What is it with this? What ax to grind is so important that it's worth posting misleading, disingenuous summaries of research you find by googling for your already chosen conclusion? As I asked last time, Can you refer me to any peer-reviewed research linking sprint training or weight training with equal or greater benefit in any of the health indicators that Paul Williams's 100,000 person study found distance running improved?

[kingkongrevenge]

Your studies are all observational garbage, as were the two links I posted, more to make a point than anything. And they both did in fact raise questions about damage caused by distance training. They just couched their language with platitudes about how healthy distance training is, presumably to ward off concerted attack.

I don't have an ax to grind. I literally don't want people trying to get in shape to waste large amounts of time and hurt their knees and so on doing long distance running when it is so much inferior for losing weight and maintaining fitness. I want to steer them in the right direction. They will have so much more success training in other ways.

It is common knowledge at this point that interval training, sprints, and properly done strength training produce all the same cardiovascular health benefits as distance training but without the repetitive stress and other physiological stresses of long distance. Also without the huge time investment. Also with much better body fat percentage measurements. You can use google as well as I can.

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/05/for-heart-health-sp...

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/health-news/2008/11/01/sho...

[xiaoma]

>Your studies are all observational garbage, as were the two links I posted, more to make a point than anything.

The studies I've referred you to are the largest, the most rigorous that have ever been done to date on the topic. They are not "observational garbage".

>You can use google as well as I can.

Well, that's the thing. My knowledge comes from readining actual journals and having doctors in the family who can interpret them. You're the one googling "runners die young". In fact, the actual study behind your NYT link paints a different picture than the NYT article did. See the conclusion:

"We conclude that SIT is a time-efficient strategy to elicit improvements in peripheral vascular structure and function that are comparable to ET. However, alterations in central artery distensibility may require a longer training stimuli and/or greater initial vascular stiffness than observed in this group of healthy subjects."

I repeat, Can you refer me to any peer-reviewed research linking sprint training or weight training with equal or greater benefit in any of the health indicators that Paul Williams's 100,000 person study found distance running improved? I seriously doubt it, because I've scoured every journal I have access to for comparative studies, and every one of those studies found greater longevity and fewer lifestyle diseases in endurance athletes than in speed or power athletes.

[kingkongrevenge]

> every one of those studies found greater longevity and fewer lifestyle diseases in endurance athletes than in speed or power athletes.

Do share.

I hope you know what I mean by observational and understand how it's a worthless way to develop understanding. It's for forming hypotheses.

Resistance training reverses aging in muscles: http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchArticle.action?articleUR...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/edinburgh_and_ea...

Short bursts of intense exercise every few days could dramatically cut the risk of Type 2 diabetes and heart disease, according to an expert.

"If we can get people in their 20s, 30s and 40s doing these exercises twice a week then it could have a very dramatic effect on the future prevalence of diabetes."

Strong people live longest (I post this despite acknowledging it is also model derived garbage): Jonatan R. Ruiz and his co-authors tested more than 8,000 subjects aged 20 to 80 for muscular strength. They grouped individuals into three categories of strength and found that the age-adjusted risk of cancer was 17.5 per thousand in the weakest group, 11.0 in the middle group, and 10.3 in the strongest group. The weaker groups also had higher blood pressure, higher cholesterol, more cardiovascular disease, and more of them had diabetes. (Cancer Epidemiological Biomarkers Prevention 2009;18(5):1468–76).

>the actual study behind your NYT link paints a different picture than the NYT article did

No, it incidentally raised a question, just as the previous link about heart rhythm problems in cyclists raised a much more strongly indicated question about exercise induced damage.