In my opinion, this is a a great example of a doctor seeing what he wants to see. In the first chart, BOTH extreme and moderate levels of exercise seem to plateau (the actual study shows it doesn’t but more on that later) However, you can get to that level faster with extreme exercise, and the final result is a 10% improvement in the mortality reduction. There is absolutely no negative. All the data shows is that the benefits plateau sooner (again, not actually – see next paragraph.) So after 45 minutes of extreme levels of exercise, I get no further benefit, but then the chart doesn’t show that I get worse benefits either.
In fact, when Dr Wen (who did the study) was asked about if they saw this improvement erode after longer the 50 minutes (all that is shown in this chart interestingly enough) he said : quote ” By 120 min [per day], the hazard ratio for all-cause mortality was around 0.55 [which is better than it was for 60 min per day], with even better hazard ratios for cardiovascular diseases “(meaning it was higher then .55) … “The adverse effects of strenuous exercise for incremental efforts for more than an hour a day did not seem to outweigh the benefits. We were not able to identify an upper limit of physical activity, either moderate or vigorous, above which more harm than good will occur in terms of long-term life expectancy benefits “(meaning there is now plateau, it keeps going up slowly)
source: http://www.runnersworld.com/health/too-much-running-myth-rises-again
So, this first chart is clearly manipulated to withhold data. If you continued that blue line for vigorous exercise to line up with where the moderate line ends, the blue line would have been shown NOT to plateau but to continue up (actually off of the chart) But WORSE THEN THAT. A method called “Cox regression” was used to quantify the association between running and mortality after adjusting for baseline age, sex, examination year, body mass index, current smoking, heavy alcohol drinking, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, parental CVD, and levels of other physical activities. (O’Keefe didn’t explain that, but it’s in the actual data-linked below)
OK, take a deep breath and think about that for a second. It is complicated, but basically, what this means is that they used statistical methods to effectively “equalize” everyone’s weight, blood pressure, cholesterol, and so on. But this is absurd! One of the main reason people run is to reducing weight, blood pressure, cholesterol, etc. They’re effectively saying, “If we ignore the known health benefits of greater amounts of aerobic exercise, then greater amounts of aerobic exercise don’t have any health benefits.”
Again, this is researchers looking for an answer and manipulating the data to get it. Well, actually, manipulating how they explain the data. You can see the data yourself here : http://tinyurl.com/7uygknd
In the second chart, again, he says after a certain level, you tend to plateau. If you look at the chart closely, here you will see the slightest incline at the end, but you’ll notice O’Keefe barely mentions that. My guess is because if you look into the study, the increase is within the margin of error of the study. So again, more exercise and more extreme exercise has benefits, but there is NO DATA that is given that shows it is detrimental.
I think the most telling thing he says, which shows once again just how little doctors know, is his first example of his friend Jon (who is 68!!) who runs marathons and has a score of 1800 on his test. O’Keefe says, at that level, the arteries are as hard as bone. And yet, his heart is beating, it is moving, every step he takes his whole body is in motion and if his arteries were like bones, even if just the arteries in his heart were like that, chances are he would be dead. (remember 400 means you are in trouble) However, his friend does have a count of 1800. And his friend runs marathons. And his friend is 68 years old. And his friend runs 12 miles most days. Honestly, if a number of 400 means you are “IN TROUBLE” and this guy runs 12 miles a day at age 68. Well then maybe doctors need to re-evaluate this scale. Clearly if a guy can get to 1800 on the scale and have no problems, then maybe there is a problem with your scale! I wonder how many heart surgeries O’Keefe has recommended on people who had a score of 400 or 500 because they were “in trouble.” I really hope his friend Jon said “You keep your scale, I’ll keep running!”
OK, next he says “we are not meant for sustained level of exercise” that is over 1 hour. Clearly an American doctor! Hello, lets go to some other countries. I’ve lived in Russia for 8 years. You walk A LOT. Up hills, down hills, carrying all your food in bags from the market. Your heart rate goes up. You get a tremendous workout, sometimes for hours every day. Or better yet, lets just look in America. Have you ever worked on a farm? I have. Try cleaning a horse stall stall by hand. Or milking 30 cows by hand when the power goes out. (Takes hours and hours!) Try lifting hay bales all day. Sorry, you don’t get to stop after an hour. Do you really think that a guy who works out 1 hour a day, moderately, is in better shape then the farmer throwing 50 pound hay bales 8 hours a day! As someone who grew up doing that, I know the answer! I also know a lot of farmers who are still throwing hay bales in their 80’s ! (Less so now that farmers rely on machinery. Again, less exercise, less health benefits)
So, what about all the data that “veteran runners” have worn out hearts. OK, well, maybe, just maybe you are not meant to live forever. Comparing an 80 year old runners heart to a 80 year old sedentary man’s heart will obviously show the runners heart has more wear and tear. But are you saying that you expect these two men’s hearts to continue for another 80 years? Is this doctor really saying you should have a perfectly healthy heart at 80? Assuming they will both die within 5 years (10 years plus past life expectancy I might add), what is the advantage of having a pristine heart the day I die? We all die sometime. These studies are of veteran runners. But they seem to still be alive and healthy. He is not talking about cadavers. Also, as he states earlier, we don’t have people dying left and right in these endurance sports. On the contrary, as the sport continues (as he said, we have only been at this for 20-30 year) rather what we see is more and more older runners. I’m routinely passed by 50 and 60 year old runners. I was actually passed by a 70 year old runner recently. (I’m in my 40’s, and actually got 2nd in my age division the day I was passed by the 70 year old.)
Next, using Cabio Blanco as an example of extreme runners (and this doctor is suggesting that anyone who is running a marathon a year is an extreme runner) is like saying Michael Jordan is in the same league as your above average team player down at the YMCA. Seriously, Cabio (Who was an amazing man) would run 8-10 hours a day, every day, for months at a time. He would often run with little or no water, he pushed himself to extremes that the rest of us just look at in awe. But, he was NOT in the same league as 99.9 % of all marathon runners. And to use him as any kind of an example of the dangers of running is shameful and disingenuous to say the least.
In the chart showing the chance of death by distance. It is very blury, and I wish I could see it clearly, plus I would love to dig into the details, and know the +/- rate of the study, but I think it is interesting that the difference between column 3 (the second green column) which would be the “sweet spot” for running apparently (O’Keefe says 5-10 is ideal) is only .02 off column number 6 which is where the danger zone is. Also, as you look at this chart, you will notice that the changes within the green columns seem to vary widely. From 0.78 – 0.88 – 0.73 – 0.75 Based on just that, it would seem to indicate that running 5-10 miles is much more dangerous then running 1-4 miles. In fact, almost a 10% increase in danger (.78 up to .88) Of course, if you can get over that hump, and run 10-15 miles, then somehow your heart magically must heal it’s self, because now you are 5% MORE healthy then you were when you only ran 1-5 miles and 15% more healthy then when you ran 10-15 miles. So, based on the data, clearly there is a detrimental effect from running 5-10 miles, but running a bit more or less is OK.
Of course that doesn’t fit the hypothesis, so that part is ignored. So, lets go to the second red line. That number is .90. As a reminder, the second green line is .88. So, based on this data, running 20-25 miles is BAD! Sure, you have a 10% improvement in life expectancy, but that is BAD. However, running 5-10 miles a week is GREAT. Why? Because at 5-10 miles a week you get a 12% improvement in life expectancy. But wait, really?. There is ONLY a 2 % difference in those, with lower numbers before and after. I wonder what the rate was at 30 or 40 miles a week? Obviously if it went up, it would be on the chart. I’m sure they have the data, since 25 miles a week is not very much for people training for a marathon. Which leads me to suspect that it actually went down again. Just like the first chart, it seems data may be left off that does not support the doctors ideas. Also, again, I wonder what the margin of error is. If it’s more then 1%, I’d say you have a pretty even race here. Also, I don’t know if data was manipulated like in the first example by equalizing the data.
OK. His mouse experiment. I hate these. One, it’s just mean to the mouse, but leaving that aside. To force a mouse to run all day long for 40 days and then test his heart is ridiculous. I run a lot of 50K races I can guarantee you I would be in much worse shape, and maybe would have a heart attack if you were chasing me with a cattle prod zapping me every time I slow down (that is of course how they do these test. How do you think they MAKE a mouse run on a wheel all day!) Of course they never consider that MAYBE electrocuting the mouse to force him to run when he would rather stop MIGHT affect the test. Maybe the fear you are putting into this animal MIGHT be producing hormone levels and testosterone levels and adrenaline levels that MIGHT have an effect on the wear and tear on that mouse’s heart. Nope, we are going to ignore that and assume that it was the running that caused the increase heart and the damage the heart muscles!
In my opinion, you never believe what doctors say with their studies until you have read the study your self and have analyzed the data. Then do a quick google search to look over the OTHER SIDE of the argument. Here is a great article contradicting this one (I took a few bits of it for this little summery. ) http://www.runnersworld.com/health/too-much-running-myth-rises-again
And http://www.runnersworld.com/running-tips/second-thoughts-too-much-running
Oh, and the story of Phidippides running the first marathon and then dying. Nice try. Historical documents indicate that Phidippides ran 150 miles in the two days previous before running the 25 miles (40K) to deliver his message that the Greeks had defeated the Persians. But the part of him dying is only found in a poem from the time by Lucian, and is the only classical source which includes that little detail. . All the rest indicate he just presented his message (and then presumably returned to his post) It’s called the LEGEND of Phidippides for a reason! Once again, manipulating the truth to come to your own conclusions instead of just analyzing the data.