kingkongrevenge

"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.

Comment · 17 years ago

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...

Comment · 17 years ago

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."