General Discussion Triathlon Talk » In the never ending debate on intensity and duration of jogging for optimum health Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller Reply
2015-02-04 12:00 PM

User image

Elite
4344
2000200010010010025
Subject: In the never ending debate on intensity and duration of jogging for optimum health

Here is a recent study that addresses the question of how mortality is correlated to duration and intensity of jogging.

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/04/slow-runners-come-out-ahead/?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&bicmp=AD&bicmlukp=WT.mc_id&bicmst=1409232722000&bicmet=1419773522000&_r=0

Let the usual wintertime debate commence.  Two points for the first person who puts "correlation" and "causation" in the same sentence.  Three points for "small study sample".  

Based on the article's conclusion that slow runners come out the best, I personally am going to reflect on the fact that I may live forever.  I shall have to change my retirement accounts around a bit.

TW 



Edited by tech_geezer 2015-02-04 12:02 PM


2015-02-04 12:53 PM
in reply to: tech_geezer

User image

Regular
606
500100
Portland, Oregon
Subject: RE: In the never ending debate on intensity and duration of jogging for optimum health
How many points if I call it an already crappy study which was severely data mined to extract a relevant result?

Runners world had a tidy analysis of it: http://www.runnersworld.com/health/the-supposed-dangers-of-running-...

The majority of the country is overweight, so any story you can write to comfort those people will make you more money than a story that critiques them.
2015-02-04 1:36 PM
in reply to: dfroelich

User image

Not a Coach
11473
5000500010001001001001002525
Media, PA
Subject: RE: In the never ending debate on intensity and duration of jogging for optimum health

Originally posted by dfroelich The majority of the country is overweight, so any story you can write to comfort those people will make you more money than a story that critiques them.

Validity of the data in the study aside, the story pretty clearly states that doing some exercise is beneficial.  Sending a message that you don't have to exercise 10+ hrs per week to realize health benefits and that jogging a mere 20min or so, a few days a week could provide you with those benefits should be helpful for those people who think they can't do enough to matter.  I'm not sure what this story does to comfort overweight or sedentary people (unless they are comforted by the inconclusive data--stated as such, although not as clearly as in the RW article--showing that heavy runners may be just as likely to die as they are).

2015-02-04 3:25 PM
in reply to: dfroelich

User image

Master
3205
20001000100100
ann arbor, michigan
Subject: RE: In the never ending debate on intensity and duration of jogging for optimum health
Originally posted by dfroelich

How many points if I call it an already crappy study which was severely data mined to extract a relevant result?

Runners world had a tidy analysis of it: http://www.runnersworld.com/health/the-supposed-dangers-of-running-...

The majority of the country is overweight, so any story you can write to comfort those people will make you more money than a story that critiques them.


Thanks for the link. That was some interesting analysis of the studies. Makes me feel a lot better about ignoring the hype.
2015-02-04 4:03 PM
in reply to: wannabefaster

User image

Extreme Veteran
1332
100010010010025
Subject: RE: In the never ending debate on intensity and duration of jogging for optimum health
I have seen some of these in the past, and it seems that people who have heart issues are the ones who have issues when they also really push them.

The takehome I got was to make sure that your heart is healthy, and if it is, you should be ok, but if you have heart issues, going really long all the time could be an issue.
2015-02-04 4:34 PM
in reply to: 0

User image


100
100
Subject: RE: In the never ending debate on intensity and duration of jogging for optimum health
I can only talk about my own experience, shared here for what it's worth. This is my 39th year of running, pretty much continuous. The vast majority of my running is at least 1:30 below race pace. In my prime, I would run 8:00 miles all day long in training, and race 5K/10K at 6:30 pace. Now I run 9:30's to 9:45's in training most of the time and run 8:30's race day. That's my current 10K to 1/2 Mary time. I am 59, 5'11", 161 lbs. My doc says I have the body of a 40 year old. Besides being lucky in the genetic lottery, I think steady duration for the majority of training, interspersed with intensity, is the way to go. Because that's what I did, I I'd guess you'd say it worked for me.

Also, I think year 'round strength training for "masters" is a pre-requisite for a good running program. The weight-bearing exercises on, the not only the muscles, but the connective tissue (and bones), makes a huge difference in performance, and injury prevention. So I think some intensity can be had in the strength training days, which translates directly to better running, especially if you keep the rest periods down and the HR elevated. So doing more of this versus hammering the track and tempo days may work out better, especially as you get older, and more susceptible to injury. The old diminishing returns thing.

So the difference here might be to say for optimum health, the lower intensity, longer duration training works the best. But for optimum performance, you need more intensity. So it depends on your goal here. For just healthy lifestyle, go moderate, with carefully interspersed intensity; but for performance you need to kick it out there a little bit more. Can you have your cake and eat it too? Dunno, except in my case I definitely do a racing season, and then take a break in early winter. No more running year -round without a break.

Disclaimer: This is a totally unscientific statement, with absolutely nothing to back it up. Strictly my personal experience. A small study sample of one. Does my experience have a correlation with the majority of runners, or am I an outlier with different causations from the norm? Heh heh.

Edited by NewDiz 2015-02-04 4:37 PM


2015-02-04 8:42 PM
in reply to: NewDiz

User image

Elite
4344
2000200010010010025
Subject: RE: In the never ending debate on intensity and duration of jogging for optimum health

Originally posted by NewDiz I can only talk about my own experience, shared here for what it's worth. This is my 39th year of running, pretty much continuous. The vast majority of my running is at least 1:30 below race pace. In my prime, I would run 8:00 miles all day long in training, and race 5K/10K at 6:30 pace. Now I run 9:30's to 9:45's in training most of the time and run 8:30's race day. That's my current 10K to 1/2 Mary time. I am 59, 5'11", 161 lbs. My doc says I have the body of a 40 year old. Besides being lucky in the genetic lottery, I think steady duration for the majority of training, interspersed with intensity, is the way to go. Because that's what I did, I I'd guess you'd say it worked for me. Also, I think year 'round strength training for "masters" is a pre-requisite for a good running program. The weight-bearing exercises on, the not only the muscles, but the connective tissue (and bones), makes a huge difference in performance, and injury prevention. So I think some intensity can be had in the strength training days, which translates directly to better running, especially if you keep the rest periods down and the HR elevated. So doing more of this versus hammering the track and tempo days may work out better, especially as you get older, and more susceptible to injury. The old diminishing returns thing. So the difference here might be to say for optimum health, the lower intensity, longer duration training works the best. But for optimum performance, you need more intensity. So it depends on your goal here. For just healthy lifestyle, go moderate, with carefully interspersed intensity; but for performance you need to kick it out there a little bit more. Can you have your cake and eat it too? Dunno, except in my case I definitely do a racing season, and then take a break in early winter. No more running year -round without a break. Disclaimer: This is a totally unscientific statement, with absolutely nothing to back it up. Strictly my personal experience. A small study sample of one. Does my experience have a correlation with the majority of runners, or am I an outlier with different causations from the norm? Heh heh.

 

First off, I commend you for doing so well for your own health.  You are a very good example for others to follow if they can.  I believe most people are well on the low side of the optimum amount of exercise for their best health and longest life.

My views about the article are bracketed what is true with common sense not science.  Good science on this topic is going to be hard.  Conventional wisdom says moderation in all things.   So it is not much of a stretch to expect that an optimum exists for training for peak performance in racing and an optimum exists for longevity.  There is no reason to think that the two are even close to the same.  I would even hazard a guess that training for longevity is less, perhaps a lot less, over a lifetime than training for racing.  I would also consider it reasonable the vast majority of people in the US get less exercise than either optimum.

Both optimums are hard to estimate, but we may be pretty close an optimum training regimen for elite athletes in well-established sports.  The scientific method has been applied to that problem.  The events are the same every time and the athletes tend to be more similar in body type than the general population. The signs and symptoms of overtraining can be recognized before an event and the results obtained from the race used to corroborate the indications fairly immediately.  Changes to the training can be training can be made and the improvement or lack registered in the next event.  It is an iterative process with a time interval consisting of the racing year.  There are thousands of athletes competing and good data are being gathered on their training.

There is even a reasonable amount of evidence on how to achieve peak performance for more ordinary souls.  Largely by scaling down training regimens for elite athletes, a good coach tends to be able to improve an individual's performance by an amount that the competitor is happy and willing to pay for the coaching services.

The optimum training for longevity is harder because of the duration of testing required is a lifetime, each test subject gets only one experimental trial (one death per subject in almost all cases), the event is different for each test subject, and quality of the data-taking of the training is not good at all.  It is hard to criticize the study in the article for lacking in rigor.. They used the data available in the best way they could and they reported results.  Neither the original study nor the New York Times article claims a definitive finding.  It is just a piece of data that sort of goes in the direction you might expect (or at least I expected).  I am not going to reduce my training to live longer because of it.  It is an interesting question.  We can expect studies will continue.  Expect more next February if not sooner.

As most people on this site are training for races, we tend to exercise more than the study says may be optimum based on their relatively small study into the available data suggests.  No one wants to be told that they are doing the wrong thing so it is not surprising that people here tend toward resisting believing the results and finding fault with them.  No problem with that.  I certainly understand.  Take your best shot.  This is science after all.  There is supposed to be a debate about it to test and prove what is right and wrong.

The Runner's World article is harsh and mocking for no valid reason that I can see. RW criticized the small sample size but this particular author routinely cites exercise research that followed a small number of individuals for a short period of time and then reported the results.  He has to.  That is the only way research work can be done within the available budgets.  He also criticized that it was a second paper from basically the same data set with only a minor change.  This also is the way research works.  The researchers added a measure of intensity had not been originally considered.  I would speculate that this took very little additional effort on their part but even if that is true, it does not diminish the fact that the incremental results were interesting enough to publish.  Is it also newsworthy?  I don't know.  I found it interesting enough to read even though I have read many other articles trying to establish the same thing.

Carry on.

New Thread
General Discussion Triathlon Talk » In the never ending debate on intensity and duration of jogging for optimum health Rss Feed  
RELATED POSTS

Training Duration vs Race Duration?

Started by 3mar
Views: 1582 Posts: 22

2014-09-30 11:52 AM briderdt

The end of the Flip turn debate forever Pages: 1 2

Started by axteraa
Views: 3063 Posts: 27

2011-09-23 2:18 PM TriAya

Recovery Week: Intensity, frequency, duration

Started by crmorton
Views: 5329 Posts: 18

2011-03-22 1:53 PM JohnnyKay

Equation for optimum # of strokes

Started by KenD
Views: 798 Posts: 3

2007-10-16 1:13 PM docswim24

Men's Health/Women's Health magazine

Started by instigator
Views: 1155 Posts: 9

2005-04-30 9:55 AM ropkins