Hello SportsSciGeek and All,
Some peer review of the following would be nice … then we might know if we are ruining our health and longevity by engaging in Triathlon and endurance sports.
It appears there is a dearth of science on the subject. So far I have two medical people that disagree with Mark’s theory: “Studies have shown an increase in mortality when weekly caloric expenditure exceeds 4,000.” One is a sports nutritionist (that has done IM -perhaps biased) and one is a medical doctor (that has won IM Hawaii age group many times - and perhaps biased). Mark states that 4000 calories equates to about 40 miles of just running each week - more miles than the runners 27 miles average in the Stanford study I quote below.
Possibly Mark’s studies include activities that in their nature have a high risk - rock climbing, exploring underwater caves, combat, and so on with the death toll not entirely related to exceeding the 4000 calories per week. It would be interesting to see the studies quoted. I hope Mark will write a follow up aritcle for Slowtwitch.
=================================================================
One study that supports an active life stye is the Stanford Runner Study: http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/0223.htm
Excerpts - may be out of context:
Is it true that running is hard on the knees, hips, and feet? Runners still hear about that supposed connection, and there seems to be a kernel of truth in the supposition. After all, running is the kind of sport which produces ‘wear-and-tear’ injuries, not traumatic ones, and one key form of arthritis - osteoarthritis - is a wear-and-tear disease, in which the cartilage inside joints is gradually eroded over time. But what does the scientific literature really say? Do the relentless impact forces of running (a force greater than two and one-half times body weight is transmitted through the leg with each footstep, 1700 times per mile) eventually cause the cartilaginous structures in the knees and hips to deteriorate into the inflamed, arthritic state’?
The most comprehensive study concerning running and disability was begun in 1984 at the Stanford Arthritis Center in the US. Initially, 863 people (632 males and 231 females) ranging in age from 50 to 72 took part in the research. 498 individuals were long-distance runners, while 365 subjects did not run at all. The runners averaged about 210 minutes (27 miles) of running per week, had been running for an average of 12 years, and weighed considerably less than their sedentary counterparts ( 147 versus 161 pounds). Some of the runners had logged as many as 17,000 total miles during the 12 years leading up to the study.
The first five years
Over an initial five-year period, the benchmark Stanford study found that runners did NOT experience higher rates of arthritis, compared to ‘average’ individuals in the overall population. In fact, runners actually had a lower risk of disability in their muscular and skeletal systems, despite all of the aches and pains which are usually associated with a regular running programme. Runners made fewer visits to the doctor, spent about 33 per cent less time in the hospital, missed half as many work days, and - as expected - had lower blood pressures and resting heart rates, compared to non-runners. In addition, runners gave themselves higher perceived health ratings. To put it simply, runners FELT healthier than non-runners, and in fact they were.
What about the notion that knees and legs are damaged by the miles and miles of hard pounding associated with running? Well, disabling problems in the legs were actually five times as likely to occur in sedentary individuals, compared to runners. Running was also linked with fitter upper bodies: disabling conditions in the arms and shoulders were 20 times as likely to develop in non-runners!
==============================================================================
From ST - http://www.slowtwitch.com/mainheadings/features/health_doping_slowtwitch2.html
Excerpt from Mark Sisson ST article:
“Let’s get one thing straight right off the bat: Endurance training is antithetical to anti-aging. So it amazes me when guys in their 40s and 50s who are training for a marathon or Ironman suggest that doing so will keep them young. It won’t. You may feel like a stud now with your shaved legs and your magic marker biceps tattoos, but endurance training speeds up the aging process almost as fast as watching TV, drinking sodas and eating potato chips. Actually, in some cases, it speeds it up even faster.”
“The problem with many, if not most, age group endurance athletes is that the low-level training gets out of hand. They overtrain in their exuberance to excel at racing, and they over consume carbohydrates in an effort to stay fueled. The result is that over the years, their muscle mass, immune function, and testosterone decrease, while their cortisol, insulin and oxidative output increase (unless you work so hard that you actually exhaust the adrenals, introducing an even more disconcerting scenario). Any anti-aging doc will tell you that if you do this long enough, you will hasten, rather than retard, the aging process. Studies have shown an increase in mortality when weekly caloric expenditure exceeds 4,000.”
What do you think?
Cheers,
Neal