Welcome To Fetcheveryone

Our awesome training log doesn't hide its best features behind a paywall. Search thousands of events, get advice, play games, measure routes, and more! Join our friendly community of runners, cyclists, and swimmers.
Click here to get started
Already a Fetchie? Sign in here

Too many marathons can kill, warn doctors

13 watchers
Dec 2012
8:45am, 1 Dec 2012
22567 posts
  • 0
Raptors claws are coming to town
telegraph.co.uk

Only a month ago.
Dec 2012
10:06am, 1 Dec 2012
16396 posts
  • 0
Johnny Christmas
Saga man gets everywhere....
Dec 2012
12:16pm, 1 Dec 2012
48 posts
  • 0
faz1967
That's good raptor claws :-) ... But my heart is fine so ill be in the group that could potentially keel over while running (after 51 minutes). It looks like I need to get some mild heart damage so that I can qualify to be in this stem-cell-repair category.
Dec 2012
12:38pm, 1 Dec 2012
18612 posts
  • 0
Merry Christmas & Happy NewG(rrr)
Has everyone seen the very good, well worded and better researched rebuttal on Runners World (that site is good for some things then?! ;-) - I'll go find the link if not. :-)G
Dec 2012
12:41pm, 1 Dec 2012
614 posts
  • 0
Nelly
:-)G when I posted it on the 1500 miles in 2012 thread it was taken from page 2 of this thread :-)
Dec 2012
12:42pm, 1 Dec 2012
18613 posts
  • 0
Merry Christmas & Happy NewG(rrr)
runnersworld.com

Basically, there *was* evidence that running over the hour, 2 hours and so on improved heart condition and reduced mortality, but they "normalized" it away. And similar statistical jiggery pokery removed the benefits of running (duration and intensity) from those who ran more because they had already improved their health by running a bit! D'oh!

The big question for me, is why do reputably scientists remove data in that way, knowing it to skew and misrepresent the results? Are they so desperate to get published that they change results to be more controversial and hence more likely to be picked up?

And the tabloids of course just try and find anything that puts down running. Schadenfreude is the word indeed! :-)G
Dec 2012
4:21pm, 1 Dec 2012
14291 posts
  • 0
JohnnyO
Depends what the question originally was. Say you wanted to know if, and how, long distance running and its associated physiological stress did any direct damage to the heart- thats not an unreasonable question.

To look at this you could do a number of things, but you have to remove all confoundng factors. If you compared the hearts of two 40 year old men, one who smoked and one who didn't, then you are likely to se the effect of smoking more than the effect of marathon running. You need to remove these factors, so you match your populations and remove the effects of all those factors which could independently have an effect. With any luck you can then answer your basic question- what does running itself do to the heart?
Of course, you haven't really answered anything as far as the general public are concerned. What you and I want to know is 'is running good for me'. But that wasn't your intention, you wanted to do some clean science that might lead on to further research and eventually some real world applications or answers (both of which are a long way off).

What happens then is that an editor asks an 'expert' for an opinion piece based on this. We have now moved from science to journalism. If this expert has an axe to grind all the better. The journal has to sell, just like The Daily Mail. Hopefully the exoert will offer an unbiased opinion based on a few other papers too, but he hasn't been asked to do a meta-analysis or a systematic review, hes just asked for an editorial.
The health journalist for the Telegraph isn't interested in basic science. It means little anyway, the original question has little real world value. The health journalist just reads the editorial. Possibly just the headline. He writes a further piece based on an editorial, he doesn't even qupte r reference the original piece. He can pretty much make it up, because nobody is checking.

And there we are. Some perfectly reasonable basic science research has turned into a page 5 headline designed to attract the attention of the 'worried well'.
Dec 2012
5:06pm, 1 Dec 2012
93 posts
  • 0
davelord
I think it's an old article it's snickers that is the problem amazon.com

Got something to say?

To contribute to the discussion, you need to either sign in or register as a user.

About This Thread

Maintained by fazmo
There is an article on the telegraph's online news page titled the same as this thread. It's more ...

Related Threads

running marathons read article marathon exercise telegraph heart health die mail
Back To Top

Close