Too many marathons can kill, warn doctors

13 watchers

First
Prev
5
6
7
8

Raptors claws are coming to town Dec 2012 8:45am, 1 Dec 2012 22,567 posts	0 Raptors claws are coming to town telegraph.co.uk Only a month ago.
Johnny Christmas Dec 2012 10:06am, 1 Dec 2012 16,396 posts	0 Johnny Christmas Saga man gets everywhere....
faz1967 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.
Merry Christmas & Happy NewG(rrr) Dec 2012 12:38pm, 1 Dec 2012 18,612 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
Nelly 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
Merry Christmas & Happy NewG(rrr) Dec 2012 12:42pm, 1 Dec 2012 18,613 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
JohnnyO Dec 2012 4:21pm, 1 Dec 2012 14,291 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'.
davelord 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