| Forum Index > Sports |
|
L_Master
United States8017 Posts
Holy shit! Didn't think I would see this in 2015. Admittedly the current figure of 10% error is too big to be used with confidence in training, however if they can improve that some the running training landscape would likely change forever. Probably does needs a HUD if you wanna use it efficiently in real time though. | ||
|
JinDesu
United States3990 Posts
Anyone able to get into this article (the login process seems to take more information than I have) and review? Quite a lotta people are now putting the New Yorker (http://nymag.com/thecut/2015/02/cool-news-jogging-too-much-is-bad-for-you.html?mid=facebook_nymag) and BBC links on social media and I want to read the source because I suspect something is being mistranslated by the new orgs. Nevermins, doc friend of mine was able to download it as a PDF for me, will look at it tonight. | ||
|
Bonham
Canada655 Posts
| ||
|
JinDesu
United States3990 Posts
BACKGROUND People who are physically active have at least a 30% lower risk of death during follow-up compared with those who are inactive. However, the ideal dose of exercise for improving longevity is uncertain. OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to investigate the association between jogging and long-term, all-cause mortality by focusing specifically on the effects of pace, quantity, and frequency of jogging. METHODS As part of the Copenhagen City Heart Study, 1,098 healthy joggers and 3,950 healthy nonjoggers have been prospectively followed up since 2001. Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was performed with age as the underlying time scale and delayed entry. RESULTS Compared with sedentary nonjoggers, 1 to 2.4 h of jogging per week was associated with the lowest mortality (multivariable hazard ratio [HR]: 0.29; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.11 to 0.80). The optimal frequency of jogging was 2 to 3 times per week (HR: 0.32; 95% CI: 0.15 to 0.69) or #1 time per week (HR: 0.29; 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.72). The optimal pace was slow (HR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.24 to 1.10) or average (HR: 0.38; 95% CI: 0.22 to 0.66). The joggers were divided into light, moderate, and strenuous joggers. The lowest HR for mortality was found in light joggers (HR: 0.22; 95% CI: 0.10 to 0.47), followed by moderate joggers (HR: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.32 to 1.38) and strenuous joggers (HR: 1.97; 95% CI: 0.48 to 8.14). CONCLUSIONS The findings suggest a U-shaped association between all-cause mortality and dose of jogging as calibrated by pace, quantity, and frequency of jogging. Light and moderate joggers have lower mortality than sedentary nonjoggers, whereas strenuous joggers have a mortality rate not statistically different from that of the sedentary group. (J Am Coll Cardiol 2015;65:411–9) © 2015 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation. I don't want to post up the PDF since my friend had to log in to download it, but I'll read through and provide my thoughts.. My thoughts below (disclaimer, I'm a layman): The study assumes a light pace equals 6 metabolic equivalents (METs) given a frequency of less than 2.5 hours of jogging a week divided by 3 times a week. A moderate pace is rated at greater than 2.5 hours of jogging a week divided by 3 times a week (or a fast pace less than 4 hours a week divided by 3 times a week). A strenuous pace is rated at more than 12 METs, given more than 4 hours a week divided by 3 times a week. Per Wiki and the web, 6 METs is jogging in general (10 minute miles) while 12 METs is approximately 8 minute miles. I don't know how accurate this is, but it's what I find on the web. The study states that, for a nonjogger reference (1.00HR) and adjusted for age, sex, smoking, alcohol intake, education, and diabetes, a jogger running less than 1hr a week has a HR of 0.47. A jogger running 1-2.4hrs/week has a HR of 0.29. A jogger running 2.5-4hrs a week has a HR of 0.65. A jogger running more than 4 hours a week has a HR of 0.6. For a nonjogger reference of (1.00HR), adjusted for the same factors above, a jogger who runs 1 time a week has a HR of 0.29. A jogger who runs 2-3 times a week has a HR of 0.32. A jogger who runs more than 3 times a week has a HR of 0.71. For a nonjogger reference of 1.00HR, adjusted from the same factors above, a jogger who runs at a low space has a HR of 0.51. A jogger who runs at a moderate pace has a HR of 0.38. A jogger who runs at a strenuous pace has a HR of 0.94. I don't know how these numbers combine given something like a jogger running 2.4hrs a week, once a week, at a moderate pace, but it seems that those exact factors provided the lowest mortality rate/hazard ratio. The paper makes a statement that a METs of 12 at an extended duration for a long period of time can pose risks to the cardiovascular system due to the high intensity of exercise. In all cases, jogging is better than being sedentary - but the paper makes the statement that vigorous jogging comes close to having the same hazard ratio as being sedentary. The hazard ratio is a reference to deaths caused by respiratory diseases, stroke, and cancer (with the adjustments made for age, sex, smoking, etc). The paper mentions that past studies have found a similar U shape curve when accounting for energy expenditure/exercise intensity with respect to mortality rates. A reference study (by Paffenbarger et al) stated that a physical activity increase from 500-3500kcal (over resting rate) per week is the optimal range of optimizing long-term cardiovascular health and life expectancy - and anything above or below that would increase the mortality rate. The study also makes the statement that high intensity regimens can improve peak cardiac performance and cardiorespiratory fitness, it may not be ideal for promoting long term CV health and overall life expectancy. I'm not sure how the HR rate works - if someone with a better understanding can help explain it, that'd be great. My assumption at this time is that if the control is HR=1.00 and the result is a HR=0.30, that means that for 10 people who die under the control group, only 3 people will die under the result group. If that's wrong, let me know. I myself think that I'm a moderate runner. Before winter I was doing 2-3 runs a week, about 4-8 miles per run, at a pace of about 9-10 minute/mile (totaling an average of 2.4hrs of running a week). I was planning to maintain that for this year as an enthusiast jogger. | ||
|
L_Master
United States8017 Posts
On February 04 2015 07:46 JinDesu wrote: http://www.acc.org/latest-in-cardiology/journal-scans/2015/02/02/15/13/dose-of-jogging-and-long-term-mortality?w_nav=LC Anyone able to get into this article (the login process seems to take more information than I have) and review? Quite a lotta people are now putting the New Yorker (http://nymag.com/thecut/2015/02/cool-news-jogging-too-much-is-bad-for-you.html?mid=facebook_nymag) and BBC links on social media and I want to read the source because I suspect something is being mistranslated by the new orgs. Nevermins, doc friend of mine was able to download it as a PDF for me, will look at it tonight. Disappointing they didn't break it down further and have further categories for there high end scale. Would have been nice to see something that also corresponded roughly to 50mpw, 70mpw, and 100mpw to see if the trend remained consistent. Quite possible though that they just wouldn't have had the sample numbers they needed in those ranges to get a statistically significant result though, but would further support or lessen the potentially causal link. The one thing I always hate about these studies is that they always set arbitrary paces for fast/medium/slow. I guess it likely averages out across the population, but for some people 8:30 pace is slow as hell, and for other people a 12:00 pace is hammering away. If it doesn't average out that is a potential confounder. Again, however, maximal CV longevity benefits were noted with moderate doses of running (specifically 6 to 12 miles per week), running durations of approximately 50 to 120 min per week, a running frequency of approximately 3 times per week, and a modest pace of approximately 6 to 7 miles per hour. Our findings are aligned in that a U-shaped or reverse J-shaped relationship was noted, whereas higher doses of running were associated with loss of approximately one-third to one-half of the CV mortality benefits linked to moderate doses of running. In fact, the most favorable running regimen for reducing CV mortality in that study was 6 miles per week, 3 running days per week, and a pace of 7 miles per hour. This really makes me question the study. It's interesting there is an association in the first place, but this would be like analyzing smoking and finding that someone who smokes a cigarette bi monthly is at a higher risk for cancer. Hard to imagine the cigarette is doing that. In that same manner, is 6 miles a week even exercise? Hardly enough to really do much for somebody. I'd find it more probable that this increase in mortality comes about from those jogging for health leading generally more conscious lives. even slow jogging (6 METs) corresponds to vigorous exercise lol strenuous jogging (8:30 pace) corresponds to very heavy vigorous exercise (≥12 METs) even more lol | ||
|
L_Master
United States8017 Posts
It will make you one absurdly fit, fast, beastly monster; but I don't think there is anything healthy about running 100mpw. That kind of training is damn hard on the body. Fortunately the people running those kinds of volumes aren't running for health, they are running to compete, to test limits, and to be as good as they can be. Health isn't the goal. | ||
|
JinDesu
United States3990 Posts
I like the reference report that mentions kcal, because I actually don't really know METs. Given a increase of 500-3500kcal per week, that seems to be a pretty reasonable workout regimen for most people. And I agree, people running 100mpw are running to compete and push themselves - not for life expectancy. They have higher peaks than the average person, while maintaining the same life expectancy (or at least a little better) than the sedentary person. | ||
|
Bonham
Canada655 Posts
For me, as long as my running isn't taking decades off my life, I'm OK with it. Though I certainly prize good health, I run at this point in my life to answer one question: how fast can I go? Finding this out feels important and this is the best time of life to do it. I probably won't be able to knock out 100mpw in my 40s. I also don't think I'd be happy, right now, running just the distances often suggested as "safest" in studies like this one. I've talked about research like this with both my family doctor and my girlfriend, who is a physician, and they both don't see anything wrong with my mileage for now. The most annoying thing about publications like this, I find, isn't the findings or even the news coverage of the findings, but the mis-informed or nosy friends and acquaintances who will, inevitably, ask me in the coming weeks if I'm aware that running will kill you instantly and that I should stop right away. | ||
|
YPang
United States4024 Posts
On February 04 2015 14:18 JinDesu wrote: From the abstract: BACKGROUND People who are physically active have at least a 30% lower risk of death during follow-up compared with those who are inactive. However, the ideal dose of exercise for improving longevity is uncertain. OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to investigate the association between jogging and long-term, all-cause mortality by focusing specifically on the effects of pace, quantity, and frequency of jogging. METHODS As part of the Copenhagen City Heart Study, 1,098 healthy joggers and 3,950 healthy nonjoggers have been prospectively followed up since 2001. Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was performed with age as the underlying time scale and delayed entry. RESULTS Compared with sedentary nonjoggers, 1 to 2.4 h of jogging per week was associated with the lowest mortality (multivariable hazard ratio [HR]: 0.29; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.11 to 0.80). The optimal frequency of jogging was 2 to 3 times per week (HR: 0.32; 95% CI: 0.15 to 0.69) or #1 time per week (HR: 0.29; 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.72). The optimal pace was slow (HR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.24 to 1.10) or average (HR: 0.38; 95% CI: 0.22 to 0.66). The joggers were divided into light, moderate, and strenuous joggers. The lowest HR for mortality was found in light joggers (HR: 0.22; 95% CI: 0.10 to 0.47), followed by moderate joggers (HR: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.32 to 1.38) and strenuous joggers (HR: 1.97; 95% CI: 0.48 to 8.14). CONCLUSIONS The findings suggest a U-shaped association between all-cause mortality and dose of jogging as calibrated by pace, quantity, and frequency of jogging. Light and moderate joggers have lower mortality than sedentary nonjoggers, whereas strenuous joggers have a mortality rate not statistically different from that of the sedentary group. (J Am Coll Cardiol 2015;65:411–9) © 2015 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation. I don't want to post up the PDF since my friend had to log in to download it, but I'll read through and provide my thoughts.. My thoughts below (disclaimer, I'm a layman): The study assumes a light pace equals 6 metabolic equivalents (METs) given a frequency of less than 2.5 hours of jogging a week divided by 3 times a week. A moderate pace is rated at greater than 2.5 hours of jogging a week divided by 3 times a week (or a fast pace less than 4 hours a week divided by 3 times a week). A strenuous pace is rated at more than 12 METs, given more than 4 hours a week divided by 3 times a week. Per Wiki and the web, 6 METs is jogging in general (10 minute miles) while 12 METs is approximately 8 minute miles. I don't know how accurate this is, but it's what I find on the web. The study states that, for a nonjogger reference (1.00HR) and adjusted for age, sex, smoking, alcohol intake, education, and diabetes, a jogger running less than 1hr a week has a HR of 0.47. A jogger running 1-2.4hrs/week has a HR of 0.29. A jogger running 2.5-4hrs a week has a HR of 0.65. A jogger running more than 4 hours a week has a HR of 0.6. For a nonjogger reference of (1.00HR), adjusted for the same factors above, a jogger who runs 1 time a week has a HR of 0.29. A jogger who runs 2-3 times a week has a HR of 0.32. A jogger who runs more than 3 times a week has a HR of 0.71. For a nonjogger reference of 1.00HR, adjusted from the same factors above, a jogger who runs at a low space has a HR of 0.51. A jogger who runs at a moderate pace has a HR of 0.38. A jogger who runs at a strenuous pace has a HR of 0.94. I don't know how these numbers combine given something like a jogger running 2.4hrs a week, once a week, at a moderate pace, but it seems that those exact factors provided the lowest mortality rate/hazard ratio. The paper makes a statement that a METs of 12 at an extended duration for a long period of time can pose risks to the cardiovascular system due to the high intensity of exercise. In all cases, jogging is better than being sedentary - but the paper makes the statement that vigorous jogging comes close to having the same hazard ratio as being sedentary. The hazard ratio is a reference to deaths caused by respiratory diseases, stroke, and cancer (with the adjustments made for age, sex, smoking, etc). The paper mentions that past studies have found a similar U shape curve when accounting for energy expenditure/exercise intensity with respect to mortality rates. A reference study (by Paffenbarger et al) stated that a physical activity increase from 500-3500kcal (over resting rate) per week is the optimal range of optimizing long-term cardiovascular health and life expectancy - and anything above or below that would increase the mortality rate. The study also makes the statement that high intensity regimens can improve peak cardiac performance and cardiorespiratory fitness, it may not be ideal for promoting long term CV health and overall life expectancy. I'm not sure how the HR rate works - if someone with a better understanding can help explain it, that'd be great. My assumption at this time is that if the control is HR=1.00 and the result is a HR=0.30, that means that for 10 people who die under the control group, only 3 people will die under the result group. If that's wrong, let me know. I myself think that I'm a moderate runner. Before winter I was doing 2-3 runs a week, about 4-8 miles per run, at a pace of about 9-10 minute/mile (totaling an average of 2.4hrs of running a week). I was planning to maintain that for this year as an enthusiast jogger. I believe you got the hazard ratio correct, however, based on the results of the study, 1 to 2.4 h of jogging per week was associated with the lowest mortality (multivariable hazard ratio [HR]: 0.29; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.11 to 0.80). The optimal frequency of jogging was 2 to 3 times per week (HR: 0.32; 95% CI: 0.15 to 0.69) or #1 time per week (HR: 0.29; 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.72). The optimal pace was slow (HR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.24 to 1.10) or average (HR: 0.38; 95% CI: 0.22 to 0.66). The joggers were divided into light, moderate, and strenuous joggers. The lowest HR for mortality was found in light joggers (HR: 0.22; 95% CI: 0.10 to 0.47), followed by moderate joggers (HR: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.32 to 1.38) and strenuous joggers (HR: 1.97; 95% CI: 0.48 to 8.14). As you can tell based on what I bolded, those were the data points that were completly insignificant. Especially the last value of the strenous joggers a confidence interval of 0.48-8.14 means that the true value could range anywhere in between there. Anytime the confidence interval crosses 1 means that the data was statistically insignificant because it means that the result could also be due to chance. Also without reading more into the methods section it's hard to figure out if there was any selection bias or confounding factors (such as strenous joggers jogged in heavy traffic area and developed lung cancer due to inhaling either 2nd hand smoke or gas fumes). Also, when the results are statistically insignificant, it is pretty much useless in the real world or clinically speaking. So those results that i bolded are also clinically insignificant lol. Also we should also remember that the average tour de france rider lived like 6-7 years longer than the average joe! and their exercise regime is no where near moderate-most definitely extreme. But for the most part, you can pretty much find a single study to support any point of view, there needs to be a bunch to make any solid conclusions, so train your hearts out!  | ||
|
JinDesu
United States3990 Posts
 | ||
|
YPang
United States4024 Posts
On February 05 2015 15:14 JinDesu wrote: YPang, thank you for your insight. I didn't know what confidence intervals meant, but I'll go look them up now. I suppose you do bring up a good point, don't jog behind heavy polluting vehicles yeah the confidence interval range is pretty much stating what the hazard ratio COULD potentially be. So when the confidence interval is something like "0.22-1.45" it means that it can literally range anywhere in between there since it crosses 1 and has the chance of being just as good as the control group. Often times when you get a insignificant data, a small sample size is usually to blame because the researcher's aren't sure, and there are always outliers. Again, without looking more into the methods to find for potential bias, the only thing the study was able to prove was that light exercise is good for you. Since the moderate, and streanous exercise's group both crossed 1 for the confidence interval. | ||
|
L_Master
United States8017 Posts
On February 05 2015 19:44 YPang wrote: yeah the confidence interval range is pretty much stating what the hazard ratio COULD potentially be. So when the confidence interval is something like "0.22-1.45" it means that it can literally range anywhere in between there since it crosses 1 and has the chance of being just as good as the control group. Often times when you get a insignificant data, a small sample size is usually to blame because the researcher's aren't sure, and there are always outliers. Again, without looking more into the methods to find for potential bias, Since the moderate, and streanous exercise's group both crossed 1 for the confidence interval. Well in fairness (though you probably know all of this since it seems you have some background in epidemiological studys/methods) it doesn't technically prove that. It just says with confidence that people that engage in light jogging / average speed live longer than sedentary people. But there are other potential confounders that could explain the reason (i.e. people that do light running are more likely to eat better, visit the doctor more, sleep more, etc. ) | ||
|
YPang
United States4024 Posts
On February 06 2015 13:04 L_Master wrote: Well in fairness (though you probably know all of this since it seems you have some background in epidemiological studys/methods) it doesn't technically prove that. It just says with confidence that people that engage in light jogging / average speed live longer than sedentary people. But there are other potential confounders that could explain the reason (i.e. people that do light running are more likely to eat better, visit the doctor more, sleep more, etc. ) yup that could be a potential confounder too, i actually didnt even think about it, sometimes the most obvious stuff is invisible to the eye. | ||
|
Don_Julio
2220 Posts
| ||
|
Bonham
Canada655 Posts
I'm running the Vancouver half marathon on May 3rd. There's a 100 mile relay team race in Alberta in June that my training group enters two teams for. To make our A team, I'd have to run Vancouver in 1:11 or 1:12. My coach thinks I can do this, but I'm sceptical. My 1:13 from August came as a tuneup for a full marathon six weeks later. I was running pretty high mileage then and had a better base to my training than I do now. On the other hand, I've got three and a half months to get ready, the traction outside will get better in late March, and I've got this new group to train with. L_Master (or anyone else who knows my training a bit and knows running): is it realistic to think about 1:11 in May? I did the math on the pace during a quiet moment at work this afternoon and got kind of wigged out. Advise me! | ||
|
mtmentat
United States142 Posts
On February 14 2015 15:43 Bonham wrote: I'm running the Vancouver half marathon on May 3rd. There's a 100 mile relay team race in Alberta in June that my training group enters two teams for. To make our A team, I'd have to run Vancouver in 1:11 or 1:12. My coach thinks I can do this, but I'm sceptical. My 1:13 from August came as a tuneup for a full marathon six weeks later. I was running pretty high mileage then and had a better base to my training than I do now. On the other hand, I've got three and a half months to get ready, the traction outside will get better in late March, and I've got this new group to train with. L_Master (or anyone else who knows my training a bit and knows running): is it realistic to think about 1:11 in May? I did the math on the pace during a quiet moment at work this afternoon and got kind of wigged out. Advise me! Bonham, I would bet medium amounts of money on you being able to throw down a 1:11:something or faster. On Strava it shows you haven't really interrupted your running since last Summer's feats, you're already increasing base just a bit AND routinely setting PR's for short speedy sections during your workouts. 'All in spite of poor weather in January! I think the team aspect of it is going to drive you on to victory: in training and during the half I am assuming that you'll have a few friends/teammates to work with to get to this pace and have it feel (if not comfortable) manageable. Good luck!! P.S. Who are these fast people you are training with these days? Will some of your potential A-list peers be running Vancouver with you, so you can work with/key off of them? | ||
|
L_Master
United States8017 Posts
On February 14 2015 15:43 Bonham wrote: Go Don_Julio go! Any race after a recovery from injury is a good one. I'm running the Vancouver half marathon on May 3rd. There's a 100 mile relay team race in Alberta in June that my training group enters two teams for. To make our A team, I'd have to run Vancouver in 1:11 or 1:12. My coach thinks I can do this, but I'm sceptical. My 1:13 from August came as a tuneup for a full marathon six weeks later. I was running pretty high mileage then and had a better base to my training than I do now. On the other hand, I've got three and a half months to get ready, the traction outside will get better in late March, and I've got this new group to train with. L_Master (or anyone else who knows my training a bit and knows running): is it realistic to think about 1:11 in May? I did the math on the pace during a quiet moment at work this afternoon and got kind of wigged out. Advise me! I would say that absolutely is a reasonably goal. 90s to knock off at your ability is never trivial, but it's certainly achievable. Obviously the comparable jump is knocking 20s of ones 5k pr over the course of a season, which is quite a common progression for collegiate athletes. It's also worth noting that you were in the midst of M training at the time, something which doesn't usually put you in shape for a PR level half performance and as far as I know that was run with more or less nothing resembling any sort of taper. Your base may have been better, but it's not like you've totally slacked off by any means and you're still getting in plenty of quality workouts. Moreover, by the time you are at at a level of cumulative training of yours the gains to be reapt from serious base training are minimal and long lasting. The fact that you're running 9-10 hours a week and not 11-12 isn't going to hurt you much, especially given the half is a shorter distance. Also, ditto to most of what mtmentat says. Asking for 1:11 just doing base work and some short speed stuff on the track seems like it would be a stretch, but if you put in anywhere near as quality of a training cycle as you did for your marathon buildup I would think you have a very good chance of dropping a 1:11, weather and course variables working in your favor. | ||
|
Bonham
Canada655 Posts
On February 17 2015 08:48 mtmentat wrote: Who are these fast people you are training with these days? Will some of your potential A-list peers be running Vancouver with you, so you can work with/key off of them? It's a track group I found through running buddies who I found through the Internet and running into people at races and things. Mostly younger types, recent grads and some university students, so I'm older than most but not by much. There are something like 30 or 40 people in the group overall, but people are training for everything from the marathon to sprint distances. Most of the long distance guys don't race beyond the 10k, so I've got lots of people to chase when we're on the track, but tend to do better on the tempo, LT, and hill runs. They're a lot of fun to train with, especially now that I'm getting to know everyone a little bit. I think I'm the only one from our group signed up for Vancouver right now, but there will still be a smokin' fast field there. I think the winner usually runs around a 65 or so, so if I can get into the top 10 or even top 15 I'll be very lucky. | ||
|
L_Master
United States8017 Posts
Fun for sure though! | ||
|
Don_Julio
2220 Posts
Had a good week so far and plan to move on to the track next week. | ||
| ||
|
|
Replay Cast
OSC
LiuLi Cup
OSC
SC Evo Complete
OSC
LiuLi Cup
SOOP Global
SHIN vs Creator
ByuN vs herO
Master's Coliseum
Clem vs Oliveira
Oliveira vs Spirit
Clem vs Zoun
SOOP
Dark vs herO
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
