• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

Light jogging may be most optimal for longevity: Too much strenuous jogging may be harmful

exercise longevity bioscience

  • Please log in to reply
14 replies to this topic

#1 johnross47

  • Guest
  • 747 posts
  • 189
  • Location:table 42 in the restaurant at the end of the universe

Posted 05 February 2015 - 09:01 PM


http://www.scienceda...50202160703.htm

 

 

Date:
February 2, 2015
 
Source:
American College of Cardiology
 
Summary:
Jogging may be best in small quantities according to a new study. The study, which tracked hours of jogging, frequency, and the individual's perception of pace, found that over the 12-year study strenuous joggers were as likely to die as sedentary non-joggers, while light joggers had the lowest rates of death.
 
 
150202160703-large.jpg
Joggers (stock image).
Credit: © ChiccoDodiFC / Fotolia
 

Jogging may be best in small quantities, according to a study published today in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Researchers looked at 5,048 healthy participants in the Copenhagen City Heart Study and questioned them about their activity. They identified and tracked 1,098 healthy joggers and 413 healthy but sedentary non-joggers for 12 years.

The study, which tracked hours of jogging, frequency, and the individual's perception of pace, found that over the 12-year study strenuous joggers were as likely to die as sedentary non-joggers, while light joggers had the lowest rates of death.

Jogging from 1 to 2.4 hours per week was associated with the lowest mortality and the optimal frequency of jogging was no more than three times per week. Overall, significantly lower mortality rates were found in those with a slow or moderate jogging pace, while the fast-paced joggers had almost the same mortality risk as the sedentary non-joggers.

Researchers registered 28 deaths among joggers and 128 among sedentary non-joggers. In general, the joggers were younger, had lower blood pressure and body mass index, and had a lower prevalence of smoking and diabetes.

"It is important to emphasize that the pace of the slow joggers corresponds to vigorous exercise and strenuous jogging corresponds to very vigorous exercise," said Peter Schnohr, MD, DMSc, a researcher from the Copenhagen City Heart Study, Frederiksberg Hospital in Copenhagen, Denmark. "When performed for decades, this activity level could pose health risks, especially to the cardiovascular system."

These findings show similar results to past studies where researchers have found that more than moderate exercise may cause more harm than good.

"The U-shaped association between jogging and mortality suggests there may be an upper limit for exercise dosing that is optimal for health benefits," Schnohr said. "If your goal is to decrease risk of death and improve life expectancy, jogging a few times a week at a moderate pace is a good strategy. Anything more is not just unnecessary, it may be harmful."

 

Story Source:

The above story is based on materials provided by American College of Cardiology.Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.

Journal Reference:

  1. Peter Schnohr, James H. O’Keefe, Jacob L. Marott, Peter Lange, Gorm B. Jensen.Dose of Jogging and Long-Term MortalityJournal of the American College of Cardiology, 2015; 65 (5): 411 DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2014.11.023

 


  • Agree x 1

#2 ta5

  • Guest
  • 952 posts
  • 324
  • Location: 

Posted 06 February 2015 - 12:08 PM

Not sure if this will work, but this is the image from the full text:

 

11023_gr1.jpeg


  • dislike x 1

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Click HERE to rent this advertising spot for EXERCISE to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#3 Darryl

  • Guest
  • 650 posts
  • 657
  • Location:New Orleans
  • NO

Posted 06 February 2015 - 12:57 PM

Its unfortunate that they only had ~40 "strenuous joggers". A cohort with only 2 deaths is not great statistical evidence.

 

The larger Aerobics Center Longitudinal Study had tighter confidence intervals, but confirmed that most of the benefit of running/jogging is in the 1st hour, 6 miles, and 1-2 times per week, and 7 mph pace.

 

Lee, D. C., Pate, R. R., Lavie, C. J., Sui, X., Church, T. S., & Blair, S. N. (2014). Leisure-time running reduces all-cause and cardiovascular mortality riskJournal of the American College of Cardiology64(5), 472-481.


  • Agree x 2

#4 Kalliste

  • Guest
  • 1,147 posts
  • 159

Posted 07 February 2015 - 09:59 AM

It would be interesting to get a good answer to this question.

I doubt our ancestors ran all the time. I think a normal day consisted of a lot of slow walking, perhaps some high intensity running when a group of birds far away give away a dead animal carcass of interest or when a sudden danger presents itself.

 

But running for hours on an end every day can't have been real necessity at any time in human history.

 


  • Good Point x 2

#5 aribadabar

  • Guest
  • 860 posts
  • 267
  • Location:Canada
  • NO

Posted 11 February 2015 - 04:42 PM

It would be interesting to get a good answer to this question.

I doubt our ancestors ran all the time. I think a normal day consisted of a lot of slow walking, perhaps some high intensity running when a group of birds far away give away a dead animal carcass of interest or when a sudden danger presents itself.

 

But running for hours on an end every day can't have been real necessity at any time in human history.

 

Why should we compare with our ancient ancestors? They have not been reported to have lived very long lives...

If anything, we should identify and retain their healthier food choices, not their physical activities which were more geared towards short- to medium-term survival, not (outsized) longevity.



#6 johnross47

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 747 posts
  • 189
  • Location:table 42 in the restaurant at the end of the universe

Posted 11 February 2015 - 08:42 PM

From a personal point of view I wonder if the extreme running and training I did when I was younger caused some of my problems now, such as a leaky heart valve. I used to do marathons and long mountain races until my mid-to-late 40s. Even over 50 I was pushing my heart to over 180 bpm in training runs on hills. I don't think our ancestors did that unless there was a lion or a man with a spear behind them.


  • unsure x 1
  • dislike x 1
  • like x 1

#7 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 11 February 2015 - 08:56 PM

Why should we compare with our ancient ancestors? They have not been reported to have lived very long lives...

If anything, we should identify and retain their healthier food choices, not their physical activities which were more geared towards short- to medium-term survival, not (outsized) longevity.

 

Because that's the background that drove the evolution of our genome.  Our genome is likely to be optimized for the diet and behaviors that shaped it.  Even centuries ago, people who managed to avoid death by infection or murder could live quite long lives.  Life expectancy at birth means little to nothing in the context of longevity.  Life expectancy at a more advanced age is far more telling.


  • Good Point x 1

#8 johnross47

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 747 posts
  • 189
  • Location:table 42 in the restaurant at the end of the universe

Posted 13 February 2015 - 06:40 PM

Its unfortunate that they only had ~40 "strenuous joggers". A cohort with only 2 deaths is not great statistical evidence.

The larger Aerobics Center Longitudinal Study had tighter confidence intervals, but confirmed that most of the benefit of running/jogging is in the 1st hour, 6 miles, and 1-2 times per week, and 7 mph pace.

Lee, D. C., Pate, R. R., Lavie, C. J., Sui, X., Church, T. S., & Blair, S. N. (2014). Leisure-time running reduces all-cause and cardiovascular mortality risk. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 64(5), 472-481.


Their cut off point for levels of activity is a bit arbitrary as well. I know a lot of people who exercise and there is far more variation in what they do than is accounted for here.

#9 Kalliste

  • Guest
  • 1,147 posts
  • 159

Posted 14 February 2015 - 10:21 AM

 

It would be interesting to get a good answer to this question.

I doubt our ancestors ran all the time. I think a normal day consisted of a lot of slow walking, perhaps some high intensity running when a group of birds far away give away a dead animal carcass of interest or when a sudden danger presents itself.

 

But running for hours on an end every day can't have been real necessity at any time in human history.

 

Why should we compare with our ancient ancestors? They have not been reported to have lived very long lives...

If anything, we should identify and retain their healthier food choices, not their physical activities which were more geared towards short- to medium-term survival, not (outsized) longevity.

 

 

Because 99 % of the time that humans lived on Earth that was the daily routine. We only spent an evolutionary eye-blink under modern circumstances. Once we can rewrite the genetic code or upload into machine manifestations we can stop bothering with this.


  • Good Point x 1

#10 johnross47

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 747 posts
  • 189
  • Location:table 42 in the restaurant at the end of the universe

Posted 14 February 2015 - 04:30 PM

 

 

It would be interesting to get a good answer to this question.

I doubt our ancestors ran all the time. I think a normal day consisted of a lot of slow walking, perhaps some high intensity running when a group of birds far away give away a dead animal carcass of interest or when a sudden danger presents itself.

 

But running for hours on an end every day can't have been real necessity at any time in human history.

 

Why should we compare with our ancient ancestors? They have not been reported to have lived very long lives...

If anything, we should identify and retain their healthier food choices, not their physical activities which were more geared towards short- to medium-term survival, not (outsized) longevity.

 

 

Because 99 % of the time that humans lived on Earth that was the daily routine. We only spent an evolutionary eye-blink under modern circumstances. Once we can rewrite the genetic code or upload into machine manifestations we can stop bothering with this.

 

Yes. Long after the early stages when life involved chasing antelopes with pointy sticks, or beating other scavengers to the fallen, life was a constant grind of physical activity. Idleness is a very modern phenomenon for almost all of us. (There have of course, been rich parasites for a long time; probably since settled farming began.)



#11 proileri

  • Guest
  • 80 posts
  • 2

Posted 16 February 2015 - 10:59 PM

In the latest article, seems that there was a jump in hazard ratio at values more than 2,5h/week, more often than 3 times per week, and at 'fast' pace (vs. light/moderate), most significant of those factors being the 'fast' pace. In comparison, most favourable values were at 1-2,5 h per week, 2-3 times per week and at moderate pace (vs. slow or fast). 

 

When it comes to "too much strenuous jogging", the group most at risk seem to be the hardest training 4% of all joggers, which equals the top 12,5% of the 'serious runners' (moderate+strenuous groups). I agree that the group cut off happens quite early, I know that the serious marathon enthusiasts can easily log a lot more than 4 hours per week - "advanced marathon training plans" go up to 50-60 miles per week. It's a shame they didn't include average minutes per group.   

 

However, these are nice studies in the sense that they suggest that you don't actually have to do tons of cardiovascular exercise to reap the benefits - just 1h per week is a huge improvement over the sedimentary group, and your returns actually diminish after that.

 

 


Edited by proileri, 16 February 2015 - 11:10 PM.


#12 johnross47

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 747 posts
  • 189
  • Location:table 42 in the restaurant at the end of the universe

Posted 17 February 2015 - 07:58 PM

http://heart.bmj.com...jnl-2013-305304

 

 

logo.gif
Search this site

Advanced search

An international peer-reviewed journal for health professionals and researchers in all areas of cardiology
rss-icon.gif
Heart doi:10.1136/heartjnl-2013-305304
  • Arrhythmias and sudden death
  • Original article
Atrial fibrillation is associated with different levels of physical activity levels at different ages in men press-release.gif
  1. Nikola Drca1
  2. Alicja Wolk2
  3. Mats Jensen-Urstad1
  4. Susanna C Larsson2

+Author Affiliations

  1. 1Department of Cardiology at the Karolinska Institute, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
  2. 2Division of Nutritional Epidemiology, The National Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden
  1. Correspondence toDr Nikola Drca, Department of Cardiology at the Karolinska Institute, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm SE-141 86, Sweden; nikola.drca@karolinska.se
  • Received 25 November 2013
  • Revised 4 February 2014
  • Accepted 25 February 2014
  • Published Online First 14 May 2014
Abstract

Objective This study examines the influence of physical activity at different ages and of different types, on the risk of developing atrial fibrillation (AF) in a large cohort of Swedish men.

Methods Information about physical activity was obtained from 44 410 AF-free men, aged 45–79 years (mean age=60), who had completed a self-administered questionnaire at baseline in 1997. Participants reported retrospectively their time spent on leisure-time exercise and on walking or bicycling throughout their lifetime (at 15, 30 and 50 years of age, and at baseline (mean age=60)). Participants were followed-up in the Swedish National Inpatient Register for ascertainment of AF. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to estimate relative risks (RR) with 95% CIs, adjusted for potential confounders.

Results During a median follow-up of 12 years, 4568 cases of AF were diagnosed. We observed a RR of 1.19 (95% CI 1.05 to 1.36) of developing AF in men who at the age of 30 years had exercised for >5 h/week compared with <1 h/week. The risk was even higher (RR 1.49, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.95) among the men who exercised >5 h/week at age 30 and quit exercising later in life (<1 h/week at baseline). Walking/bicycling at baseline was inversely associated with risk of AF (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.97 for >1 h/day vs almost never) and the association was similar after excluding men with previous coronary heart disease or heart failure at baseline (corresponding RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.998).

Conclusions Leisure-time exercise at younger age is associated with an increased risk of AF, whereas walking/bicycling at older age is associated with a decreased risk.

 


  • Informative x 1

#13 proileri

  • Guest
  • 80 posts
  • 2

Posted 18 February 2015 - 12:08 PM

Indeed it seems that repetitive heavy aerobic exercise might cause some negative changes in the heart. 

 

A 2012 paper:

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm....es/PMC3538475/ 

A routine of regular exercise is highly effective for prevention and treatment of many common chronic diseases and improves cardiovascular (CV) health and longevity. However, long-term excessive endurance exercise may induce pathologic structural remodeling of the heart and large arteries. Emerging data suggest that chronic training for and competing in extreme endurance events such as marathons, ultramarathons, ironman distance triathlons, and very long distance bicycle races, can cause transient acute volume overload of the atria and right ventricle, with transient reductions in right ventricular ejection fraction and elevations of cardiac biomarkers, all of which return to normal within 1 week. Over months to years of repetitive injury, this process, in some individuals, may lead to patchy myocardial fibrosis, particularly in the atria, interventricular septum, and right ventricle, creating a substrate for atrial and ventricular arrhythmias. Additionally, long-term excessive sustained exercise may be associated with coronary artery calcification, diastolic dysfunction, and large-artery wall stiffening. However, this concept is still hypothetical and there is some inconsistency in the reported findings. Furthermore, lifelong vigorous exercisers generally have low mortality rates and excellent functional capacity. Notwithstanding, the hypothesis that long-term excessive endurance exercise may induce adverse CV remodeling warrants further investigation to identify at-risk individuals and formulate physical fitness regimens for conferring optimal CV health and longevity.

 

 

 

 

 

John, to make it easier to read, may I suggest that you copy and paste only the abstract text area? Copying the whole page tends to make post structures weird. 


Edited by proileri, 18 February 2015 - 12:10 PM.


#14 johnross47

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 747 posts
  • 189
  • Location:table 42 in the restaurant at the end of the universe

Posted 02 March 2015 - 04:44 PM

alyzing data from 58,000 heart stress tests, Johns Hopkins cardiologists report they have developed a formula that estimates one's risk of dying over a decade based on a person's ability to exercise on a treadmill at an increasing speed and incline.

Several exercise-based risk scoring systems already in use are designed to measure short-term risk of dying but do so strictly among patients with established heart disease or overt signs of cardiovascular trouble. Such scores factor in multiple variables and incorporate results from additional tests, including electrocardiograms (EKGs).

By contrast, the new algorithm, dubbed the FIT Treadmill Score and described in the March 2 issue of the journal Mayo Clinic Proceedings, can gauge long-term death risk in anyone based solely on treadmill exercise performance. The score, the research team says, could yield valuable clues about a person's health and should be calculated for the millions of patients who undergo cardiac stress testing in the United States each year.

"The notion that being in good physical shape portends lower death risk is by no means new, but we wanted to quantify that risk precisely by age, gender and fitness level, and do so with an elegantly simple equation that requires no additional fancy testing beyond the standard stress test," says lead investigator Haitham Ahmed, M.D. M.P.H., a cardiology fellow at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.

In addition to age and gender, the formula factors in peak heart rate reached during intense exercise and the ability to tolerate physical exertion as measured by so-called metabolic equivalents, or METs, a gauge of how much energy the body expends during exercise. More vigorous activities require higher energy output (higher METs), better exercise tolerance and higher fitness level. An activity such as slow walking equals two METs, compared with eight for running.

"The FIT Treadmill Score is easy to calculate and costs nothing beyond the cost of the treadmill test itself," says senior study author Michael Blaha, M.D., M.P.H., director of clinical research at the Johns Hopkins Ciccarone Center for the Prevention of Heart Disease. "We hope the score will become a mainstay in cardiologists and primary clinicians' offices as a meaningful way to illustrate risk among those who undergo cardiac stress testing and propel people with poor results to become more physically active."

Exercise stress tests -- commonly used to determine who needs invasive cardiac testing and inform treatment decisions -- measure how well the heart and lungs respond to physical exertion while a person is walking on a treadmill at progressively higher speed and elevation. The test is stopped once a person reaches the point of exhaustion or develops chest pain, dizziness or heart rhythm abnormalities. Those who have abnormal findings on their EKG tracings during exercise or who develop symptoms suggestive of abnormal heart strain during the test are referred for angiography, an invasive procedure to examine the interior of the heart's main blood vessels. Those who have normal EKG readings and no alarming symptoms while exercising are said to have "normal" results and typically do not require further testing.

However, the researchers say, the new data show varying degrees of fitness among those with "normal" stress test results that reveal telling clues about cardiac and respiratory fitness and, therefore, overall death risk over time.

"Stress test results are currently interpreted as 'either/or' but we know that heart disease is a spectrum disorder," Ahmed says. "We believe that our FIT score reflects the complex nature of cardiovascular health and can offer important insights to both clinicians and patients."

For the study, the team analyzed information on 58,020 people, ages 18 to 96, from Detroit, Michigan, who underwent standard exercise stress tests between 1991 and 2009 for evaluation of chest pain, shortness of breath, fainting or dizziness. The researchers then tracked how many of the participants within each fitness level died from any cause over the next decade. The results reveal that among people of the same age and gender, fitness level as measured by METs and peak heart rate reached during exercise were the greatest indicators of death risk. Fitness level was the single most powerful predictor of death and survival, even after researchers accounted for other important variables such as diabetes and family history of premature death -- a finding that underscores the profound importance of heart and lung fitness, the investigators say.

Scores ranged from negative 200 to positive 200, with those above 0 having lower mortality risk and those in the negative range facing highest risk of dying. Patients who scored 100 or higher had a 2 percent risk of dying over the next 10 years, while those with scores between 0 and 100 faced a 3 percent death risk over the next decade. In other words, two of 100 people of the same age and gender with a score of 100 or higher would die over the next decade, compared with three out of 100 for those with a fitness score between 0 and 100. People with scores between negative 100 and 0 had an 11 percent risk of dying in the next 10 years, while those with scores lower than negative 100 had a 38 percent risk of dying.

Published along with the study is a chart depicting death risk by age, gender and fitness level, which can be printed on placards for use in physician's offices to guide clinical advice.

For example, a 45-year-old woman with a fitness score in the bottom fifth percentile is estimated to have a 38 percent risk of dying over the next decade, compared with 2 percent for a 45-year-old woman with a top fitness score.

"We hope that illustrating risk that way could become a catalyst for patients to increase exercise and improve cardiovascular fitness," Blaha says.

Other Johns Hopkins investigators involved in the research included John McEvoy, Roger Blumenthal and Steven Jones.

Researchers from other institutions included Mouaz Al-Mallah, Clinton Brawner and Steven Keteyian of Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit and Khurram Nasir of Baptist Health Medical Group in Miami Beach, Fla.



sponsored ad

  • Advert
Click HERE to rent this advertising spot for EXERCISE to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#15 proileri

  • Guest
  • 80 posts
  • 2

Posted 04 March 2015 - 07:59 AM

Increased cardiovascular disease mortality associated with excessive exercise in heart attack survivors.

A total of 526 deaths occurred during an average prospective follow-up of 10.4 years, 376 (71.5%) of which were related to cardiovascular disease (CVD) (International Statistical Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision codes I00-I99). CVD-related mortality compared with the lowest exercise group decreased by 21% for 1.07 to 1.8 MET-h/d of running or walking (P=.11), 24% for 1.8 to 3.6 MET-h/d (P=.04), 50% for 3.6 to 5.4 MET-h/d (P=.001), and 63% for 5.4 to 7.2 MET-h/d (P<.001) but decreased only 12% for ≥7.2 MET-h/d (P=.68). These data represent a 15% average risk reduction per MET-h/d for CVD-related mortality through 7.2 MET-h/d (P<.001) and a 2.6-fold risk increase above 7.2 MET-h/d (P=.009). Relative to the risk reduction at 7.2 MET-h/d, the risk for ≥7.2 MET-h/d increased 3.2-fold (P=.006) for all ischemic heart disease (IHD)-related mortalities but was not significantly increased for non-IHD-CVD, arrhythmia-related CVD, or non-CVD-related mortalities.

CONCLUSION:

Running or walking decreases CVD mortality risk progressively at most levels of exercise in patients after a cardiac event, but the benefit of exercise on CVD mortality and IHD deaths is attenuated at the highest levels of exercise (running: above 7.1 km/d or walking briskly: 10.7 km/d).

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/25128072

 

 

Looks like about 1 h / day of moderate exercise is the optimal level. About +1/4th of your daily BMR in kcal, if I calculate it correctly.







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: exercise, longevity, bioscience

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users