Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Chronic Cardio Increases Life Expectancy

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Chronic Cardio Increases Life Expectancy

    Mark,

    I loved your book, and I think you're doing a great job. Your take on chronic cardio has always left me scratching my head, though. I'm curious what research you have found that suggests this is bad for you?

    Also, how do you reconcile this study (link below) that showed that 834 former Tour de France cyclists (clearly they were in the chronic cardio crowd) outlived their peers by 8 years on average!!

    Thanks!

    Increased average longevity among the "Tour... [Int J Sports Med. 2011] - PubMed - NCBI
    Last edited by G-Man; 12-09-2011, 06:07 PM.

  • #2
    It wasn't chronic cardio that made the difference. It was the grain-free diet.

    ... wait a minute.
    Yeah, my grammar sucks. Deal with it!

    Comment


    • #3
      No...this is comparing TdF athletes with the average person of the same era. They all presumably ate the same diet.

      Comment


      • #4
        The essential flaw in the conclusion is that no account can be taken for the differences in genetics between the compared groups. Elite athletes will on average have a genetic disposition to athletic success, which requires good health. At better comparison would be between non-elite practitioners of chronic cardio and the general population.

        Another study for the journal of pointless studies
        Four years Primal with influences from Jaminet & Shanahan and a focus on being anti-inflammatory. Using Primal to treat CVD and prevent stents from blocking free of drugs.

        Eat creatures nose-to-tail (animal, fowl, fish, crustacea, molluscs), a large variety of vegetables (raw, cooked and fermented, including safe starches), dairy (cheese & yoghurt), occasional fruit, cocoa, turmeric & red wine

        Comment


        • #5
          How's this study then?

          Chakravart EF et al, Reduced disability and mortality among aging runners: a 21-year longitudinal study. Arch Intern MEd. 2008 Aug 11;168(15):1683-46. They compared 538 runners to healthy control group with an average age of 50. After adjusting for other risk factors they concluded that "Vigorous exercise (running) at middle and older ages is associated with reduced disability in later life and a notable survival advantage.

          Comment


          • #6
            Was the control group healthy yet sedentary?
            You lousy kids! Get off my savannah!

            Comment


            • #7
              Did they confirm no dietary differences between the two groups? These observational studies merely establish a correlation. They can't establish cause
              Four years Primal with influences from Jaminet & Shanahan and a focus on being anti-inflammatory. Using Primal to treat CVD and prevent stents from blocking free of drugs.

              Eat creatures nose-to-tail (animal, fowl, fish, crustacea, molluscs), a large variety of vegetables (raw, cooked and fermented, including safe starches), dairy (cheese & yoghurt), occasional fruit, cocoa, turmeric & red wine

              Comment


              • #8
                There are no studies in the world that can definitively determine causation.

                But, my original question remains...what studies are there that show that chronic cardio is bad? We now have 2 that show some evidence that it could be correlated with being good... (though causation is and will remain inconclusive)

                Comment


                • #9
                  I would be curious though to see a study that compares 'vigorous exercise' (running) to just being generally active/hiking/lifting weights/etc. Because I have long held that the use it or lose it theory is VERY true to aging people and animals. It seem like when I see older folks that still get out and DO stuff they stay fit and healthy enough to go do things. BBut if they retire and plop down on their butts and quit doing things the all of a sudden they get old and decrepit and have less reserves of health and fitness. So then they get sick or fall down and break a hip and then they die. But I also know some 80+ year old folks who eat a 'healthy' diet (not primal but not SAD) and go out hiking (and I live in a place where hiking trails start at 8000-9000 feet and go steeply up from there) and do stuff and they are in great shape and I only hope I'm that healthy at that age!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Exactly. The study does not quantify how much running. And I'll bet it isn't chronic cardio.
                    There are many examples of otherwise healthy individuals dropping dead during marathons and triathalons. If you watch the news or set your google alerts (or read Art Devaney's blog), it's enough to scare me away from marathons.

                    " BBut if they retire and plop down on their butts and quit doing things the all of a sudden they get old and decrepit and have less reserves of health and fitness. So then they get sick or fall down and break a hip and then they die."

                    Well said. I work for a cardiac speacialy home health agency and ofter wonder just how many of our (obese, diabetic, congestive heart failure etc etc) patients would have eaten paleo style and keeping fit by walking and "getting under a bar" (weightlifting). And I wonder further how many of them could behelped by starting even at the stage they are at. But the docs all prescribe low fat, low salt, low cholesterol diets. Because that's the standard.

                    It's like I heard in nursing school "move or die". And if there's anything that keeps me motivated, it's being exposed to our patients every day.

                    Oh, and the average lifespan after a broken hip in the elderly? 18 months.
                    Last edited by Dave RN; 12-09-2011, 07:52 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      There are, however, a fair number of studies that very definitively link muscle mass and ability to balance with good health and resistance to injury in old age. I'm guessing that old people who can run have higher muscle mass and better ability to balance than non-running peers, leading to the correlation.

                      Sport Injuries and Injury Statistics

                      The Analysis of Injury Rates in Running Condensed Science

                      Why do you expect us to do your homework for you?

                      But those links were just about injury rates. Try a Google search for "running inflammation" and start reading. Oh wait, here's the link: running inflammation - Google Search
                      or this one: cause of running inflammation - Google Search

                      How about increased cortisol levels? cortisol and running - Google Search Now, increased cortisol is not necessarily a bad thing as a response to a stressor, but when your cortisol is elevated for long periods of time it starts to wear on your body.

                      Really, how hard have you actually been looking for this information? You sound like you are trying to be smug- "Neener neener, you can't prove it!". If you aren't satisfied with the ideas contained in the Primal Blueprint and you can't be arsed to search Google a little bit and you aren't willing to try an n=1 experiment, why am I wasting my time explaining this?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by jfreaksho View Post
                        Really, how hard have you actually been looking for this information? You sound like you are trying to be smug- "Neener neener, you can't prove it!". If you aren't satisfied with the ideas contained in the Primal Blueprint and you can't be arsed to search Google a little bit and you aren't willing to try an n=1 experiment, why am I wasting my time explaining this?
                        Actually, it looks like he did Google it, and it came up with scientific peer-reviewed journals that tells a different story about chronic cardio. Hate the scientists and their research if you must, but don't hate the original poster for being a sceptic. That's just, you know, cult behaviour.
                        Yeah, my grammar sucks. Deal with it!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Doesn't these studies just show that a little chronic cardio is better than no training at all? Makes sense to me.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Noctiluca View Post
                            I would be curious though to see a study that compares 'vigorous exercise' (running) to just being generally active/hiking/lifting weights/etc. Because I have long held that the use it or lose it theory is VERY true to aging people and animals. It seem like when I see older folks that still get out and DO stuff they stay fit and healthy enough to go do things. BBut if they retire and plop down on their butts and quit doing things the all of a sudden they get old and decrepit and have less reserves of health and fitness. So then they get sick or fall down and break a hip and then they die. But I also know some 80+ year old folks who eat a 'healthy' diet (not primal but not SAD) and go out hiking (and I live in a place where hiking trails start at 8000-9000 feet and go steeply up from there) and do stuff and they are in great shape and I only hope I'm that healthy at that age!
                            I agree with this. It would be a challenging study, but comparing Strength training versus moderate endurance training versus heavy endurance traning versus any other training regimens would be interesting. Most modes of exercise will have positive outcomes when compared with the general population(which is way too sedentary, on average). I think the more interesting questions of "what is the optimal balance of strength vs. cardio?", and "what is the optimal mix of intensities?" are ones that would be particularly useful - but unfortuantely quite difficult to quantify in longer-term studies.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I clearly am doing lots of homework here. I've read Mark's books (you should see all the underlining!!) and I've read a couple of studies that seem to indicate chronic cardio being linked to a longer life! So, I'm still skeptical on Mark's take on this topic.

                              I appreciate your research, thanks. Actually, your posts are helping me clarify my question. Mark references studies that say that CC (can we call Chronic Cardio CC?) increases inflammation. This seems an obvious (and not necessarily bad thing) to me...

                              When you do 300 pushups (not in a row ), what happens for the next 72 hours...you have inflammation in your pecs! (at least I do). When you go for a 2 hour run...wouldn't it make sense that there is inflammation in your heart/cardiovascular system (heart is a muscle) for 72 hours? But doesn't it make your heart stronger...just like your pecs?

                              So, let me clarify...what I'm really looking for are studies that suggest that CC leads to shorter life, because what I really care about is longevity...and so far the research I've found suggest CC is a benefit to longevity.

                              P.S. not trying to be smug. I'm sharing information and hoping others share theirs. It's an internet forum after all
                              Last edited by G-Man; 12-10-2011, 10:07 AM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X