Young vs the old

MonkeyMan said:
There are negative health implications from exercising for some, ask plenty of runners when they have shot knees by their mid 50's. Not that crazy a statement, still better than doing no exercise though
Click to expand...

Exactly, I'm surprised they couldn't grasp that considering the wording of the post.

They must be young. :p
 
The same proportion in either camp are stupid or clever or geniuses.

Education has not improved, it is just different. I may not get GCSE maths (although I should as a recently retired engineer), equally a person who has grade A GCSE maths may fail my O level paper at less than grade 2 (my grade).

Life is also different, that is the same for any two generation gap. My father grew up after WW2, my grandfather before WW1. I grew up in the 60,s and 70's.

In my opinion people are more stressed nowadays which could lead to obsession. Cameras and computers observing all you do, driving, walking, shopping. I am glad I am in my generation.
 
There aren't two types of people.
The old used to be young.
The young will grow old.

Insulting the other is the same as insulting your past or future self.

Past me was stupid, and future me will be stupid too.
 
FrenchTart said:
Negative health implications from exercising?...
Click to expand...

yeah does seem a bit random.. people in general in the UK could do with more exercise tbh... it would be better for society/the NHS etc..

I guess people taking it to extremes aren't as healthy as they'd like to think, very keen cyclists and people involved in other endurance sports can put themselves at much greater risk of heart arrhythmias etc.. some body builder types don't do their heart much good either especially if they're putting a load of dodgy supplements into their system in order to take things even further.
 
Yep, I’ve caused arrhythmias with exercise in my heart which is structurally sound and multiple ECG’s haven’t detected anything underlying like Wolff-Parkinson-White or brugada syndrome.
 
MonkeyMan said:
There are negative health implications from exercising for some, ask plenty of runners when they have shot knees by their mid 50's. Not that crazy a statement, still better than doing no exercise though
Click to expand...
The runners I know in their 50s are running 100mile Ultras.

Humans are evolved to run. There really are no health implications.
 
D.P. said:
The runners I know in their 50s are running 100mile Ultras.

Humans are evolved to run. There really are no health implications.
Click to expand...

that isn't true, especially in the case of endurance events, they do put themselves at greater risk of heart problems... though perhaps the ex-runners who aren't running in their 50s are more informative here... and the outcomes in their 60s and 70s of those you currently know in their 50s
 
Comes down to all sorts really, genetics, running gait, joint composition, diet and inflammation.

You can definitely screw your knees up, most runners you know are obviously still going to be running if they have little to no issues :p

Not all humans are built for endurance running either, there’s a reason you don’t get many man mountain Serbs competing in long distance events.
 
dowie said:
that isn't true, especially in the case of endurance events, they do put themselves at greater risk of heart problems... though perhaps the ex-runners who aren't running in their 50s are more informative here... and the outcomes in their 60s and 70s of those you currently know in their 50s
Click to expand...


There has been extensive research in to this and it simply isn't true outside some edge cases. If you aren't a pro working out 30-40 hours a week AND have underlying congenital issues then there is absolutely nothing to worry about.

There are plenty of scare stories surrounding runnings AND endurance sports propagated by the lazy without any scientific evidence. And I'm well aware of the populist pseudoscience that appears on Facebook ever few years.
 
D.P. said:
There has been extensive research in to this and it simply isn't true outside some edge cases. If you aren't a pro working out 30-40 hours a week AND have underlying congenital issues then there is absolutely nothing to worry about.

There are plenty of scare stories surrounding runnings AND endurance sports propagated by the lazy without any scientific evidence. And I'm well aware of the populist pseudoscience that appears on Facebook ever few years.
Click to expand...

OK how about a sample of 52,000 cross country skiers studied over decades?

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/806552

The idea that long-term endurance exercise increases the risk for arrhythmia should no longer be considered counterintuitive. The list of published studies confirming this association is long, and this week, it got a little longer.

In a study published in the European Heart Journal,[1] researchers from Sweden report a cohort study of more than 52,000 cross-country skiers followed for decades. These were no ordinary weekend athletes; the analyzed group included finishers of the Vasaloppet,[2] a grueling 90-km (55-mile) cross-country ski race. Reliable sources tell me that cross-country skiing over that distance is the Nordic equivalent of an Ironman or double marathon. Yikes.

The hypothesis of the study held that both the number of races completed (exercise dosage) and finishing time (exercise intensity) would be associated with arrhythmia. (I would have bet my new mountain bike on that one.)

The Results
The average age of athletes at study entry was 38 years, while the average age at first arrhythmia was 57 years. Of the 52,000 athletes studied, there were 919 inpatient visits for any arrhythmia during a mean follow-up of 9.7 years.


The most common diagnosis was atrial fibrillation (n = 681), followed by bradyarrhythmia (n = 119), including 34 athletes with complete atrioventricular (AV) block. Typical supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) occurred in 105 athletes, and premature ventricular contractions (PVCs)/ventricular tachycardia (VT) in 90. Only patients with symptoms were counted.

Athletes who completed the highest number of races had the highest risk for arrhythmia. Arrhythmia risk increased on a continuum by races completed, up to 30% higher for 5-time finishers. Exercise intensity mattered too: Those who had the fastest finishing times had the higher risk for arrhythmia.
Click to expand...

I suspect that your 100 mile ultra runners are also increasing their risk of arrhythmias too and ditto to keen cyclists.
 
Nope
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/05/160531104518.htm

But we found no evidence of lasting damage, pathological enlargement or functional impairment of either the right or left ventricle in the athletes who had been doing long-term intensive elite-level endurance exercise.


Our cohort of elite master athletes therefore represents our best means of investigating the long-term impact of years of competition-level endurance sport,' explains Jürgen Scharhag.
Click to expand...



I think part of the confusion comes about because if someone is very well trained then they can experience premature ventricular contraction (PVC), which might feel.like the heart skipping a beat but is entirely natural and harmless, in the same way when you wake up in the morning after a hard workout the day before you get muscle stiffness.


Edit: reading the above article it misrepresents PVC as an important arrhythmia.

The simple fact is endurance athletes have significantly higher life expectancies, significantly lower health risks and significantly higher quality of life indexes.
 
FrenchTart said:
Negative health implications from exercising?...
Click to expand...

yes overexcercising is as bad as doing nothing.i used to do lots of atheletics and running to high standard and gym.now as i age leg pains are not great.:p

if you were meant to run all day we would have four legs ;)
 
D.P. said:
Edit: reading the above article it misrepresents PVC as an important arrhythmia.

The simple fact is endurance athletes have significantly higher life expectancies, significantly lower health risks and significantly higher quality of life indexes.
Click to expand...

The biggest risk is AF.. fact is the studies show the link so trying to deny it is a bit silly. You then link to some study about damage to the heart when the point being made previously was about arrhythmias.
 
dowie said:
The biggest risk is AF.. fact is the studies show the link so trying to deny it is a bit silly. You then link to some study about damage to the heart when the point being made previously was about arrhythmias.
Click to expand...

This is a classic of misconstruing correlation and erroneous inference. Certain types of arrhythmia are more common but these are a natural side effect of training. Drinking coffee or alcohol, light exercise or even sex can lead to the same arrhythmia. This is only a problem if you already have some kind of underlying heart condition, where the arrhythmia is a result of the heart condition and not the exercise regime.
Which is why there is zero proof of actual health problems, and endurance athletes are several deviations healthier than the average. Endurance athletes have a lower risk of heart problems, despite a slight increase in some arrhythmia, because the 2 just aren't linked.

Furthermore, most amateurs could only dream of training 30-40 hours a week. even a dedicated runner is unlikely to consistently train over 12 hpurs
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom