4 ms·

This story is making the rounds, but as presented, it doesn't distinguish cause and correlation. Maybe the people who enjoy running are the ones who were fit in

by 13ren 18y ago

This story is making the rounds, but as presented, it doesn't distinguish cause and correlation. Maybe the people who enjoy running are the ones who were fit in the first place? eg. if you have bad joints and a bad heart, you probably won't enjoy running much. Therefore, runners are healthier... Of course, the causation theory is very appealing, and I personally find I feel much better, and have greater intelligence, when I exercise aerobically. I definitely intend to keep at it... and suggest you do too. :-) EDIT from page 2: "People who took up exercise when they were older also improved their health" - that suggests causation, but it also depends on who took up the exercise. Perhaps the people who responded well to it.

ajross 18y ago
The problems are a little more subtle than that, I think. The study was of middle aged runners and non-runners over a 20 year period. It didn't include any elderly, apparently. So the anti-correlation here is between death in middle age (what most people would term "dying early") and running. There is no correlation shown for the lede of the article, which talks about living a "long life". There's evidence that runners don't die young as often, not that they live longer. As far as causation goes, I don't have too much of a problem with that. The clear hypothesis would be that runners have stronger hearts more capable of dealing successfully with degenerative conditions like heart disease, and therefore they're less likely to die of a very common killer of the middle aged. The hypothesis isn't proven by the data at hand, but is at least very strongly suggested.
- sysop073 18y ago
  This reminds me of: Dr. House: "Excuse me miss, do you have cancer?" [Woman shakes her head] Dr. House: "Wow. Mango juice prevents cancer"
te_platt 18y ago
You are right to not read too much into this study but that doesn't mean it is not worthwhile. An epidemiological study - especially this one with a small sample size and based on self reporting - cannot prove causation. Still, the study should be enough to justify a closer look.
cdr 18y ago
My current understanding is that running is way better than no exercise, but that other forms of exercise are quite likely better for your long-term health because of the impact stress running puts on your knees, feet, etc.
- wallflower 18y ago
  One of the best forms of exercise is swimming. Near zero-impact on joints. For those of you who think they can't learn how to swim, check out Total Immersion's zen-like, go with the water method. (http://www.totalimmersion.net http://www.totalimmersion.net). I learned how to swim freestyle through their video. Most swimming courses emphasize using your arms like paddle wheels to plow through the water, while TI emphasizes swimming much like fish and advanced swimmers do, by propelling from the core. TI is harder to learn but more efficient once you learn by progressing through their balance and core propulsion drills.
  - aardvarkious 18y ago
    Swimming also puts you in better shape IMO. I used to run plenty, but my knees started hurting, so now I only run if I am actually playing a sport. I took up swimming for my exercise. I'd never taken a swimming lesson in my life, but I just went to the pool and started doing it. A few times I asked the life guards for some tips, and I also chatted up some of the good swimmers and got tips from them. I went for a 2k run the other day just to see what it was like after swimming but not running for a couple months. It was about the same as when I ran everyday (maybe even a bit easier), and I have a slightly more toned upper body now.
    - eru 18y ago
      You mean you did not know how to swim before? Or that you did not know how to swim efficently?
      - aardvarkious 18y ago
        I didn't know how to swim efficiently: if you threw me in the pool, I wouldn't drown, and I could maybe do one continuous lap (50m) if I pushed myself.
rickd 18y ago
This is a very good point. It reminds me of a study I saw years ago that said runners generally also had better dental health. The point illustrated is that runners were more likely to floss! So it wasn't running that directly caused their better dental health, but you could say that it running and flossing have some correlation. I'll try to dig up a link.
- rickd 18y ago
  Well, I couldn't find that link... but I did discover something equally interesting along the way: check out http://www.centerforintegrativedentistry.com/gum_disease/index.html http://www.centerforintegrativedentistry.com/gum_disease/ind... and scroll down to the "oxygenation" section. It seems that the more exercise you get, the more oxygenated your gums are, and (gum disease) germs survive better the less oxygen there is- so marathon runners have an extremely low incidence rate of gum disease! wow.
- 13ren 18y ago
  Intriguingly, bike shops do not sell long sleeve tops (that protect you from sunburn) - but surf shops do. Cyclists have told me that they don't get sunburn - even when cycling in the sun all day. But surfers do get sunburn. I'm not sure what to make of this. I'm theorizing that cyclists are somehow protected by constant movement (unlike surfers waiting for a wave). Perhaps the airflow is protective? Or perhaps it makes cyclists aerobically fitter, and this makes their skin more resistant to sunburn (and therefore skin cancer).
  - zenlinux 18y ago
    I'm an avid cyclist and I can sunburn easily if I don't use sunblock. I would say that surfers are more likely to burn (and do so more quickly) simply because beaches don't have much shade. While riding a bicycle you can often duck into tree shadows during a ride. Some cyclists do use long-sleeve summer jerseys, but they're in the minority. Short sleeve and sleeveless jerseys are more popular because they are cooler.
  - Shooter 18y ago
    The explanation is much simpler: You burn much faster on or in the water because of the reflections from the water...you're basically sitting on a giant mirror. I fried myself once when I was sailing, and I had the worst burns on the bottom parts of my body (bottom of chin, bottom of knees, basically anywhere the rays hit me after bouncing off the water.)
deleted 18y ago
[deleted]
nraynaud 18y ago
normally, we do a regression on this behavior alone to conclude this. This is epidemiology research, it singles one factor.

by 13ren 18y ago

ajross 18y ago

The problems are a little more subtle than that, I think. The study was of middle aged runners and non-runners over a 20 year period. It didn't include any elderly, apparently. So the anti-correlation here is between death in middle age (what most people would term "dying early") and running. There is no correlation shown for the lede of the article, which talks about living a "long life". There's evidence that runners don't die young as often, not that they live longer. As far as causation goes, I don't have too much of a problem with that. The clear hypothesis would be that runners have stronger hearts more capable of dealing successfully with degenerative conditions like heart disease, and therefore they're less likely to die of a very common killer of the middle aged. The hypothesis isn't proven by the data at hand, but is at least very strongly suggested.

sysop073 18y ago
This reminds me of: Dr. House: "Excuse me miss, do you have cancer?" [Woman shakes her head] Dr. House: "Wow. Mango juice prevents cancer"

te_platt 18y ago

You are right to not read too much into this study but that doesn't mean it is not worthwhile. An epidemiological study - especially this one with a small sample size and based on self reporting - cannot prove causation. Still, the study should be enough to justify a closer look.

cdr 18y ago

My current understanding is that running is way better than no exercise, but that other forms of exercise are quite likely better for your long-term health because of the impact stress running puts on your knees, feet, etc.

wallflower 18y ago
One of the best forms of exercise is swimming. Near zero-impact on joints. For those of you who think they can't learn how to swim, check out Total Immersion's zen-like, go with the water method. (http://www.totalimmersion.net http://www.totalimmersion.net). I learned how to swim freestyle through their video. Most swimming courses emphasize using your arms like paddle wheels to plow through the water, while TI emphasizes swimming much like fish and advanced swimmers do, by propelling from the core. TI is harder to learn but more efficient once you learn by progressing through their balance and core propulsion drills.
- aardvarkious 18y ago
  Swimming also puts you in better shape IMO. I used to run plenty, but my knees started hurting, so now I only run if I am actually playing a sport. I took up swimming for my exercise. I'd never taken a swimming lesson in my life, but I just went to the pool and started doing it. A few times I asked the life guards for some tips, and I also chatted up some of the good swimmers and got tips from them. I went for a 2k run the other day just to see what it was like after swimming but not running for a couple months. It was about the same as when I ran everyday (maybe even a bit easier), and I have a slightly more toned upper body now.
  - eru 18y ago
    You mean you did not know how to swim before? Or that you did not know how to swim efficently?
    - aardvarkious 18y ago
      I didn't know how to swim efficiently: if you threw me in the pool, I wouldn't drown, and I could maybe do one continuous lap (50m) if I pushed myself.

rickd 18y ago

This is a very good point. It reminds me of a study I saw years ago that said runners generally also had better dental health. The point illustrated is that runners were more likely to floss! So it wasn't running that directly caused their better dental health, but you could say that it running and flossing have some correlation. I'll try to dig up a link.

rickd 18y ago
Well, I couldn't find that link... but I did discover something equally interesting along the way: check out http://www.centerforintegrativedentistry.com/gum_disease/index.html http://www.centerforintegrativedentistry.com/gum_disease/ind... and scroll down to the "oxygenation" section. It seems that the more exercise you get, the more oxygenated your gums are, and (gum disease) germs survive better the less oxygen there is- so marathon runners have an extremely low incidence rate of gum disease! wow.
13ren 18y ago
Intriguingly, bike shops do not sell long sleeve tops (that protect you from sunburn) - but surf shops do. Cyclists have told me that they don't get sunburn - even when cycling in the sun all day. But surfers do get sunburn. I'm not sure what to make of this. I'm theorizing that cyclists are somehow protected by constant movement (unlike surfers waiting for a wave). Perhaps the airflow is protective? Or perhaps it makes cyclists aerobically fitter, and this makes their skin more resistant to sunburn (and therefore skin cancer).
- zenlinux 18y ago
  I'm an avid cyclist and I can sunburn easily if I don't use sunblock. I would say that surfers are more likely to burn (and do so more quickly) simply because beaches don't have much shade. While riding a bicycle you can often duck into tree shadows during a ride. Some cyclists do use long-sleeve summer jerseys, but they're in the minority. Short sleeve and sleeveless jerseys are more popular because they are cooler.
- Shooter 18y ago
  The explanation is much simpler: You burn much faster on or in the water because of the reflections from the water...you're basically sitting on a giant mirror. I fried myself once when I was sailing, and I had the worst burns on the bottom parts of my body (bottom of chin, bottom of knees, basically anywhere the rays hit me after bouncing off the water.)

deleted 18y ago

[deleted]

nraynaud 18y ago

normally, we do a regression on this behavior alone to conclude this. This is epidemiology research, it singles one factor.