4 ms·

Regarding Marathons; As recently as this year the Mayo Clinic has looked at Potential Adverse Cardiovascular Effects From Excessive Endurance Exercise[1]. I als

by rmm 14y ago

Regarding Marathons; As recently as this year the Mayo Clinic has looked at Potential Adverse Cardiovascular Effects From Excessive Endurance Exercise[1]. I also recall a study a couple years back that showed inflammatory damage to marathoners hearts for up to 3 months after running the event. Regarding all the studies you have quoted, all of them are epidemiological in nature, and do not prove causal relationships. These studies have hundreds of confounding variables that cannot be understood, and are only as good as a person’s memory (can you remember how much protein you ate in 2011 on a weekly basis?). These studies are used to build hypothesis that THEN can be actually tested. Now in regards to the scientific literature on the actual physiological processes involved; recent studies have shown [2] [3] that longer forms of exercise such as jogging and running etc. burn more calories DURING exercise, but have an overall negative impact on the hormones that influence weightloss (cortisol etc.). Whereas research [4] [5] [6] on weight lifting and short bursts of high intensity have shown that these forms of exercise light up all the fat loss hormones for even days later, and outperform cardio/aerobic exercises. Not only that, but looking at the aerobic exercises from a hormonal standpoint, these types of exercise negatively affect hunger and stress hormones. [7] [8] Also I don’t see where there is “food for thought” by looking at Taubes and Atkins any more than looking at the hundreds and thousands of success stories (on places like reddit) who follow this protocol. My 2c. [1] http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(12)00473-9/abstract http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(12)0... [2] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=11991783&query_hl=20&itool=pubmed_docsum http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&... [3] http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/full/83/2/626 http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/full/83/2/626 [4] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=10939877&query_hl=2&itool=pubmed_docsum http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&... [5] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11882927&query_hl=5&itool=pubmed_docsum http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&... [6] http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v32/n4/abs/0803781a.html http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v32/n4/abs/0803781a.html [7] http://alturl.com/dnwr http://alturl.com/dnwr [8] http://ajpregu.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/296/1/R29 http://ajpregu.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/296/1/R29

xiaoma 14y ago
I really fail to see how you can put this forward for your first piece of "scientific literature on the actual physiological processes involved" just after complaining that all the studies I've quoted are epidemiological in nature, and do not prove causal relationships. This first study you trumpet demonstrates no causal relationship, is taken from a smaller sample, has muddier data and repeatedly supports the findings of the studies I cited! It examines hypothetical damage from long term distance racing. It opens with: "A routine of regular exercise is highly effective for prevention and treatment of many common chronic diseases and improves cardiovascular (CV) health and longevity" And it clearly states that its model is hypothetical: "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" As I mentioned earlier, racing long distances isn't necessary for health benefits and can be damaging if you don't have enough of a fitness base. Training for long distances on the other hand is overwhelmingly positive. The other studies you cited don't all say what you say they did: 2) shows higher cortisol from intense exercise than moderate 3) finds that high cortisol increases fat storage 4) finds that after a 100 minute weightlifting session, the BMR rises enough to burn only an additional 60 calories over the next day. 5) similar to 4 but with fewer details 6) finds more weight loss from 3x/week HIIE than 3x/week SSE 7) examines hormonal response hours after a long swimming race 8)finds that both resistance and aerobic exercise temporary suppress appetite, but did not examine effects on caloric intake
- rmm 14y ago
  I didn't place it just after I complained about your lack of non-epidemiological studies, it was before that. I didn't say it proved any causal relationship, but rather that its being looked into, and yes its a hypothetical, and i don't see how it has muddier data, when rather than being based around some questionnaire actual tests were performed on the subjects. With regards to the studies; I said that long running sessions have a negative affect on weight loss and [2] says that long high intensity sessions increase cortisol secretion, [3] says high cortisol leads to increased fat storage. I said high intensity show burts of exercise increase fat loss, that includes [4] [5] showing increased metabolic expenditure post exercise and [6] directly showing short high intensity interval training being better for weight loss that steady state exercises. Also I dont see how the fact that [7] shows a long swimming race being an issue, and if you actually read [8] the resistance exercise took place over 90 minutes sessions, well past the anaerobic area of short high intensity training. Look I am all for running, I try to get out and do 10-15km per week, but blanket statements that say you should run 1hr every day and all is well, are not backed by science.

by rmm 14y ago

xiaoma 14y ago

I really fail to see how you can put this forward for your first piece of "scientific literature on the actual physiological processes involved" just after complaining that all the studies I've quoted are epidemiological in nature, and do not prove causal relationships. This first study you trumpet demonstrates no causal relationship, is taken from a smaller sample, has muddier data and repeatedly supports the findings of the studies I cited! It examines hypothetical damage from long term distance racing. It opens with: "A routine of regular exercise is highly effective for prevention and treatment of many common chronic diseases and improves cardiovascular (CV) health and longevity" And it clearly states that its model is hypothetical: "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" As I mentioned earlier, racing long distances isn't necessary for health benefits and can be damaging if you don't have enough of a fitness base. Training for long distances on the other hand is overwhelmingly positive. The other studies you cited don't all say what you say they did: 2) shows higher cortisol from intense exercise than moderate 3) finds that high cortisol increases fat storage 4) finds that after a 100 minute weightlifting session, the BMR rises enough to burn only an additional 60 calories over the next day. 5) similar to 4 but with fewer details 6) finds more weight loss from 3x/week HIIE than 3x/week SSE 7) examines hormonal response hours after a long swimming race 8)finds that both resistance and aerobic exercise temporary suppress appetite, but did not examine effects on caloric intake

rmm 14y ago
I didn't place it just after I complained about your lack of non-epidemiological studies, it was before that. I didn't say it proved any causal relationship, but rather that its being looked into, and yes its a hypothetical, and i don't see how it has muddier data, when rather than being based around some questionnaire actual tests were performed on the subjects. With regards to the studies; I said that long running sessions have a negative affect on weight loss and [2] says that long high intensity sessions increase cortisol secretion, [3] says high cortisol leads to increased fat storage. I said high intensity show burts of exercise increase fat loss, that includes [4] [5] showing increased metabolic expenditure post exercise and [6] directly showing short high intensity interval training being better for weight loss that steady state exercises. Also I dont see how the fact that [7] shows a long swimming race being an issue, and if you actually read [8] the resistance exercise took place over 90 minutes sessions, well past the anaerobic area of short high intensity training. Look I am all for running, I try to get out and do 10-15km per week, but blanket statements that say you should run 1hr every day and all is well, are not backed by science.