4 ms·

Ultra-marathoners have a 7x chance of getting colon cancer under 50. This is where it needs to be studied, maybe it's a common food or common supplement they ar

Ultra-marathoners have a 7x chance of getting colon cancer under 50. This is where it needs to be studied, maybe it's a common food or common supplement they are taking?

andrewmcwatters 7mo ago
[dead]
moi2388 7mo ago
Dehydration? Overconsumption of carbohydrates?
slibhb 7mo ago
Can you provide a link? I looked and all I found was one study that looked for pre-cancerous adenomas.
Drunk_Engineer 7mo ago
I can find only a single paper making this claim about marathoners. And that study has attracted a lot of criticism.
ifwinterco 7mo ago
That's such a big disparity I'm very suspicious of that data, but there seems to be plenty of evidence that grossly excessive cardiovascular exercise is bad for you in various ways. If people enjoy it and really get a lot out of it then I wouldn't judge them for doing it, but let's not pretend it's healthy, because all the evidence is that it isn't. In terms of cardio being able to run a half decent 5k a couple of times a week is probably a good idea, any more volume than that is really not necessary and at some point becomes harmful
- slibhb 7mo ago
  Claiming that distance running is unhealthy is wild. It can lead to injury, and there's such thing as overtraining. But to claim that it's broadly unhealthy is just wrong
  - deleted 7mo ago
    [deleted]
  - ifwinterco 7mo ago
    Risk of stroke is the most obvious (and fairly concerning) one where there's solid data. Also there's "distance running" as in running maybe 50k a week, that's probably okay, although as you get older it will increase your risk of stroke. But ultramarathons are a whole different ball game and almost certainly bad for you
    - slibhb 7mo ago
      Can you link the data? I don't buy it. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11720530/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11720530/ says there's a higher rate of AF in older, male althetes but a lower risk of stroke compared to similar aged, non-athletes. At any rate, the data doesn't seem clear enough to claim that "distance running bad for you" or "any distance over 50K is bad for you".
      - ifwinterco 7mo ago
        I'm struggling to find it but I definitely remember reading a paper that claimed that aerobic exercise in over 60s decreased heart attack risk (which is good, obviously) but increased stroke risk. I think the biggest risk though is acutely doing high intensity exercise (e.g. a marathon) whereas doing low intensity regular exercise (e.g. a 5k jogged at moderate pace 4x a week) is probably good. So it's not "running is bad", it's more "running insane distances and/or running at insanely high intensity is bad", but the issue is a lot of people who get really into running end up doing one or both of those things. One sign that marathons (let alone ultramarathons) may not be particularly healthy is that the first guy to do one famously died, and then subsequently people die doing them every single year. Yes the risk is low overall, but that doesn't mean it's actually good for you
        slibhb 7mo ago
        > One sign that marathons (let alone ultramarathons) may not be particularly healthy is that the first guy to do one famously died, and then subsequently people die doing them every single year I don't find this line of thinking terribly convincing It's well known that (even young) elite athletes with unknown inborn heart defects sometimes die after extreme exertion. But it doesn't really follow that "extreme exertion is bad for you," the lurking variable is the heart defect.
kjkjadksj 7mo ago
I remember when that paper hit HN the thinking was actually to do with reduced bloodflow to the colon while running for long periods of time.

Ultra-marathoners have a 7x chance of getting colon cancer under 50. This is where it needs to be studied, maybe it's a common food or common supplement they are taking?

andrewmcwatters 7mo ago

[dead]

moi2388 7mo ago

Dehydration? Overconsumption of carbohydrates?

slibhb 7mo ago

Can you provide a link? I looked and all I found was one study that looked for pre-cancerous adenomas.

Drunk_Engineer 7mo ago

I can find only a single paper making this claim about marathoners. And that study has attracted a lot of criticism.

ifwinterco 7mo ago

That's such a big disparity I'm very suspicious of that data, but there seems to be plenty of evidence that grossly excessive cardiovascular exercise is bad for you in various ways. If people enjoy it and really get a lot out of it then I wouldn't judge them for doing it, but let's not pretend it's healthy, because all the evidence is that it isn't. In terms of cardio being able to run a half decent 5k a couple of times a week is probably a good idea, any more volume than that is really not necessary and at some point becomes harmful

slibhb 7mo ago
Claiming that distance running is unhealthy is wild. It can lead to injury, and there's such thing as overtraining. But to claim that it's broadly unhealthy is just wrong
- deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]
- ifwinterco 7mo ago
  Risk of stroke is the most obvious (and fairly concerning) one where there's solid data. Also there's "distance running" as in running maybe 50k a week, that's probably okay, although as you get older it will increase your risk of stroke. But ultramarathons are a whole different ball game and almost certainly bad for you
  - slibhb 7mo ago
    Can you link the data? I don't buy it. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11720530/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11720530/ says there's a higher rate of AF in older, male althetes but a lower risk of stroke compared to similar aged, non-athletes. At any rate, the data doesn't seem clear enough to claim that "distance running bad for you" or "any distance over 50K is bad for you".
    - ifwinterco 7mo ago
      I'm struggling to find it but I definitely remember reading a paper that claimed that aerobic exercise in over 60s decreased heart attack risk (which is good, obviously) but increased stroke risk. I think the biggest risk though is acutely doing high intensity exercise (e.g. a marathon) whereas doing low intensity regular exercise (e.g. a 5k jogged at moderate pace 4x a week) is probably good. So it's not "running is bad", it's more "running insane distances and/or running at insanely high intensity is bad", but the issue is a lot of people who get really into running end up doing one or both of those things. One sign that marathons (let alone ultramarathons) may not be particularly healthy is that the first guy to do one famously died, and then subsequently people die doing them every single year. Yes the risk is low overall, but that doesn't mean it's actually good for you
      - slibhb 7mo ago
        > One sign that marathons (let alone ultramarathons) may not be particularly healthy is that the first guy to do one famously died, and then subsequently people die doing them every single year I don't find this line of thinking terribly convincing It's well known that (even young) elite athletes with unknown inborn heart defects sometimes die after extreme exertion. But it doesn't really follow that "extreme exertion is bad for you," the lurking variable is the heart defect.

kjkjadksj 7mo ago

I remember when that paper hit HN the thinking was actually to do with reduced bloodflow to the colon while running for long periods of time.