Running hard is as dangerous as sitting, wait wut?

Hello from Venice…yup, still here.

This morning I ran another 8 miles on the Legacy Trail and it was cold, by Florida standards. It was 45 degrees with an 11 mph headwind. Of course it will be 70 in a few hours so I guess that’s pretty much perfect weather (and you probably hate me right now if you live anywhere north of here.)

its coldI’m starting to get a little nervous about the race I have this weekend. The family is coming out for this one and I just really want to do well. And by well, I mean finish.

I checked the forecast this morning and it looks like perfect race weather so that’s a good thing!

weather forecastThis morning when I was checking the weather I decided to read some of the headline news before going on a run. Since we’re still in Venice (and maybe on borrowed internet) I’m a little behind on the major news stories. Anyway, after perusing the major stories I came across this article:

hardcore running

An excerpt:

The researchers found those who jogged one to 2.4 hours a week at a slow or average pace with no more than three running days in a week had the best survival rates. Anything longer than that left runners with death rates closer to those who didn’t run at all, the authors said.

You can read the full article here.

I kept reading and not 2 minutes later, I saw this article.

runner running

Here’s an excerpt from that one:

The finding “suggests there may be an upper limit for exercise dosing that is optimal for health benefits,” study co-author Dr. Peter Schnohr, of the Copenhagen City Heart Study and Frederiksberg Hospital in Denmark, said in a statement. “If your goal is to decrease risk of death and improve life expectancy, jogging a few times a week at a moderate pace is a good strategy. Anything more is not just unnecessary, it may be harmful.”

Click here to read the full article.

Basically it’s two articles citing the same study and using similar verbiage. It annoys me to no end. And then I saw the same damn story on Fox news. The study as I read it, seems inconclusive, and I think something is rotten in Denmark. Of course it’s now being cited all over the place, go figure.

Why don’t I see multiple articles and news stories about how sitting on your ass is bad for your heart? Just sayin.

Lastly, I may have mentioned that Hank has a girlfriend. Her name is Rosie and she is a pitbull. He loves her. Of course, he hasn’t been around that many female dogs and he’s a horny little booger, but in any case, he loves Rosie the pitbull.

Cute Dachshung

That Face! He looks so innocent and sweet. In reality he’s a serial killer. He’s destroyed 3 sets of blinds. Murdered them. That dog is outta control.

The point in all this is that Rosie’s owner is very careful to keep her away from Hank when she’s in heat. He doesn’t want Hank to impregnate his little girl. I used to be offended by that seeing as how Hank is such a little thing and Rosie is so, well, she’s big.

Then I saw this:


It’s a Pitshund…Or maybe a Dachbull?

I am no longer offended but maybe a little scared. That thing is so ugly it’s almost cute.

What do you think of the Pitshund?
Did you hear about the study on running in Denmark?

6 thoughts on “Running hard is as dangerous as sitting, wait wut?

  1. As a resident of the state of Denmark I must protest 🙂

    It is indeed a serious study with a HUGE dataset – but if one leaves the mainstream media aside and look at what they are actually saying there are some things that might lead to other conclusions:

    – The group of “fast runners” is quite small, and doing statistics on it is questionable at best. The involved scientists admit this, but it is absent from most of the articles reporting on it
    – It seems from the sources I’ve read that it was the runners themselves which judged if they were “slow”, “average” or “fast”. So perhaps it’s just that humble people live longer?
    – It could be that the deaths were mostly in the early years of the study – a point in time where heart diseases were still very much an unknown and few were diagnosed before they actually had “an incident”. Today many people are diagnosed earlier, and told to “not run” if it could be dangerous. (This is backed up by the fact that the largest medium-distance danish event saw deaths almost every year in it’s early years, but none in the last 20 years)
    – The lead scientist himself mentions that it might be that there is a correlation between those that run fast and those who generally has a “busy” life with stress etc.

    As an interesting sidenote – the lead scientist is himself an avid runner – and was one of two people behind the popular “Erimitageløb” – the first large-scale danish race. The race is a 8.3 mile race held in the beginning of october each year since 1969 – and a race I am happy to have run back in 2011.

    Air-shots of the race – note the scenery!

    Another recent (also danish) study have confirmed, however, that the health benefits of running stops at around the 2½ hours/week mark – from there on you can improve your running performance – but you cholesterol levels, blood pressure etc. will not be improved further or faster. In this study they found no signs of increased risk by running longer, but to be fair it was a much smaller study. (Unlike the other one which has followed 20000 people for 35 years)

    Happy running! And if you ARE running just to gain a few extra years then you are doing it wrong anyway.. Running is a goal in itself!

    • I couldn’t have said it better myself and thank you for all of the information! Of course now I’m going to have to add that race to my bucket list because, that race looks amazing. AND, just because of you, I take it back, Denmark is no longer harboring anything rotten! 🙂

  2. Interesting fact! I had missed that article! I think it’s crazy data though…I’m pretty positive that running is better for us than sitting! 😉

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *