Hacker News Reader

Comment by prakash | Hacker News Reader

Running marathons is horrible advice. Here's 10 reasons why you shouldn't be running marathons - http://web.archive.org/web/20080702233135/http://www.arthurd...

View on HN

That list is pretty terrible. 4 runners of the Boston marathon got brain cancer over ten years? Over 20,000 people finished the Boston marathon last year (http://www.bostonmarathon.org/2009/cf/public/statistics.htm). Even if we assume it's the same 20,000 people running every year for ten years (highly unlikely), an incidence of brain cancer of 4/20,000 is the same as the incidence in the general population 15-20 / 100,000. (http://www.oncologychannel.com/braincancer/index.shtml). So, 4 people is about what you would expect. Given that it's not the same people, it's probably a good deal lower than the rest of the population.

It's pretty difficult to take anything on that list seriously if they're going to blatantly misrepresent statistics like that.

Marathon running appears to cause heart damage. 12% of asymptomatic marathon runners had evidence of myocardial damage. Only 4% of the sedentary controls had damage.

This Breuckmann study repeatedly found about a 2.5 to 1 increased incidence of heart attack from marathon running over sedentarism. The number of marathons run was an independent and significant predictor of the likelihood of myocardial damage.

http://www.paleonu.com/panu-weblog/2009/11/1/cardio-causes-h...

Linking to a fringe paleo blog which is blind to mainstream research (unless it supports paleo!) isn't much better.

The 2.5 to 1 increased incidence of heart attack from marathon running over sedentarism bit is BS, and flatly contradicted by studies already linked to on this thread.

By listing only negative effects, you can make anything sound bad (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_monoxide_hoax).

It doesn't seem crazy to think that there's such a thing as too much exercise, but there are a couple problems with this top ten list you cite.

First, maybe there are right and wrong ways to run a marathon and the people doing it the wrong way have skewed the results of these studies.

Second, if running a marathon is bad, then surely running half a marathon is still not good, right? What about a quarter-marathon? One mile? Etc. I think everyone agrees that there is some amount of running that does more good than harm. But it's not that helpful to simply say that marathons cause harm without looking at the good (if any) they do and then trying to find the distance that properly balances good and harm.

The main difference I can think of between a marathon and shorter distances is the glycogen 'wall' - something that won't happen on a run of less than 20 miles. There's also the whole fact that four hours of stress and strain on your joints and muscles and feet is somewhat worse for your body than ten minutes.

(Having said that, I don't see the point in twisting statistics to lambast marathons either. I plan to run my first one next year regardless!)

And by listing negative effects, you can also make bad things sound bad.

Lots of people kill themselves with marathons. Maybe there's a right way to do it, but obviously it's easy to do it the wrong way. Which makes marathons dangerous until someone figures out your right way.

"if running a marathon is bad, then surely running half a marathon is still not good, right?"

No. Does not follow. As you say, there are probably distances where the good far outweighs the bad. 26 miles is not that distance.

No, "lots of people" don't kill themselves with marathons. A few people who try to go from couch potato to marathon in 12 weeks or who chug ridiculous amounts of water over the course of a 5-hour walk-jog kill themselves with marathons. (It's possible to drink to the point of excessive dilution of the sodium in your bloodstream, which can kill you just like dehydration can, but this is basically impossible to induce below an Ironman triathlon distance if you're reasonable about water intake.) That's not "lots."

Distance running is what humans evolved to do, according to a good deal of evidence. Admittedly, running on asphalt and concrete with awful form created by a lifetime walking and running in awkwardly built shoes and sitting in chairs all day is not what humans evolved to do.

The only thing I need to know about marathons is that according to legend the first person to run one died! ;-)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pheidippides for details.

He ran 240 km (150 miles) in two days. He then ran the 40 km (25 miles) from the battlefield near the town of Marathon to Athens to announce the Greek victory over Persia in the Battle of Marathon (490 BC) with the word "Νενικήκαμεν" (Nenikékamen, 'We have won') and collapsed and died on the spot because of exhaustion.

So, after running 75 miles a day for the first two days, don't run another 25 miles the next day.

PS: The story is improbable, as the Athenians would more likely have sent the messenger on horseback.

People reflexively downvote DeVany's observations to their own peril.

While some of that list is anecdotal, most is based on relevant studies, and on DeVany's long interest and observation of patterns of health (as an athlete and economist). His perspective is a necessary antidote to the popular conception that ever-longer distance-running delivers a monotonically-increasing level of healthiness.

DeVany suggests -- with evidence -- that instead, the optimal activity involves bursty, varied, intense exertion more than marathon-like exertion. The stresses and rhythmic pace of marathoning damage some systems more than they help.

glad someone gets it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com