Interesting article that just came out. No conclusive findings due to the inability to have randomized controls, but some concerning results for those who marathon long term.
Link to article: http://www.msma.org/docs/communications/MoMed/Hearts_Breaking_Over_Marathon_Running_MarApr2014_Missouri_Medicine.pdf
Also, discussion that moderate and less frequent cardiovascular exercise confers all the CV benefits without any of the CV detriments.
Good reason to start taking Omega 7’s I’d say
.
In additional to regular dental hygiene I use a fluoride wash, haven’t had an issue and I’ve been running marathons for years.
Interesting. I read as much as I could and skimmed some. Seemed to me something like 26 of the 50 runners were smokers?!? Although, they said that was not a big difference compared to the non runners? I believe the stat was 6/30 for non runners. I may be off by a few. To me that seems weird. Of the runners I know, none of them, including myself smoke. Interested to see exactly how they picked these runners. I would like to see a study with many more runner and non runners. Maybe some younger ones too. I can easily see how long term high intensity and duration could cause heart problems. Plaque wouldn’t have been my first guess. I just wonder if these numbers are skewed by smoking. Perhaps I should re-read this more carefully.
One more thing in life I will choose to ignore.
Interesting. I read as much as I could and skimmed some. Seemed to me something like 26 of the 50 runners were smokers?!?
Yeah, 39.1% of control were prior smokers vs. 52% of marathoners. They used some trickery with the claim that they were “similar in smoking history” - just the fact they didn’t have a large enough sample size to reach statistical significance. And if you don’t have statistical significant then there’s no justification to talk about a significant difference. It would be interesting to know, however, how well the 26 ex-smokers correlated with the 30 guys who had lesions.
I’d also point out that the marathoners were about 4 years older, on average, than control. Again, not statistically significant, but given that age is a dominant factor in heart disease, worth pointing out.
The combination of those two things stacks the deck against the marathoners, statistical significance or not. . I’d like to read the actual full paper, because I have some other issues with what I read there, but I don’t want to throw them under the bus without reading the actual study plan.