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?
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
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
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
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
This reads like it was written by a person who has never seriously trained at distance running. The vast majority of such training happens in Z1/2 and is some of the healthiest motion you can put your body through. People die doing lots of things, and many other sports besides running, usually because they had another condition or disorder.
And besides, I'd much rather have a stroke and drop dead at like 70 or 75 having enjoyed an active life than deal with all the health risks and low quality of living associated with being sedentary.
> 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.
Can't remember where I heard it-- some MD on a podcast recently-- but he mentioned distance running increases visceral fat in your muscles and around your organs when compared to HIIT and weight training, and visceral fat is generally a health risk indicator.
Visceral fat is fat around organs. It doesn't exist in muscles. I highly doubt that distance running increases visceral fat, that sounds made up. It may be that weight lifting is better for losing visceral fat, but that doesn't mean distance running is bad.
Why wouldn't it be, you think the body was made to run all day? Most animals lay around all day with some bursts of activity. The exercise fad is just a peculiar neuroticism modern Westerners have.
