Yes, its a problematic study for many reasons… basically you’re looking at a group that was in excellent shape in their early 20s, but then no other health data or exercise data is looked at other than that one data point (for their entire life). You don’t know if they never ran again after breaking the 4 minute mile, or if they kept running at a high level for the rest of their lives…
They were born between 1928 to 1955, and were aged 23, on average, when they ran the mile in under 4 minutes, with times ranging between 3:52.86 and 3:59.9 minutes. Of the total, 60 (30%) had died and 140 were alive at the time of the analysis. The average age at death was 73, but ranged from 24 to 91, while the average age of the surviving runners was 77, ranging from 68 to 93.
So yes, its interesting, but not deep enough to really teach us much.
The analysis revealed that the under 4-minute milers lived nearly 5 years beyond their predicted life expectancy, on average, based on sex, age, year of birth, age at achievement, and nationality.
I wouldn’t say running for 4 minutes is extreme. I would look at marathon runners and ultra marathon runners for extreme exercise.
1 Like
AnUser
#231
The mile in 4 minutes, that is a high level of conditioning that requires a lot of training.
2 Likes
Yes, but it is still only 4 minutes of running.
This is the HIF 1 alpha, NRF2, NF kappa B (builders, firemen, army) thing. Real endurance exercise can start causing NF kappa B to be stimulated.
AnUser
#233
But it measures VO2 Max if you can run a mile under four minutes.
This report does not as far as I can see refer to VO2 max
AnUser
#235
To run a mile under four minutes you need to have very high VO2 Max. So it is selecting those who had this great conditioning then.
Neo
#236
But also selecting on average for people who are
- more disciplined
- more driven
- drivers towards excellence
- above average, perhaps even best of class with regards to physical and key aspects of health genetics
- on average likely grew up in facilities with healthier nutrition
- who did not have any meaningful disease that would interfere with their health in a way that they could not train and perhaps that well up to their 20s+
And so on
And after achieving the success on the 4 min mile will have a boost to their self confidence, agency and perhaps even things like their status
The number of alternative causal things driving the correlation are enormous
@AnUser Perhaps it is the umbrellas that is causing the rain?
Mike Lustgarten’s take on this new paper:
1 Like
Bicep
#242
I agree that they get redder as you go down, which is higher VO2 max for average, and everybody over 40. But for the 22-39, for some reason the couch potatoes have more MWF. Wild. Good stuff!
I was happy he mentioned one of my favorite research studies. Exercise can be built into our everyday life, just like the bus conductor study. It doesn’t have to be packaged into going to a gym. (nothing wrong with going to the gym though)
I think we’ve also seen it currently since the early fifties when we were first doing the London bus conductor study that Jerry Morris did that you will know well, where he compared bus conductors on the London to the bus drivers and found a significantly reduced cardiovascular mortality among the conductors because they were on their feet all day up and down stairs and the driver otherwise in the same environment the drivers were sitting. — Euan Ashley interview.
2 Likes
RapAdmin
#244
Lifelong physiology of a former marathon world-record holder: the pros and cons of extreme cardiac remodeling
Open access Paper: https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/japplphysiol.00070.2024
4 Likes
This does seem common. My guests have weighed in on this topic, and have stated a wide range of expert opinions…so this is not an area of settled science I’d say:
Dr George Dallam (episode 143) — nasal breathing during exercise will reduce damage from low oxygen to heart. May avoid fibrosis from lifelong endurance exercise. This is known to be true for brain health; it is speculation re: heart health.
Dr Ben Levine (episode 88)— 5x increase risk in AFib for masters athlete. Increased pressure and frequency of peak pressure on atria from high HR causes stretching of this thin walled part of the heart. It continues to get larger from the stretching if high HR exposure continues. If it stretched enough you can get electrical signal issues (AFib). It happens to susceptible people but not everyone. Be sure to listen to this one.
Dr Mark Tarnopolsky (episode 144) — you can do too much exercise. Balance with weight training (and a bit of short HIIT if your body will tolerate it). He is also a believer in anti-inflammatory diets and supplements.
Dr John Day (episode 51) — low risk with regular, moderate intensity exercise. The key is not letting AFib keep happening to avoid establishing a strong irregular electrical signal. He is a surgeon. He sees far more AFib in metabolically unhealthy people.
I think it’s a stress vs recovery thing. If you push hard, and you have the physiology and psychology that allows it, you can damage yourself over a long time. This should not be used as an excuse to not exercise. And if you have experienced AFib, back off enough to keep it from reoccurring.
3 Likes
At first glance I thought this was Frank Shorter, but the research is on Robert-de-Castella
He was very dominant in 1980’s. And at 5’ 11" quite tall for elite marathoners (avg ht 5’7" or so). Oddly, not one mention of his name in the article.
1 Like
Dr.Bart
#247
Yes, Nasal breathing basically means staying in Zone 2, under AeT. There is a lot of data suggesting that 80/20 or 90/10 type of training is superior for performance results and not over-stressing the heart.
You should try to get Stephen Seiler on as a guest, he’s the one that put POL on the map.
I count weight training as zone 1-2.
10-20% HIIT Zone 4-5, and stay away from the dead zone 3… except for racing day.
Watchin your RHR and HRV also helps - so proper recovery, avoid alcohol, proper diet, proper hydration, minimize stress… etc. etc. etc
5 Likes
