Here is a link to an article, "Are You Running Yourself to Death?," published in the latest issue of Men's Health. (You'd never find an article of this kind published in Runner's World, Running Times, or any of the other lesser known running periodicals.) The author is a marathoner himself, so I can't hate on his article too much, but, frankly, I'm not particularly fond of it. It excites the reader into thinking that the damage done to a runner's heart from running a marathon is somehow permanent, and that the only way to prevent a cardiac event during or after a marathon is to train at least 45 miles per week. As support for his article, the author cites the deaths of elite marathoner Ryan Shay and a recreational runner. First of all, Ryan Shay trained well over 100 miles per week, so the suggestion that a runner train at least 45 miles per week to prevent a cardiac event is anything but significant. Secondly, Ryan Shay had a congenital heart problem that was monitored periodically. His doctor even gave him the green light to train for and run the 2007 Olympic Trials. As to the recreational runner, as far as I recall, his autopsy was inconclusive. I'll research this...
UPDATE: The recreational runner who died during 2007's Chicago Marathon also had a congenital heart problem. His autopsy showed that he had a mitral valve prolapse. My understanding of this heart problem is that one of the valves of the heart fails to completely close, thereby allowing a backflow of blood into the heart, which, apparently, can carry a high risk of complications.
The lesson: GET AN ANNUAL PHYSICAL. I last had a physical in November of 2006 and was diagnosed with a heart murmur. A heart murmur is not a disease; it's just a fancy name for an abornmal sound emitting from the heart. My mother was diagnosed with mitral valve prolapse at a very young age, so I had reason to worry. I immediately had an echocardiogram--an ultrasound of the heart--different from an electrocardiogram, which isn't as effective as the former in diagnosing heart defects. Luckily, my echocardiogram came back negative, so it's unclear what exactly caused the heart murmur that my doctor heard. My next physical is on October 31st. Get one.
4 comments:
I don't generally regard Men's Health as reliable source of info, however, I don't doubt that running a marathon is highly stressful and potentially dangerous. I know after I ran both of the marathons I ran, my body felt quite weird, in an almost scary euphoric feeling. I suppose everything in moderation is best, and I don't think a marathon is moderation.
I don't know about the 45 miles per week thing, but I'm sure not hitting that point. I will probably peak at 35 this time around, which is similar to the training I did before. Who has time to run 45 miles per week?
I wonder about pace. If you aren't pushing yourself as hard, is as much damage being done? Or is it all about duration?
That's a good question. Certainly, when I run in long-distance events, it's not a race, it's more like a moderately hard run. I can't imagine that my average heart rate during the Hartford Marathon was any higher than 150 beats per minute. I wonder the average heart rate of a 2:8 marathoner...
You should write a letter to Men's Health pointing out the shortcomings of this article and indicating your additional research showing that both examples were the result of pre-existing heart conditions, NOT of running a marathon.
So as an alternative to going to the doctor for a physical and undergoing expensive testing, one can just run a marathon to find out if they have a heart condition.
Could running marathons be the answer to the health care crisis in the U.S.?
Post a Comment