• Users Online: 137
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 


 
 Table of Contents  
LETTER TO EDITOR
Year : 2017  |  Volume : 6  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 81

Marathon Running for Amateurs: Benefits and Risks


Department of Medicine and Intensive Care, Hinduja Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India

Date of Web Publication31-Mar-2017

Correspondence Address:
Farhad Kapadia
Hinduja Hospital, Veer Savarkar Marg, Mumbai - 400 036, Maharashtra
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/JCPC.JCPC_1_17

Rights and Permissions

How to cite this article:
Kapadia F. Marathon Running for Amateurs: Benefits and Risks. J Clin Prev Cardiol 2017;6:81

How to cite this URL:
Kapadia F. Marathon Running for Amateurs: Benefits and Risks. J Clin Prev Cardiol [serial online] 2017 [cited 2021 Jan 24];6:81. Available from: https://www.jcpconline.org/text.asp?2017/6/2/81/203526



Sir,

I really enjoyed the well-researched review by Burkule [1] on the risks and benefits of marathon running for amateurs. While I generally concur with most statements, I feel some clarification is required. The bottom line is that a hypothesis generated (J-shaped mortality effect) in the review is presented more like a conclusion in the abstract.

The hypothesis was generated mainly from the Scandinavian trial [2] in which the definitions and reporting of exercise intensity were fairly vague. The relative risk for mortality for strenuous joggers was 1.97, but the 95% confidence interval was 0.48–8.14. These data are close to random and can be interpreted either way. Mainly from this, the author has stated in the abstract “The epidemiological studies suggest a 'reverse J-shaped' relationship between running intensity and cardiovascular (CV) mortality. The highest benefits of reduction in CV and all-cause mortality are achieved at a lower intensity of running while the benefits tend to get blunted at a higher intensity of running.” It may not have been the author's intention to convey this as scientific proof, but all my colleagues who cite this paper believe this to be proven causation rather than association. They mistake a hypothesis for a conclusion.

The author looked at surrogate data, such as raised biomarkers or imaging changes, but the relation of these to clinically meaningful outcomes is completely unknown. They could equally be part of an adaptive strengthening physiology or be the forerunner to an exhausted response leading to clinical disease. We really have no outcome data that reliably points to which surrogate changes are associated with poor outcomes. It is a mistake to assume that all physiological parameters outside the normal range necessarily imply impending disease.

The author stated that fewer deaths occur in half than in full marathons. It may be that intensity not distance is the main risk. On June 11, 2014, the Mumbai police competitive recruitment process included a 5 km run in which there were 4 deaths. Similarly, in South Africa on December 2012, there were 6 deaths among 30,000 applicants in a 4 km fitness test. This far exceeds the known sudden death rates in half or full marathons. Medical advice relating to sudden death may be more relevant when directed at intensity of effort rather than distance.

Based on the above, I feel the best advice a physician can give a potential runner is that we do not really know the risks of increasing the distances of running, and the best we can is state that more may not necessarily be better. The official evidence-free guidelines on this topic are merely guesses that reflect the biases of the authors rather than any robust data.

One unrelated clarification, the author states that Homo sapiens have been around 2.5 million years. All the combined humans (H.) species have existed for this long, but H. sapiens have only been around for ~200,000 years.[3]

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

P. S Intellectual Conflict of Interest: As a marathoner, I declare a strong bias toward the overwhelming medical benefits of liberal exercise.



 
  References Top

1.
Burkule N. Marathon running for amateurs: Benefits and risks. J Clin Prev Cardiol 2016;5:113-24.  Back to cited text no. 1
  [Full text]  
2.
Schnohr P, O'Keefe JH, Marott JL, Lange P, Jensen GB. Dose of jogging and long-term mortality: the Copenhagen City Heart Study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2015;65:411-9.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Harari YN. Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind. Harper, USA: HarperCollins; 2014.  Back to cited text no. 3
    




 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

 
  In this article
References

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1764    
    Printed71    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded190    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal


[TAG2]
[TAG3]
[TAG4]