You should read Peter Seiler’s studies on polarized training, totally changed my approach. It’s much simpler with 3 zones - 80-90% ZOne 1 and 10-20% of Zone 3, that’s it. I pretty much count all my gym, yoga, slow runs/cycling as zone 1 - 9 hours and over AnT for about 1 hour.
I don’t actually do any structured training especially with HIIT, I gamify it by using Strava segments.
Longevity: Could extreme exercise help you live longer??
A new study shows that those who participate in extreme exercise may live longer than the general population. TREVOR JOHNSTON / Eye Meets World Photography/Getty Images
While everyone knows that exercising regularly is important for a healthy life, some previous studies have shown that intense exercise may have the opposite effect.
A new study, recently published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, suggests that people who participate in extreme exercise may live longer.
Researchers tracked a select group of elite runners capable of running a sub-4-minute mile and found they may live five years longer on average than the general population.
André la Gerche, PhD, a sports cardiologist and head of the Heart, Exercise and Research Trials (HEART) Laboratory supported by St Vincent’s Institute of Medical Research and the Victor Chang Cardiac Research Institute, and lead author of this study, explained to Medical News Today:
“There is a stubbornly held view in the community that you can do too much exercise. We thought that this was an opportunity to look at an exercise feat that, at the time, was thought impossible and that may stress the body beyond its limits. There was speculation that attempting such feats could have a detrimental effect on the body, Thus, it was an opportunity to address this fallacy.”
Elite runners may live longer than the average person
For this study, la Gerche and his team focused on the longevity of a group of the first 200 male elite runners to run a sub-4-minute mile. The runners were from 28 different countries across North America, Europe, Oceania, and Africa.
All study participants were born between 1928 to 1955 and were on average 23 years old when they ran a mile in under 4 minutes.
Of the 200 participants, 60 — or 30% — had died, leaving 140 still alive at the time of the study.
Researchers found the average age of death for the study participants overall was 73, but the average age for the surviving elite runners was 77.
At the study’s conclusion, the scientists discovered:
Findings similar to those seen in elite cyclists
la Gerche said they were not surprised by these findings regarding elite runners, as they are consistent with several other publications, such as the Tour De France cyclists, in which greater longevity has been observed.
“Our study set out to see how exercise affected elite athletes over the long term,” la Gerche said.
“We know that elite athletes have bigger heartsTrusted Source due to their sustained aerobic output, and there was some belief that this could affect their health and longevity, but we found the opposite. Five years of extra life compared to (the) average is very significant, especially when we found that many of these runners not only enjoyed long lives but were also healthy. They live better, for longer.”
“This is one of many projects that we are undertaking related to cardiovascular changes and health and exercise,” he added. “We continue to assess the factors that lead to favorable outcomes in those training regularly.”
How can you live longer if you’re not an elite athlete?
Of course, not every person can run a sub-4-minute mile or be an elite athlete. So, how can the general population apply these findings to their own exercise regimen to hopefully extend their lives?
“Although we are told not to extrapolate in science, personally, I use this data as an aspiration to try and emulate as many lifestyle factors as a 4-minute miler: good diet, modest alcohol, dedication, and regular, intense exercise,” la Gerche said.
“Whilst I can’t necessarily share the genetic predisposition that likely also contributes to elite speed, the rest I can try to achieve.”
Jennifer Wong, MD, a board certified cardiologist and medical director of Non-Invasive Cardiology at MemorialCare Heart and Vascular Institute at Orange Coast Medical Center in Fountain Valley, CA — who was not involved with this study — told MNT:
“I think it reiterates the importance of exercise, maybe not necessarily this extreme level of exercise, but just any exercise being helpful for one’s cardiovascular health and ultimately, hopefully extending one’s life that way.”
Tracy Zaslow, MD, a board certified pediatrician and pediatric and adult primary care sports medicine specialist at Cedars-Sinai Kerlan-Jobe Institute in Los Angeles, CA, not involved in this study, told MNT that more research is needed to determine how to better extrapolate this data.
“While I would not recommend changing practice based on this single study, it may be reassuring to know that there may not be as many risks of ‘overdoing it’ as previously believed. I would encourage readers to be inspired by these elite athletes to improve their own fitness, aiming for moderate exercise as often as possible,” Zaslow said.
The group of people able to run a sub 4 minute mile is not representative of the general population. If there was a way to identify (genetically) people that are capable of running a sub 4 minute mile and get them to spend an equal amount of time throughout their lives outside in the sun and the fresh air, they may live even longer than the runners.
I don’t have proof, but neither do they.
Yes i agree. the headline is classic causation fallacy. There’s no insight into whether extreme exercise affects lifespan.
Extreme performance may well correlate, but the ability to run 4 min miles could easily be a marker for genetic health or high socioeconomic status. You needed the luxury of decent amount of leisure time in the 1930s to 50 to train for a 4 min mile.
When a study says: “suggests”, I do not pay any attention to it.
What proof do you have that convinced you to take rapamycin given there are no human studies on sirolimus use other than Matt’s survey ?
I was convinced to try it for myself based on the lack of risk. It improved arthritis and swallowing and brain function, subjectively. I don’t think I would continue to take it for longevity if it had no noticeable affect.
If they studied all full siblings of the runners in the above study and concluded that they are a good representation of the general population, then I would give it a little more attention. Probably still not enough power, but full siblings have the same genetics and upbringing.
That is absolutely a false statement.
Side effects for sirolimus are clearly documented in the PI for Rapamune and anecdotally mentioned all over this forum.
It just seems inconceivable to me that you can ignore a staggering amount of evidence in human studies on benefits of exercise as intervention and yet at the same time take an immunosuppressant solely based on anecdotal evidence and animal studies.
I bring some bias to this issue. My great uncle (Dad’s dad’s brother…from a family of 11 kids almost all boys) was NCAA champion wrestler. Two of his brothers also wrestled for Iowa State and were not champions, but still were great wrestlers. All three of them died younger of heart problems. The one’s who did not compete in college lived long and normal lives. My grandma always told me competing at that level killed them early. Maybe it was making weight? Maybe running or cycling would have been fine. I can’t say, but I’m biased by the obvious in my family.
I don’t think @Bicep or others are ignoring that exercise is crucial for health and longevity (bicep probably gets a lot more movement than most Americans via his job).
The debate that is still ongoing seems to be if extreme levels of exercise or performance are needed or might actually pass the upside U of benefit.
The study above is comparing to the average of the population - do say something about the question that is still debated you’d need controls that were equally genetically fit, from similar socioeconomic background, etc.
My point is that even the extreme exercise has way more evidence of a positive effects in humans that rapamycin. We don’t even have human correlation studies with sirolimus even remotely suggesting longevity or anything else that people here claim.
I agree that exercise and sun are more important than Rapa for longevity. I think Rapa improves healthspan though. But if you sit inside in the shade all day and take Rapa, somebody that works outside will live longer.
Extreme performance can go either way for me.
I agree that the evidence base for rapamycin isn’t there. However the evidence for extreme exercise often suggests against
What are your thoughts on this
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7431070/
"chronic excessive endurance exercise might adversely impact CV health. Ultra-endurance races can inflict acute myocardial damage, as evidenced by elevations in troponin and brain natriuretic peptide. Moreover, sudden cardiac arrest occurs more often in marathons and triathlons than in shorter races. Veteran endurance athletes often show abnormal cardiac remodeling with increased risk for myocardial fibrosis and coronary calcification. Chronic excessive exercise has been consistently associated with increased risks of atrial fibrillation (AF), and along with some attenuation of longevity benefits. The optimal dose of exercise remains unknown and probably differs among individuals. Current studies suggest that 2.5 to 5 hours/week of moderate or vigorous physical activity will confer maximal benefits; >10 hours/week may reduce these health benefits."
You are making the wrong assumption. You are conflating Vo2 max directly with the amount of exercise, it’s not that simple. There is a reason why the elites not amateurs seem to reap the benefits.
The elites are under guidance of coaches and execute aerobic exercise with 80-90% high volume zone 1-2 and 10-20% Zone 5-6, work on injury prevention by learning proper technique and do proper equipment fit, strength, stretching, proper diet, proper sleep, recovery not drinking and smoking, etc.
VS.
The amateurs on the other hands that I have personally witnessed are running themselves in to the ground with their dick measuring group rides always in Zone 3-4, followed by binge drinking and eating crap, getting poor sleep and going back to their busy and stressful lives… those guys need dial back a notch for sure.
This is why the Vo2 max studies (or elite studies) are so much more elegant because they factor many other elements of proper training that correlates with healthspan and longevity so well.
I take your point. Extreme exercise can mean different things to different people. And i agree that your protocol (80-90% high volume zone 1-2 and 10-20% Zone 5-6) is very different to what many extreme exercisers are doing.
I think the term is a bit problematic because most people think extreme exercise equates to many hours of zone 4-5.
Something i came across recently (but cant remember where) is a marathon protocol which avoids long training runs by focussing on something similar to what you recommend
I would add a comment about the endpoints of the studies. Having longevity as the endpoint of sum of all athlete lifestyle is infinitely more relevant (especially in this forum) than say measuring troponins after a single event.
My theory on the latter is that probably it’s a part of process that leads to ventricular hypertrophy (increased cardiac output with lower HR) akin to skeletal muscle injury post-exercise that leads to hypertrophy. Of course things can go bad, just like with skeletal muscle when they are cases of rhabdomyolysis with ARF post extreme events.
Interesting thing about A. fib is that almost always it occurs in male athletes NOT female. OF course it occurs even more often in non-athletes. From all that I read on exercise related A. Fib that is probably related to the quality of exercise as mentioned in my post above. A. fib is my fear too so I avoid chronically over-stressing the heart which seems to be biggest risk factor. But apparently even with A. fib, these athlete are still healthier than their cohort.
Does this train VO2 Max? I thought it mostly affected and improved mitochondrial function, could resting lactate be a measurement of this?
You took a snippet from my over all training, which is totally meaningless by itself.
HIIT is essential for improving V02 max, but you can’t do HIIT properly without the base and other supporting training…
It should do. Improving mitochondria will improve VO2 max. And if you let zone 2 do much of the “vo2 max heavy lifting” then its a low injury risk way to get there. This study is worth a look
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4836566/
It’s true, any aerobic exercise will improve Vo2 max, especially in untrained individuals. However the polarized training is most effective and highly utilized in athletes across all disciplines.
