Why 'long-distance' running is bad for you

Musings from a passionate runner who has a personal opinion that the benefits of long distance running are overstated

I created the subheading specifically to calm the nerves of passionate long-distance runners. (Disclaimer: I am one of those people myself; hence, I am aware of how I would have felt if I opened this blog post as a reader)

This post is specifically for ‘long-distance running’ and not ‘running’ as a whole.

In the investment management profession, which is my line of work, analysts create three scenarios to submit as an investment thesis for the evaluation of an investment to their investment committee:

1. A Base Case: The most probable scenario.

2. A Bull Case: The most ideal scenario for an upside.

3. A Bear Case: The scenario for a downside.

Today, I will focus only on the bear case for my thesis, explaining why investing your time in long-distance running causes more harm than people tend to acknowledge.

Full Disclaimer: I run long distances and have been running for over a decade now and will continue to do so.

(I'm grateful that my job in investment management has instilled in me the discipline of incorporating disclaimers as and when needed).

You may have heard countless times about the benefits of long-distance running but perhaps overlooked the downsides.

This post makes a case that someone starting their fitness journey should not consider long-distance running as a way to improve their health (don’t confuse this with losing weight). Instead, they should contemplate it only if they want to challenge themselves for an event, build endurance to a certain level, or practice the art of building mental fortitude.

Long-distance running was popularized for the general public, including people like you and me, by a group of hippies in the 1970s.

The fitness movement of the 1970s, often linked with the hippie movement and the counterculture of the time, encouraged people to engage in regular physical activity and adopt healthier lifestyles. Running, specifically jogging, became a popular choice because it was accessible, required minimal equipment, and could be done by people of various fitness levels.

Moreover, the 1970s witnessed the rise of organized road races and marathons, further promoting running as a recreational activity. Events like the New York City Marathon, first held in 1970, and other major marathons contributed to the growing popularity of long-distance running.

I emphasize this point because despite discussions about ancient Greeks and the Olympic games of 1896, running is still a relatively new concept and was commercialized only 50 years ago.

I firmly believe that humans have not evolved to run long distances. In fact, Daniel Lieberman, in his insightful book "Exercised," debunked the claim that humans were born to run. He did this by examining the history of the Tarahumara tribe, demonstrating how running such long distances was unnatural from an evolutionary perspective.

But let’s leave that lengthy discussion for another day.

I would like to speak about a few simple points that I can attest to from my personal experience.

Overtraining and Loss of Muscle Mass

Exceeding 60-90 minutes of cardio typically results in the breakdown of muscle mass through the breakdown of protein. Simply eating back lost calories does not counter this effect; otherwise, most runners would not appear as thin as they do.

This loss of muscle mass occurs due to a process called catabolism, which is the breakdown of muscle due to excessive stress, leading to the over-release of the stress hormone cortisol.

Runners experience significant muscle loss due to this catabolism, even when they try to increase their calorie and protein intake. No matter how much they eat in an attempt to gain muscle mass, it is challenging to do so without resorting to anabolic steroids.

Consider the example of bodybuilders. Bodybuilders who work out for longer than 60-90 minutes to maintain their muscles often use anabolic steroids to counter catabolism and promote anabolic reactions for growth in the body.

For an average person trying to emulate bodybuilder-style workouts for more than the 60-90 minute period, it could hinder muscle growth. (The good news here is that you don’t need to spend more time in the gym to achieve the additional growth that was promised to you.)

An article from Live Science supports this perspective:

“Essentially, if you’re trying to do too much in one workout session or not allowing enough rest between workouts, especially without consuming enough calories, you won’t be able to push your body as hard and reap the same benefits as you would have if you were fresh and fully recovered.”

I have personally observed this excessive release of cortisol, and it now makes sense to me. After a marathon, I find it harder to take the much-needed nap and feel more drained during a workday compared to after a strength training workout. This is because my cortisol levels are elevated higher than normal.

Due to this phenomenon, I strategically plan my runs based on my workday schedule. I often schedule very long runs over the weekend so that I can relax more and prevent reaching a level of tiredness that affects my work performance.

Protecting our muscle mass is crucial as muscle holds the key to better metabolic health.

Injury

We are often encouraged to push ourselves relentlessly toward the finish line, ignoring the signals our body is sending us.

Runners frequently use the analogy of pushing through physical pain to complete a race. While I acknowledge that this builds mental fortitude and have practiced it myself, my experiences with injuries have made me more self-aware as a runner.

In reality, growth in our body occurs when we allow it to rest and recover. Muscles tear during exercise and repair and grow outside of the activity. If we continue to stress the muscles for extended periods without adequate rest, they won't grow.

Consider long-distance running, for instance. If you run a marathon and complete 35 km, you have covered that distance. However, the mind may label it as a failure because you didn't finish the full 42 km. If your body is physically unable to complete the remaining 7 km, it is perfectly acceptable to stop instead of risking injury to finish those last 7 km.

You need to keep your ego and pride aside in that moment and listen to your body.

When you apply stress to the body, it will either find a way to handle it or succumb to it. In weightlifting, for example, the body builds muscle and bone tissue, leading to gradual strength improvement.

However even for weightlifting, pushing the body too far, too quickly, can lead to different adaptations, such as inflammation, injury, and stress. This is a common pitfall for runners attempting to 'push their boundaries.'

I have fallen victim to this mindset many times and have had nagging injuries, but I've learned from these experiences.

Now, if I sense any tightness in my body or experience nagging pain in my shin, I don't push through it. I have nothing to prove to anyone by pushing beyond my limits, especially risking injury.

This approach has served me well, resulting in fewer injuries over the long run.

Impact on the heart

Disclaimer: I am not a medical practitioner; this perspective is based on the views of medical practitioner and research that I am sharing and delving deeper into out of my own curiosity.

Double Disclaimer Reminder: I am also a long-distance runner (so I am not a hypocrite).

About 2500 years ago, a man named Pheidippides ran 26 miles from a battlefield in 490 BC, traveling from Marathon, Greece into Athens to announce a significant victory over the Persians. This event is how the word 'marathon' originated.

Pheidippides was a professional messenger and, in 490 BC, he was supposed to have brought a message from the plains of Marathon, where the Greek Army had just won a crucial battle against the invading Persian Army led by General Datis. After the battle, in which he might have participated, he was sent to Athens to deliver the news: "Rejoice, we are victorious." He did so, and afterward, he collapsed and died while delivering the message. (There are multiple versions of this story, but in all of them, he falls and dies.)

There is an urban myth suggesting that running more and more is beneficial for the heart. People assume that working the heart for longer periods improves its health.

However, logically, the heart, like any other organ, needs time to rest and recover to perform at its best.

In fact, an informative video by a prominent cardiologist supports the idea that running beyond a certain point can cause damage to our hearts.

Your heart is meant to work, yes that's true but intermittently.

Here is a snippet from the video:

After the 60-minute mark of running or any form of nonstop cardio, the stretching in the heart chambers becomes overwhelming, leading to the discussion of troponin.

Troponin is not typically present in the bloodstream. However, when heart muscles are damaged, troponin is released into the bloodstream. As the extent of heart damage increases, larger amounts of troponin are released.

According to a cardiologist, taking a troponin level test at the end of a marathon gives a good perspective. Troponin levels are crucial as per cardiologists, and if troponin levels increase, it indicates that the heart muscle has weakened.

It's observed that marathoners often exhibit elevated troponin levels post a run (One can check it with a test to verify my writing and get back to me)

Around the 8:00-minute mark in the video, the term "coronary calcium score" is introduced. This metric is important for evaluating if someone is at risk of heart disease.

"If you have calcium in your heart's arteries, the computer will create a calcium score that estimates the extent of coronary artery disease. Your calcium test score can range from zero to more than 1,000. Anything above zero means there's some evidence of coronary artery disease (CAD)."

The video above features the case study of an elite long-distance runner with a healthy lifestyle, leading one to assume that this individual would have a healthy heart. Surprisingly, the coronary calcium score of this long-distance runner mentioned in the video was 1,800.

In Christopher McDougall's brilliant book, "Born to Run," Micah True, also known as the White Horse, dropped out of American culture and lived with the Tarahumara Indians. He was an epic runner. While I enjoyed reading the book, there are a few caveats that I might have overlooked while reading the book which the video in the blog brough forth to my attention.

Micah sadly passed away at the age of 58 due to an enlarged thickened heart with scar tissue. These scars accelerated the aging process, according to the analysis.

In fact, a study conducted on marathoners revealed that 62% of them had more plaque in their bodies than moderate joggers. Of course, sedentary individuals face the highest risk.

It's important to note that I am not selectively choosing studies to support my viewpoint; rather, I am exploring probabilities through logical reasoning.

A Copenhagen Heart Study on runners and mortality, initiated in 1975 with 20,000 female participants, compared the death rates of moderate joggers, non-joggers, and those engaged in extreme exercise. The study found a 44% decrease in the death rate among moderate joggers, leading to an increased lifespan of 6 years for this group.

For readers familiar with finance and economics, the concept of diminishing marginal utility applies. It states that consuming more of something reduces the value derived from it after a certain point. The value can be regained only by abstaining from its consumption for a while.

Applying this concept, a study by Chip Lavie in New Orleans examined 52,000 people over 15 to 30 years. Among them, 38,000 were runners, and 14,000 were non-runners. Runners lived 19% longer, but those who ran more than 25 miles per week did not enjoy these benefits. Moreover, running too fast for those miles only slightly reduced the risk of death compared to non-runners. This highlights the point that more running may not necessarily be beneficial.

While some intellectuals might argue for testing these studies in different demographics or with different individuals, I am simply presenting the possibilities of the downsides, as all open-minded individuals should be aware of.

Conclusion

The intention of this post was to highlight the potential downsides of long-distance running.

It's essential to conduct your own research and engage in self-experimentation before drawing any conclusions.

I will continue to run, but I have become more aware of these facts over the years and have adjusted my running style based on my personal experiences. In my journey, I have made personal tweaks to my running style to maintain muscle mass, which is crucial for various bodily functions as we age. It is our responsibility to protect our muscle mass at all costs.

I welcome any criticism or feedback from the running community. Feel free to comment below or message me. As always, my posts are based on my firsthand experiences supported by detailed research.

Now, it's time to head out for my 12k run on this lovely Saturday morning.