ACSM: Running Linked to Reduced All-Cause Mortality

MONDAY, June 4 (HealthDay News) — Runners have a reduced risk of all-cause mortality, with U-shaped mortality curves for distance, speed, and frequency, according to a study presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Sports Medicine, held from May 29 to June 2 in San Francisco.

To investigate the dose-response effect of running on all-cause mortality, Duck-chul Lee, Ph.D., from the University of South Carolina in Columbia, and colleagues used data from 52,656 adult participants (aged 20 to 100 years; mean age, 43 years; 26 percent women) enrolled in the Aerobics Center Longitudinal Study who had a medical examination during 1971 to 2002. Mortality follow-up used the National Death Index through 2003.

The researchers identified 2,984 deaths during an average follow-up of 15 years. About 27 percent of the participants engaged in leisure-time running. Compared with non-runners, runners had a 19 percent reduced risk of mortality, with U-shaped mortality curves observed for distance, speed, and frequency. The hazard ratios for all-cause mortality were significantly reduced for runners who ran a distance of 0.1 to 19.9 miles per week, for those who ran at speeds of 6.0 to 7.0 miles per hour, and for those who ran two to five times per week.

“Running distances of 0.1 to 19.9 miles/week, speeds of 6.0 to 7.0 miles/hour, or frequencies of two to five days/week were associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality, whereas higher mileage, faster paces, and more frequent running were not associated with better survival,” the authors write.

Email This Post Email This Post

Video:Fred Mamuya, MD, Phd On Screening Athletes for Sudden Cardiac Death

Email This Post Email This Post

Video:Shauna Childs, Centerville Yoga and Wellness Studios

Email This Post Email This Post

Video:Cormac Coyle talks about the Emerald Challenge


Email This Post Email This Post

Heart Rate Profile During Exercise as a Predictor of Sudden Death

Changes in heart rate during exercise and recovery from exercise are mediated by the balance between sympathetic and vagal activity. Since alterations in the neural control of cardiac function contribute to the risk of sudden death, we tested the hypothesis that among apparently healthy persons, sudden death is more likely to occur in the presence of abnormal heart-rate profiles during exercise and recovery.

Read more of this article from The New England Journal of Medicine

Email This Post Email This Post

Aerobic plus weight training

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) Jul 25 – A combination of weight training and aerobic exercise might be the best prescription for overweight people at risk for diabetes and heart disease, a new study suggests.

People doing only aerobic exercise dropped weight and inches off their waistlines — so an aerobic-only program is also a good (and less time-consuming) option, researchers said. Those in the study who just lifted weights saw very little benefit in terms of heart health, although they did gain strength.

“Aerobic plus resistance is clearly the optimal program,” said Dr. Timothy Church, who studies exercise and disease at Louisiana State University’s Pennington Biomedical Research Center in Baton Rouge.

The findings, he told Reuters Health, are in line with other recent research and physical activity guidelines that suggest mixing in some resistance training with regular aerobic exercise.

Researchers led by Lori Bateman of the Duke University Medical Center in Durham, North Carolina randomly assigned 196 overweight, sedentary adults to three different exercise programs.

One group did resistance training three days a week, working out on eight different weight machines to target upper and lower body muscles. A second group did two hours of aerobic training per week on gym machines — the equivalent of about 12 miles of walking or jogging over the course of the week. The third group was assigned to do both the weight-training and aerobic-exercise programs.

More than one quarter of the exercisers dropped out of the study during the eight-month exercise programs and some others didn’t have complete before-and-after health readings for researchers to compare.

In the end, Bateman and her colleagues analyzed the pre-exercise and post-exercise status of 86 participants, according to a July 7th online paper in the American Journal of Cardiology.

On average, people in the weight-training group who completed the exercise program gained about 1.5 pounds and added a smidgen to their waistline, without changing any of their other heart or diabetes risk factors.

Those in the aerobic group lost an average of 3 pounds and half an inch from their waists.

Study participants who did both weight and aerobic training dropped about 4 pounds and 1 waistline inch. That group also saw a decrease in diastolic blood pressure and in a metabolic syndrome score.

Both the aerobic-only group and the combined-exercise group also lowered their levels of triglycerides.

But statistical analyses showed that participants doing both aerobics and weight training didn’t necessarily have better outcomes than those who just did aerobic training.

The researchers said it wasn’t clear if the apparent marginal benefits of the combination regimen — the 4-pound weight loss versus 3, for instance — were due to the effects of weight training, or just more total time in the gym.

Church, who wasn’t involved in the new study, said the number of drop-outs made the data harder to interpret, but that the trends are consistent with what other researchers have found. Previous studies have also shown that weight training by itself has a very minimal benefit for heart health, he said.

Because aerobic exercise alone seemed to be almost as good, if not as good, as aerobic and resistance training combined, Bateman said that “when you’re weighing the time commitment that you’re going to spend, if your overall goal is to…improve your diabetes and heart disease risks, our study would suggest that aerobic exercise is the best way to better those outcomes.”

That said, “we’re not trying to send a message that resistance training is not good for things like increasing lean body mass or increasing strength,” she told Reuters Health.

By Genevra Pittman


Email This Post Email This Post

Questions or comments? Please contact