Top 10 Reason Why NOT to Run a Marathon

For the past couple of years now, I have been reading and hearing about the dangers and, may I say, idiocy of running marathons. The body count continues to pile up and new pathways of damage are being discovered now that the research is looking into the consequences of this "exercise" and so called healthy living. It has taken some time to overcome the prevailing mind-set that long-distance running is unhealthful for reasons that I cannot fathom. As with all forms of exercise, it is a matter of degree---some is healthful, a lot is injurious. Even with that said though, long distance running is not really healthful. The benefits of running distances can easily be obtained with a good walk interspersed with some sprints.

I recently read a new study published in HeartWire of the effects of long-term marathon running and calcification of the heart and coronary arteries. The doctors who did the study are runners and say that the results of their study are counter-intuitive, meaning, I would guess, that it is contrary to a runner's world view. But, it is hardly counter-intuitive when you know the many harmful consequences of marathon running and training. For a look at some of them, I have listed (with the aid of Arthur De Vany) the Top 10 Reasons Why NOT to Run Marathons at the end of this article.

To top it off, the "control" group with whom the runners were compared had been imaged for clinical reasons: "The researchers noted that the asymptomatic control group included patients undergoing CTA for clinical reasons, such as risk factors for abnormal or inconclusive stress testing, meaning that the differences between the groups would likely be even larger in the general population." To put it directly, the runners were, on the whole, worse off than the patients.

Another great article and study, Still Not Born to Run by Kurt G Harris MD

10. Marathon running damages the liver and gall bladder and alters biochemical markers adversely. HDL is lowered, LDL is increased, Red blood cell counts and white blood cell counts fall. The liver is damaged and gall bladder function is decreased. Testosterone decreases.

From Wu, Worl J Gastroenterol. 2004 Sep 15: 10 (18): 2711-4, “RESULTS: Total bilirubin (BIL-T), direct bilirubin (BIL-D), alkaline phosphatase (ALP), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) increased statistically significantly (P<0.05) the race. Significant declines (P<0.05) in red blood cell (RBC), hemoglobin (Hb) and hematocrit (Hct) were detected two days and nine days d after the race. 2 d after the race, total protein (TP), concentration of albumin and globulin decreased significantly. While BIL, BIL-D and ALP recovered to their original levels. High-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) remained unchanged immediately after the race, but it was significantly decreased on the second and ninth days after the race. CONCLUSION: Ultra-marathon running is associated with a wide range of significant changes in hematological parameters, several of which are injury related. To provide appropriate health care and intervention, the man who receives athletes on high frequent training program high intensity training programs must monitor their liver and gallbladder function.”

9. Marathon running causes acute and severe muscle damage. Repetitive injury causes infiltration of collagen (connective tissue) into muscle fibers.

From Warhol et al Am J Pathol. 1985 Feb: 118 (2): 331-9, “Muscle from runners showed post-race ultrastructural changes of focal fiber injury and repair: intra- and extracellular edema with endothelial injury; myofibrillar lysis, dilation and disruption of the T-tubule system, and focal mitochondrial degeneration without inflammatory infiltrate (1-3 days). The mitochondrial and myofibrillar damage showed progressive repair by 3-4 weeks. Late biopsies showed central nuclei and satellite cells characteristic of the regenerative response (8-12 weeks). Muscle from veteran runners showed intercellular collagen deposition suggestive of a fibrotic response to repetitive injury. Control tissue from nonrunners showed none of these findings.”

8. Marathon running induces kidney disfunction (renal abnormalities).

From Neyiackas and Bauer, South Med J. 1981 Dec; 74 (12): 1457-60, “All postrace urinalyses were grossly abnormal…We conclude that renal function abnormalities occur in marathon runners and that the severity of the abnormality is temperature-dependent.”

7. Marathon running causes acute microthrombosis in the vascular system.

From Fagerhol et al Scan J Clin Invest. 2005; 65 (3): 211-20, “During the marathon, half-marathon, the 30-km run, the ranger-training course and the VO2max exercise, calprotectin levels increased 96.3-fold, 13.3-fold, 20.1-fold, 7.5-fold and 3.4-fold, respectively. These changes may reflect damage to the tissues or vascular endothelium, causing microthrombi with subsequent activation of neutrophils.”

6. Marathon running elevates markers of cancer. S100beta is one of these markers. Tumor necrosis factor, TNF-alpha, is another.

From Deichmann et al in Melanoma Res. 2001 June; 11 (3): 291-6. “In metastatic melanoma S100beta as well as melanoma inhibitory activity (MIA) are elevated in the serum in the majority of patients. Elevation has been found to correlate with shorter survival, and changes in these parameters in the serum during therapy were recently reported to predict therapeutic outcome in advanced disease.”

From Santos et al Life Sci. 2004 September: 75 (16): 1917:24, “After the test (a 30km run), athletes from the control group presented an increase in plasma CK (4.4-fold), LDH (43%), PGE2 6.6-fold) and TNF-alpha (2.34-fold) concentrations, indicating a high level of cell injury and inflammation.”

5. Marathon running damages your brain. The damage resembles acute brain trauma. Marathon runners have elevated S100beta, a marker of brain damage and blood brain barrier disfunction. There is S100beta again, a marker of cancer and of brain damage.

From Marchi, et al Restor Neurol Neurosci, 2003; 21 (3-4): 109-21, “S100beta in serum is an early marker of BBB openings that may precede neuronal damage and may influence therapeutic strategies. Secondary, massive elevations in S100beta are indicators of prior brain damage and bear clinical significance as predictors of poor outcome or diagnostic means to differentiate extensive damage from minor, transient impairment.”

Other studies indicate confusion in post-event marathon runners.

4. Marathons damage your heart. From Whyte, et al Med Sci Sports Ecerc, 2001 May, 33 (5) 850-1, “Echocardiographic studies report cardiac dysfunction following ultra-endurance exercise in trained individuals. Ironman and half-Ironman competition resulted in reversible abnormalities in resting left ventricular diastolic and systolic function. Results suggest that myocardial damage may be, in part, responsible for cardiac dysfunction, although the mechanisms responsible for this cardiac damage remain to be fully elucidated.”

3. Endurance athletes have more spine degeneration.

From Schmitt et al Int J Sports Med. 2005 Jul; 26 (6): 457-63, “The aim of this study was to assess bone mineral density (BMD) and degenerative changes in the lumbar spine in male former elite athletes participating in different track and field disciplines and to determine the influence of body composition and degenerative changes on BMD. One hundred and fifty-nine former male elite athletes (40 throwers, 97 jumpers, 22 endurance athletes) were studied. …Throwers had a higher body mass index than jumpers and endurance athletes. Throwers and jumpers had higher BMD (T-LWS) than endurance athletes. Bivariate analysis revealed a negative correlation of BMD (T-score) with age and a positive correlation with BMD and Kellgren score (p < 0.05). Even after multiple adjustment for confounders lumbar spine BMD is significantly higher in throwers, pole vaulters, and long- and triple jumpers than in marathon athletes.”

The number two reason not to run marathons,

2. At least four particiants of the Boston Marathon have died of brain cancer in the past 10 years. Purely anecdotal, but consistent with the elevated S100beta counts and TKN-alpha measures. Perhaps also connected to the microthrombi of the endothelium found in marathoners.

And now ladies and gentlemen the number one reason not to run marathons,

1. The first marathon runner, Phidippides, collapsed and died at the finish of his race. [ Jaworski, Curr Sports Med Rep. 1005 June; 4 (3), 137-43.]

Now there is a recommendation for a healthy activity. The original participant died in the event. But, this is not quite so unusual; many of the running and nutritional gurus of the past decade or two died rather young. Pritikin, Sheehy, Fixx, and Atkins, among many other originators of “healthy” practices died at comparatively young ages. Jack LaLanne, the only well-known guru to advocate body building, will outlive us all.

Copyright 2005 to present Arthur De Vany, all rights reserved.

Salt Lake 1/2 Marathon

Dr. Clint Blackwood and I after the race.

So, I decided to try my hand at a 1/2 Marathon. After last year's triathlons I thought it would be worthwhile to push my limits by doing something new. I enjoyed the competition, and the feel of the race. 7:00AM start time at the University of Utah and ending at The Gateway in downtown SLC. The farthest I had run this spring coming into the event was about 5 miles at one time, but I had been doing a lot of sprinting and biking. I knew my body could take whatever I dished out to it, but it was a question of how hard to push. I started the race blazing fast finishing the first 4 miles in about 26 minutes. When I got the four mile mark and checked my watch I thought I better pull back on the reigns a little and settle into a more manageable pace. The race took us east to west in the SLC valley. The course dumped us out onto State Street for the last 2-3 miles running north toward Temple Square. We climbed the hill right in front of Eagle Gate by the Lion House and then turned west to finish at the Gateway. On the climb up State Street my calves started to tighten up, but other then that my body did great. Finished in 1:46;29 averaging about 8:00 miles. With the St. George Tri coming up in less then a month it was good to get out and push my body and mind to do something I had never done.

A Sea of Change..........Barefoot?

A Sea Change Coming to Wash Your Shoes Away

I’m sure you’ve seen it. It’s all over the news. People are finally beginning to come around to that inconvenient truth about our feet, that dirty little secret that shoe companies would prefer to keep under wraps: barefoot is better.

Recently I have taken up barefoot running and a lot of people have raised their eyebrows at it. Especially when I wear my Five Fingers to the gym for running or simply doing deadlifts and squats. I never get injuries any more and my joints feel much better.

There has been media coverage of the barefoot trend in the past, mostly intermittent, in running magazines and always taking a patronizing tone. It follows the same formula: more idle speculation on a bizarre fad that a select few crazies are promoting, with plenty of “balance” from stuffy foot specialists expressing doubt that the inherently fragile, gentle human foot could ever withstand the rigors of walking unshod without “serious injury,” than any serious consideration of the merits. But now we’ve got a nice, juicy study to hang our hats (or our shoes) on, and media outlets are falling over themselves to get the scoop.

Witness the Boston Globe’s take on the whole thing, or the LA Times feature. The Edmonton Journal got into the action, too, as did the Telegraph, while even San Jose’s Mercury News mentioned the study. The Popular Science blog did a piece on it. And of course, the rest of the blogosphere picked up on it, too: Open Water Chicago, Conditioning Research, and the Chi Running blog, to name just a few.

The study in question was Harvard evolutionary biologist Daniel Lieberman’s on “Foot strike patterns and collision forces in habitually barefoot versus shod runners.” (See comparison videos below. The difference between shod heel strike running and barefoot forefoot strike running is visually and graphically captured. For more on what you’re seeing check out NPR’s coverage.) It’s hard to believe that this is the first study of its kind, though, probably because it actually isn’t. Last year, researchers ran a similar study and decided that “Footwear Alters Normal Form and Function of the Foot” by exerting acute pressure to sensitive areas of the foot, whereas barefoot walkers enjoyed wider forefeet and more evenly distributed locomotive stress. Interesting, but probably because it didn’t make any bold pronouncements and because it dealt with the relatively mundane act of walking (rather than running), the study didn’t get any press. They could have recommended people throw off their shoes, but that wouldn’t be prudent. It wouldn’t be responsible. I can’t fault them for that, really. Researchers need funding, and you don’t want to make bold pronouncements if it means getting cut off or reprimanded. Unfortunately, scientists need to be bold to effect real change.

Even when the “experts” get it so, so right, they do their best to get it wrong in the end, or they hedge their bets and stick with the safe answer, rather than question Conventional Wisdom entirely (even if the data contradicts CW directly). I’m reminded of when Gary Taubes famously lamented a similar mindset in physicians and obesity researchers who, although they understood (and even witnessed in a clinical setting) the chronic insulin/body fat connection, continued to recommend the standard low-fat, high-carb, low-calorie diet to their patients. They connect all the dots, but fail to see the bigger picture clearly outlined by those dots. To their credit, though, researchers can and do make sensible recommendations within the context of Conventional Wisdom. The researchers from that walking study did ultimately call for the design of “quality footwear” that doesn’t “hamper the foot’s biologically normal function.” Better than nothing, I suppose.

Now, even though I agree with Lieberman’s conclusions (actually, because I’m such a huge fan of barefoot), it pays to be critical. I know Lieberman has affiliations with Vibram – in fact, he may have even helped them design the Fivefingers – and that they probably funded the study, and I know that we hem, haw, and cast skeptical eyes on Pfizer when they fund yet another statin paper. There’s a major difference between the two, though: Lieberman is right. His data is strong. He isn’t hiding anything or fudging the results. We’re right. Barefoot is better. There’s no shame in that, you know – being right. There are objective truths out there, and the objective truth is that most people aren’t born with genetically defective feet. Everyone’s imperfect, sure, but for the most part we’ve all got the same basic equipment with the same basic biomechanics working under the hood. Unless you have a birth defect, no one is born with feet that “won’t work right” or that “require shoes”. The flat footed (no arch) argument doesn’t stand up as an excuse, except when you’ve already spent a lifetime coddling your feet in supportive casts. A cautionary word that anyone transitioning to a barefoot lifestyle should take it VERY easy at first.

There was one more response to the barefoot running study that bears mentioning: Brooks (world famous running shoe company) CEO Jim Weber’s scrambling blog post. You know – I feel for the guy. It’s gotta be tough to make a reasonable response to a scientifically sound piece of research that refutes almost everything you’ve built your business on. I mean, what is he supposed to do? Admit that he’s been wrong this whole time? Admit that his shoes are basically coffins for the feet? Naturally, he goes with the entirely unsubstantiated claim that the “vast majority of runners” should race “in a performance running shoe, not barefoot.” Apparently, we barefooters are a genetically gifted breed of athlete who are “biomechanically blessed” with “natural healthy gaits.” Hmm. So, the natural, normal gait is actually somehow rare and precious. It doesn’t occur naturally. Got it. Jim, did you ever stop to think why so many of your runners seem to lack that natural healthy gait? Perhaps it’s the shoes. Our “unique biomechanical needs” are only unique because we’ve been smashing, smushing, and confining our feet to too-small, too-constrictive, too-structured footwear for years. Check out your comments section, dude. The people have spoken. You can’t ignore anecdotal evidence pouring in from all sides forever.

I eagerly await your upcoming, inevitable barefoot-analogous running shoe model.

When the CEO of a major running shoe company makes a public acknowledgment, that’s a sign. A sea change is undoubtedly occurring here, folks. The media may help spur things along, but they’re just reporting what’s really happening out there. If there wasn’t a massive audience for the barefoot message present and willing to get out there and experiment for themselves, there’d be no story. Just check out the comment sections for all the blogs and all the newspaper articles dealing with the study. In previous barefoot articles, most of the comments were either dubious or dismissive of the “fad”; now, the naysayers clinging to their Nikes are being drowned out by barefoot evangelists. I applaud them.

Barefoot Ted

From "Born To Run" by Christopher McDougall:
"A lot of foot and knee injuries that are currently plaguing us are actually caused by people running with shoes that actually make our feet weak, cause us to over-pronate, and give us knee problems. Until, 1972, when the modern athletic shoe was invented by Nike, people ran in very thin-soled shoes, had strong feet, and had much lower incidence of knee injuries.

And the human cost of those injuries? Fatal disease in epidemic proportions. Humans really are obligatorily required to do aerobic exercise in order to stay healthy, and I think that has deep roots in our evolutionary history. If there's any magic bullet to make human beings healthy, it's to run.

If running shoes never existed more people would be running. If more people ran, fewer would be dying of degenerative heart disease, sudden cardiac arrest, hypertension, blocked arteries, diabetes, and most other deadly ailments of the Wester world."

Additional Stories:
To Run Better, Start By Ditching Your Nikes
Also this story by Zoie Clift