Can marathon running permanently damage the heart?

[Zelenius]

More and more I keep hearing about the possibility of marathon running causing permanent damage to the heart muscle - How Much Running Is Bad For Your Heart?

This may be why, on a regular basis, there are news stories about runners from around the world dropping dead from heart failure during or after marathons. One of the founders of the ultra-running movement, Micah True, dropped dead last year from heart failure.

I've always been an avid runner, I've always been in good shape, but I've never done marathons. I've considered it, but I don't think I'll get anything out of it that I don't get from my usual running routine. Besides, I dislike large crowds and lots of noise. A few times a year I run half-marathon distances, but all alone along trails in state parks.

As an aside, I've never really understood the point of running endlessly for hours on a regular basis. It's one of those "just because you can, doesn't mean you should" kind of things to me. Ultra-running isn't necessarily "better" than casual running, with the article above suggesting casual runners may be healthier in the long-term.

The people I know who do marathons or ultra-marathons on a regular basis sometimes encourage me to join them. But their compulsive desire to run reminds me more of drug-addicts(addicted to their own endorphins) than health-enthusiasts. If, for whatever reason, they can't run for one day(many marathoners are also streakers), they appear to suffer from "withdrawal", and are unpleasant to be around.

I love to run, but I am just disillusioned with a certain sub-culture within the larger running culture, even if the health risks are minimal.

 

[steve s]

there are news stories about runners from around the world dropping dead from heart failure during or after marathons.

Considering that marathons can often have tens of thousands of people in them, a sample group that large is bound to have some people with heart problems. Can you show that the percentage exceeds the national average?

Steve S

 

[Zelenius]

Considering that marathons can often have tens of thousands of people in them, a sample group that large is bound to have some people with heart problems. Can you show that the percentage exceeds the national average?

Steve S

I don't have to show that the percentage exceeds the national average because that wasn't my point. Obviously, some people with heart defects are going be among the tens of thousands of marathon runners.

Overwhelmingly, marathon running is not a dangerous activity, since almost no one dies in them. But one doesn't have to drop dead from a heart attack to demonstrate their heart has been damaged, so it's not all or nothing.

This shows the possibility of damage from marathon-runners - Endurance exercise 'may damage the heart'

 

[Tiktaalik]

Interesting, but the study in the link seems to show that most runners recovered within one week, and the rest weren't tracked - so it's hard to say "permanent damage" ensued.

 

[alfaniner]

Running, on the whole, is probably much better for you than not running.

 

[casebro]

Running, on the whole, is probably much better for you than not running.

The way I heard it is that running will add one year to your life span. But you will need to spend two years running to do it, for a net loss of one year. Dunno about the truth.

 

[casebro]

I don't have to show that the percentage exceeds the national average because that wasn't my point. Obviously, some people with heart defects are going be among the tens of thousands of marathon runners.

Overwhelmingly, marathon running is not a dangerous activity, since almost no one dies in them. But one doesn't have to drop dead from a heart attack to demonstrate their heart has been damaged, so it's not all or nothing.

This shows the possibility of damage from marathon-runners - Endurance exercise 'may damage the heart'

I would have phrased the results differently- "Running a marathon makes your heart tired. It will recover in a week. Unless you are old, then it may take longer to recover."

 

[casebro]

But hmm, I wonder why they didn't fractionate the CKs? There is a particular heart muscle breakdown kinase that defines heart muscle damage. It basically defines heart attacks. CK-MB, CK-umm MC? MK?

 

[Roboramma]

The way I heard it is that running will add one year to your life span. But you will need to spend two years running to do it, for a net loss of one year. Dunno about the truth.

"Net loss"? People tend to be alive while they are running.

The question that you seem to be addressing is whether or not you enjoy running: if not, it may not be worth it for the extension of life, though the other health benefits and general fitness are also worth consideration.

I suspect that aside from living longer runners also tend to have a higher quality of life during the time that they are alive.

 

[Stomatopoda]

Seems really boring, regardless. Rather stick to short, high-intensity exercise, and have time left for other things.

 

[The Don]

Seems really boring, regardless. Rather stick to short, high-intensity exercise, and have time left for other things.

I'm not a marathon runner but I've been known to strap on me daps from time to time........

Far from being boring a two hour run through the countryside on a nice early morning (ideally early enough to enjoy the dawn) is one of the most life-affirming things you can do IMO.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

If, for whatever reason, they can't run for one day(many marathoners are also streakers), they appear to suffer from "withdrawal", and are unpleasant to be around.

I'm not sure of the connection to nudity.

 

[casebro]

....

I suspect that aside from living longer runners also tend to have a higher quality of life during the time that they are alive.

The how come they are never smiling while running?

But yes, the higher quality of life is the key advantage to fitness. You feel better, so you do more with the years you get.


But the achy knees and sore feet sure make the days seem longer too.

 

[Garrette]

I'm not a marathon runner but I've been known to strap on me daps from time to time........

Far from being boring a two hour run through the countryside on a nice early morning (ideally early enough to enjoy the dawn) is one of the most life-affirming things you can do IMO.

I disagree with the generalization since I know many people who would more likely find it life threatening. That said, I agree with the sentiment. When I am in shape (which does not include this moment), long, slow runs on a nice day are marvelous.

The how come they are never smiling while running?

I apparently grimace continuosly while running, even when I am enjoying myself. My friends and family who see it frequently approach me to make sure I'm okay; photographers for running events who intent to include my photo in their portfolios change their mind when they get a closer look at my expression. One even refused to give me the picture I asked for because he was sure I wouldn't like it based on my facial expression.

But yes, the higher quality of life is the key advantage to fitness. You feel better, so you do more with the years you get.

Again, I agree with the sentiment but not the generalization. Running isn't for everyone, neither in regard to enjoyment nor, I suspect, in regard to the degree of health benefits obtained. I like running but despise ellipticals; in fact, they hurt my back, regardless how often or how insistently others tell me how much better they are for me than running.

But the achy knees and sore feet sure make the days seem longer too.

One of life's greatest investments: Good running shoes.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Seems really boring, regardless. Rather stick to short, high-intensity exercise, and have time left for other things.

You could get really good at it, so you can run the marathon in like ten minutes.

Of course, you'd have to run way faster than any human has ever done, but it's a small price to pay to avoid boredom.

 

[RenaissanceBiker]

The how come they are never smiling while running?

For me, I am concentrating on proper breathing and running posture. I usually smile afterwards.

I don't really smile during sex either, but I assure you that I do enjoy it.

 

[Bikewer]

I've never been a runner. Even as a fit young lad in my late teens in the army, the best mile I ever managed was over 6 minutes and I can't say I ever enjoyed the practice.
Now, rather older.... With bad knees and bunions and a wonky lower back as well... Out of the question.
But running is just one form of aerobic exercise. I've been an enthusiastic cyclist since the 70s, and all my ailments don't matter a bit. I can pedal smoothly and ride pain-free.
Also, for years I practiced the "Heavyhands" system developed by Leonard Schwartz. This involves doing aerobic exercise (either calisthenic exercises or power-walking) with light weights.

Involving the upper-body musculature in the aerobic mix is efficient; folks in disciplines like rowing and cross-country skiing apparently post the highest "VO2 Max" figures of all athletes.
These are not easy for average folks to do, but anyone can take a pair of hand-weights and walk around the block whilst vigorously pumping the weights.
There are many off-shoots to this idea; the popular "Zumba" system is essentially Heavyhands, and the idea behind walking with the ski-pole-like items is the same....Involve the upper body muscles.

 

[Pup]

I've never been a runner. Even as a fit young lad in my late teens in the army, the best mile I ever managed was over 6 minutes and I can't say I ever enjoyed the practice.

One problem I've noticed with runners as a group, is their inability to comprehend that because they can do something, it's not necessarily your fault if you can't do it. They did understand why they couldn't run a four-minute-mile, but they didn't understand why I couldn't run as fast as them.

I simply can't run fast. I could never manage more than an average of about 10 minutes a mile over several miles, despite being healthy and normal weight, which is shockingly slow to another runner. They took it as conclusive evidence that I wasn't fit, wasn't practicing enough, whatever.

Yet I could put on a backpack and walk up a steep hill without even getting out of breath, so my muscles and heart are/were well within normal fitness range that ought to produce 8-minute miles after a little practice.

So after a few years, rather than endure the social ostracism of being considered a slacker or a loser by other runners, and being yelled at and harrassed for running in public by non-runners (it's apparently not socially allowed where I live), hiking with a backpack is how I exercise.

Concerning the point in the OP: One distinction that seems to be missing is that the people studied were presumably those who had pushed themselves to their limit in competition. I'd expect that to produce a different result than those who were exercising with the goal of gradual improvement.

 

[AgeGap]

"Several studies have found evidence of “cardiac injury” in runners after they complete a marathon, including enzymes suggesting that heart muscle has been damaged. To investigate these claims more closely, researchers at the University of Manitoba used magnetic resonance imaging to perform a detailed analysis of the hearts of participants in the Manitoba Marathon, publishing the results in the American Journal of Cardiology in 2009. They found that, despite initial evidence of damage, normal heart function resumed within a week. In other words, your heart muscles take a beating during a marathon but recover soon afterwards, just like your leg muscles."

from "Which comes first? Cardio or weights." by Alex Hutchinson, Ph.D.

This is an excellent book about the research and study of excercise. It looks at, and criticises, research. It is like the Bad Science of Fitness.

Referenced papers:
N. Mousavi et al., “Relation of biomarkers and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging after marathon running,” American Journal of Cardiology, 2009, 103(10), 1467–1472.
Kim Petersen, “Muscle mechanical characteristics in fatigue and recovery from a marathon race in highly trained runners,” European Journal of Applied Physiology, 2007, 101, 385–396.
William Sherman et al., “Effect of a 42.2-km footrace and subsequent rest or exercise on muscular strength and work capacity,” Journal of Applied Physiology: Respiratory, Environmental and Exercise Physiology, 1984, 57(6), 1668–1673.

 

[Soapy Sam]

I know from bitter experience that running can bugger your knees.
It seems likely that overdoing any exercise, or stressing a virus or other illness weakened system can cause permanent damage. But so can sitting on your backside.