Comments on The Science of Sport: Deaths during running: Is exercise safe, Part 2

Every online community has its norms. What I said...

2009-10-30T16:45:52.816+02:00

Every online community has its norms. What I said over there was controversial, yes, but not unusual for that board. It's all in good fun. Furthermore, if I caused some people to rethink the relative safety of the places they train then I've done a good thing.

I assure you that my intent here is to bring this issue to light in the context of the current topic, which is the relative safety of our sport.

I've suggested topics for further discussion on this blog before and one suggestion even resulted in a four-part series on muscle cramps.
http://www.sportsscientists.com/2007/10/fluid-intake-dehydration-and-exercise_26.html As you can see, Ross even says to me, "Thanks ahead for your readership, and keep those ideas coming!"

So I do take issue with your pronouncement that I somehow have no business posting here.

In short, I try to be a good citizen. I'm sorry if you misunderstood my intent.

Stan

Stan, You posted a link to a thread where a guy n...

2009-10-30T15:44:50.277+02:00

Stan,

You posted a link to a thread where a guy named Stan (presumably you) wrote:

"The roads were designed for cars, not people. If you get hit it's your own fault."

If that's not trolling, I don't know what is. Again, please take it somewhere else, like back to that thread.

Thanks.

Well Maryka, I certainly can't match your brillian...

2009-10-30T15:31:18.310+02:00

Well Maryka, I certainly can't match your brilliant insights on this topic.

But in case you missed the point, the risk in our sport from people training on the roads may far outstrip any risk of a sudden cardiac event.

Stan

Hey Stan, do us all a favour and instead of hijack...

2009-10-30T14:47:31.992+02:00

Hey Stan, do us all a favour and instead of hijacking the comments on this site, go back to trolling your thread on Training Peaks.

Thanks.

I have a tip for you. Check out this thread/poll ...

2009-10-30T14:21:18.404+02:00

I have a tip for you. Check out this thread/poll about the safety of running on the roads.

It's something most runners do, and in the poll 75% of runners said they had either been hit by a car or had a close call. When told they were doing something dangerous, most denied that fact or just said they accept the risk.

I think this is so interesting because runners, who are always touting the health benefits of their sport, regularly "play in traffic" and risk serious injury or even death. I know of two runners who were killed by cars in recent years in the Atlanta area alone. And that's just the ones I know about.

So what is the relative safety of training on the roads? I think nobody really knows, but for the good of our sport it would behoove us to find out.

At any rate, it certainly made for an interesting topic rife with self-denial.

Stan

How ironic, I found this piece of news just days a...

2009-10-26T17:49:46.052+02:00

How ironic, I found this piece of news just days after you asked for information on deaths in other sports

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Basketball/News/2009/10/26/11526596-ap.html

My sincere condolences go out to the family of Kevin Widemond.

HI everyone Thanks for the great comments as alwa...

2009-10-26T16:37:20.989+02:00

HI everyone

Thanks for the great comments as always!

Just one quick response to Leagz:

The last article was very widely read by the media, and that's kind part of why this follow up was done. It was also read by many of the big marathon doctors and the medical community who do share the media's opinion of how dangerous the sport can be!

So while most of the athletes like yourself agree and are "converted", a good many are not, and amazingly, many of them are doctors or scientists who read this blog. And the media who read it as well! So hopefully ONE person may now look more positively on the sport as a result of this!

Regards
Ross

Great post as usual! Fun stuff too, I'll be repos...

2009-10-26T16:34:02.605+02:00

Great post as usual! Fun stuff too, I'll be reposting this link.

One thing I'm surprised at is that motoring, snowmobiling, and cycling all supposedly have fewer deaths per million hours than running. That seems really counterintuitive.

If the Canadian benefit is calculated, as you stat...

2009-10-26T16:25:55.285+02:00

If the Canadian benefit is calculated, as you state, just "Because courses are closed to traffic" during the race, then this seems to ignore the signifiant risk reduction in the fact that, both while racing and training, the runners are not driving, which a proportion of them would otherwise be doing, and thus relieving them of the risk of dying at the wheel.
Also, the death argument is but a tiny part of the picture, given that exercise promotes fitness and health, which is arguably a much more significant quality of life benefit than reduction of death risk.
Alas though, Colenso is right - you are preaching to the converted on this website/newsletter, and no-one who should be reading it is likely to be. Better to spend effort moving on to another topic. The media won't change its spots.

This is all awesome discussion. Thanks for the plu...

2009-10-26T16:18:29.267+02:00

This is all awesome discussion. Thanks for the plug guys... not sure my blog is worthy though.

Relative risk is always fun to ponder but it seems to be a serious rabbit hole. I am a whitewater kayaking enthusiast, constantly pondering these issues. People's perception is that whitewater paddling is SUPER dangerous. "Not compared to driving to the river," I say to them. They are usually not convinced. With something like cycling on the shoulder of a road I prefer to not think about it because, like driving, most components of risk are completely out of our control and not really worth getting stressed out about.

Maybe that's what it comes down to, until the activity you are doing poses a risk that is tangible and affectable, trying to weigh the relative risk is just silly talk. Of course running is good for you... as long as you wouldn't otherwise be doing something more dangerous... whatever that might be. Rabbit hole anyone?

In terms of the media, they got caught up with one six year old boy who was obviously not in the balloon to anyone who understands how balloons lift things. Should we really pay any attention to the sensationalism called news that just keeps the sheeple watching commercials?

oh cynicism, will you ever get old?

To add to Kresimir's point - I would expect that t...

2009-10-26T14:43:21.275+02:00

To add to Kresimir's point - I would expect that the greatest risk to marathoners arises from their training if they train adjacent to or on roads (as opposed to the lucky ones who can train entirely off-road, in woods or parkland) - this is just based (loosely) on statistics for death rate of pedestrians (which in the stats includes anyone on foot) in the UK.
A more genreal point about the risk versus the health benefits, this echoes the debate around helmet wearing for cyclists where, if making helmet wearing compulsory, decreases the number of cyclists and the amount of cycling undertaken by the population, the overall result is a higher mortality irrespective of the influence of the helmets in mitigating head injuries (open to dbate in itself) due to the loss of fitness health benefits. People get so wound up in 'cycling is dangerous', not helped by the media interest in the deaths (e.g. due to 'bendy-buses' in London) that they cannot conceive of the benefits of the activity.

Hunting 0.08? I thought the purpose of hunting wa...

2009-10-26T13:15:04.985+02:00

Hunting 0.08?

I thought the purpose of hunting was to cause death on a larger scale than that.

Well, excellent text! Could not agree more. I woul...

2009-10-26T12:59:49.709+02:00

Well, excellent text! Could not agree more. I would like to add 2 points that may be interesting to some.

1. One should try to calculate risk of travelling to marathon races. Let's assume that average person travels to race 10M by car. I suppose that actually risk of losing life in travelling to races is much higher than to get a heart attack with a racing number on.

2. The fact that our collegues didn't make it may be connected with the fact of getting close to the finish line when we all try and give our best to squeeze out few extra seconds. Remembering one sprint finish in a 1.5 hour race when I didn't want to give up the podium place, while a glance to the HRM made me aware of getting above 200 bpm, which surely poses a life treathening condition for a 40+ recreational "athlete". My point is that we should be more careful and set our max HR somewhat lower, thinking not about few seconds, but on many still to come.

Kresimir

One of the many reasons I come back to this blog a...

2009-10-26T07:00:20.126+02:00

One of the many reasons I come back to this blog again and again is because I find it so stimulating.

I read what you guys, and other posters, say - it causes me pause to think. I then ponder for a while (sometimes for a long while) on what I've read (or think I've read).

Now, that brings me in a roundabout way to my point, which in five parts is this:

First, I have not come across any publication by reputable sports scientists or research exercise physiologists that concludes or suggests even that Homo should not compete in marathons. Am I right - there just aren’t any, or have I missed them?

Second, most of the anti-running polemic is therefore from, for want of a better term, ignoramuses. That is, they are ignorant about the exercise physiology of running; they are ignorant about sports science in general; they are ignorant of the history and current practise of competitive middle to long distance running.

Third, their ignorance doesn’t stop them sounding off, and the more ignorant they are the more loudly they sound off. (Read the latest posts on the NYT Well blog to see what I mean.)

Fourth, now for the rhetorical question: why is this? I know, one can just brush the phenomenon aside, one always finds ignorant gain sayers etc, but I think it’s important. This is because Homo’s perception of his world IS always important. For instance, in Anticipatory regulation of exercise, posted here last week right on this blog, Ross has summarised his convincing thesis that the runner’s perception of his or her race effort is a critical factor affecting the racer’s pace. (I hope I've got that right Ross!)

Fifth, my summing up. I don’t think that the message about the importance of running to get or keep fit is getting through. Depressing, I know. But let’s recognise the truth here. In general, modern Homo chooses not to run; he doesn’t like running; he doesn’t want to run; ergo, in order to justify not running, to himself or to others, he claws desperately at every excuse served up to him (such as the recent sad deaths of three runners in the Detroit Half). And this is DESPITE the convincing research, for example published by Daniel E Lieberman and Bramble, that Homo has evolved to become (with the possible exception of race horses and dogs specially bred by Homo) to become the best adapted distance runner this world has ever known.

Conclusion: we need more research on why people don't run; more research on how, if possible, to motivate them to get them running.