Can you run TOO much?

[CanadianNoob]

I just finished a 4.5km run and was thinking about running to the gym and back tonight which will be 5km in total (Plus the 4.5km from my run this afternoon)

But is there a point in which you're running TOO much that it might cause joint problems?

Obviously one day of this isn't going to do anything, but I was thinking about running a lot more to help with my cut but was unsure if I could raise my chances of joint problems down the road.

[orion146]

The simple answer is yes - but there's some nuance, and as long as you're smart, you won't have any problems.

The first way you can run too much is too burn off to many calories running relative to your expenditure. Undernourishment, especially for growing people, is bad, even if you wanna lose weight. Lose weight at a reasonable speed or risk your health (or worse... lose muscle).

The second way you can run too much is to run a lot sporadically (I have this problem). Basically, you can't take a month long break from running, then suddenly get back into your 5+ mile range instantly. If I haven't ran in a week or two, I always cap my run at 2-3 miles because any more risks shin splints because your bones have become less accustomed to the long distances and pounding.

The third way is ignoring clear pain signals and running too hard/too much despite having an injury which is obviously bad.

ALSO in terms of avoiding injury, how you run is as important (probably more important) than how much you run. In general, don't slam your foot into the ground; run on soft dirt/grass/etc. surfaces when you can over hard asphalt/concrete/etc; make sure you have 1/2-1 mile to warmup and get your blood flowing and muscles ready. I'm sure others will have more tips along these lines.

[koweanguy]

The simple answer is yes - but there's some nuance, and as long as you're smart, you won't have any problems.

The first way you can run too much is too burn off to many calories running relative to your expenditure. Undernourishment, especially for growing people, is bad, even if you wanna lose weight. Lose weight at a reasonable speed or risk your health (or worse... lose muscle).

The second way you can run too much is to run a lot sporadically (I have this problem). Basically, you can't take a month long break from running, then suddenly get back into your 5+ mile range instantly. If I haven't ran in a week or two, I always cap my run at 2-3 miles because any more risks shin splints because your bones have become less accustomed to the long distances and pounding.

The third way is ignoring clear pain signals and running too hard/too much despite having an injury which is obviously bad.

ALSO in terms of avoiding injury, how you run is as important (probably more important) than how much you run. In general, don't slam your foot into the ground; run on soft dirt/grass/etc. surfaces when you can over hard asphalt/concrete/etc; make sure you have 1/2-1 mile to warmup and get your blood flowing and muscles ready. I'm sure others will have more tips along these lines.

^Excellent points. You can lose all that effort you put into lifting if you run excessively :/

Btw, BCAA's helps a lot when you're cutting as it speeds muscle recovery.

[oldballs]

Yes you can run too much. That's why they came up with the term "too much"

[IDrinkBloodLOL]

Of course you can, just look at endurance runners. Their bodies are awful.

[DCSpartan]

yes, but 5k there and 5k back isnt going to cause anything bad.

[FltDoc06]

An interesting study came out last month and was presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology. After studying 3800 runners, the authors found that running excessively led to SHORTER life spans, equivalent to the life expectancy of those who do not run at all. This happened for those running more than 20 miles/week. Those running less experienced a boost in life expectancy. The "sweet spot" occurred for those running at a slow to moderate pace no more than 2.5 hours/week.

There are now several studies out with similar results. The thinking is that prolonged aerobic exercise induces a cumulative oxidative injury (opposite effect of antioxidants) that produces progressive injury not only on joints but also on other organ systems.

[CookAndrewB]

Of course you can, just look at endurance runners. Their bodies are awful.

Guess we can't all look as good as you...

For my .02, you can do anything "too much" but I don't think the amount of running the OP is talking about qualifies. I run considerably more than that and I haven't experienced any of the dreaded muscle wasting that everyone fears. If anything, I carry less body fat and I'm not as strong as I am when I'm a tubby slug. I'm willing to take the good with the bad, but among the "bad" is not a lack of muscle.

[CookAndrewB]

An interesting study came out last month and was presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology. After studying 3800 runners, the authors found that running excessively led to SHORTER life spans, equivalent to the life expectancy of those who do not run at all. This happened for those running more than 20 miles/week. Those running less experienced a boost in life expectancy. The "sweet spot" occurred for those running at a slow to moderate pace no more than 2.5 hours/week.

There are now several studies out with similar results. The thinking is that prolonged aerobic exercise induces a cumulative oxidative injury (opposite effect of antioxidants) that produces progressive injury not only on joints but also on other organ systems.

^^^
Good points. As with anything else, nature punishes a specialist.

[lightningwatche]

You can run too much for your current fitness level or current body weight. You also have a genetic limit. Build up to everything gradually, even if you can push to get it now.

[lightningwatche]

An interesting study came out last month and was presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology. After studying 3800 runners, the authors found that running excessively led to SHORTER life spans, equivalent to the life expectancy of those who do not run at all. This happened for those running more than 20 miles/week. Those running less experienced a boost in life expectancy. The "sweet spot" occurred for those running at a slow to moderate pace no more than 2.5 hours/week.

There are now several studies out with similar results. The thinking is that prolonged aerobic exercise induces a cumulative oxidative injury (opposite effect of antioxidants) that produces progressive injury not only on joints but also on other organ systems.

Sounds believable. I would have guessed that running 3 miles, 4-5 days per week would have been optimal, at least for people with average muscle fiber make up. Still, I think the study just looks at correlation, and lacks controls. Obviously people who don't do cardio will be worse off. But of the people in each cardio group, how many are biologically safe to do that length of cardio? Maybe the shorter group is just healthier for more people. I know a lot of people who insist on doing marathons, just to boast about it, even though I think that is extremely unhealthy for all but the most endurance optimized people.

[Daarew]

An interesting study came out last month and was presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology. After studying 3800 runners, the authors found that running excessively led to SHORTER life spans, equivalent to the life expectancy of those who do not run at all. This happened for those running more than 20 miles/week. Those running less experienced a boost in life expectancy. The "sweet spot" occurred for those running at a slow to moderate pace no more than 2.5 hours/week.

There are now several studies out with similar results. The thinking is that prolonged aerobic exercise induces a cumulative oxidative injury (opposite effect of antioxidants) that produces progressive injury not only on joints but also on other organ systems.

Obviously a retrospective study and so conclusions are based off correlation not causation. The study brings up interesting points...but you have to wonder for how long are these people running 20miles/week? Is it 5 years or 20 years or 1 year?

And if you've ever done a retrospective study well you know that involves subject/patient recall and estimating what they did.

Anyways based on just this information I'm still not banning someone from running more than 20 miles/week...

[Daarew]

Sounds believable. I would have guessed that running 3 miles, 4-5 days per week would have been optimal, at least for people with average muscle fiber make up. Still, I think the study just looks at correlation, and lacks controls. Obviously people who don't do cardio will be worse off. But of the people in each cardio group, how many are biologically safe to do that length of cardio? Maybe the shorter group is just healthier for more people. I know a lot of people who insist on doing marathons, just to boast about it, even though I think that is extremely unhealthy for all but the most endurance optimized people.

Agreed, I think the study really alludes to potential health risk in long distance or endurance running...which any intense exercise can cause health risks, I have seen people hospitalized for rhabdomyolysis from marathons and even crossfit

[banjoman23]

An interesting study came out last month and was presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology. After studying 3800 runners, the authors found that running excessively led to SHORTER life spans, equivalent to the life expectancy of those who do not run at all. This happened for those running more than 20 miles/week. Those running less experienced a boost in life expectancy. The "sweet spot" occurred for those running at a slow to moderate pace no more than 2.5 hours/week.

There are now several studies out with similar results. The thinking is that prolonged aerobic exercise induces a cumulative oxidative injury (opposite effect of antioxidants) that produces progressive injury not only on joints but also on other organ systems.

From: http://www.runnersworld.com/health/t...th-rises-again

Cox regression was used to quantify the association between running and mortality after adjusting for baseline age, sex, examination year, body mass index, current smoking, heavy alcohol drinking, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, parental CVD, and levels of other physical activities.

What this means is that they used statistical methods to effectively "equalize" everyone's weight, blood pressure, cholesterol, and so on. But this is absurd when you think about it. Why do we think running is good for health? In part because it plays a role in reducing weight, blood pressure, cholesterol, and so on (for more details on how this distorts the results, including evidence from other studies on how these statistical tricks hide real health benefits from much higher amounts of running, see my earlier blog entry). They're effectively saying, "If we ignore the known health benefits of greater amounts of aerobic exercise, then greater amounts of aerobic exercise don't have any health benefits."

[IDrinkBloodLOL]

Guess we can't all look as good as you...

For my .02, you can do anything "too much" but I don't think the amount of running the OP is talking about qualifies. I run considerably more than that and I haven't experienced any of the dreaded muscle wasting that everyone fears. If anything, I carry less body fat and I'm not as strong as I am when I'm a tubby slug. I'm willing to take the good with the bad, but among the "bad" is not a lack of muscle.

For what it's worth, I think running more than 90% of the misc is probably beneficial and advisable. Doesn't mean there isn't an upper limit somewhere.

[Connor1226]

It is a myth that running is cause joint problems.
Sure, it's a high impacts sport, but so what? With proper training your body adapts and strengthens to handle the impact. Just like your body adapts and strengthens to handle the strain of weight lifting. Running is not going to hurt your joints any more than weight lifting.
The whole key is training properly. Don't throw high new amounts of volume or intensity at your body.

A good rule of thumb used in the running community for newbies is the 10% rule. Don't increase weekly milage by more than 10% per week.
I also wouldn't add much more than 50% to a single run at any time.
Going from a 2 mile run to a 3 mile run because you feel good probably isn't a big deal. Going on a 6 mile run when your previous longest was 3 miles, probably a very bad idea that is asking for injury.
If you ever feel like you push it too far one day, just back off and let yourself heal up.

If you want to run just make sure you do it right and you will suffer no joint problems. Getting a good pair of shoes is the first priority. That's a good injury preventer for newbies.

PS read up on science before going with old wives tales. Scientific research supports that runners have a decreased risk of joint injury and osteoarthritis.
Again high impact = adaption. The more high impact sports you have in your life, the stronger your joints are.

[Connor1226]

An interesting study came out last month and was presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology. After studying 3800 runners, the authors found that running excessively led to SHORTER life spans, equivalent to the life expectancy of those who do not run at all. This happened for those running more than 20 miles/week. Those running less experienced a boost in life expectancy. The "sweet spot" occurred for those running at a slow to moderate pace no more than 2.5 hours/week.

There are now several studies out with similar results. The thinking is that prolonged aerobic exercise induces a cumulative oxidative injury (opposite effect of antioxidants) that produces progressive injury not only on joints but also on other organ systems.

That study is really being viewed as a joke in the endurance community.
It was very poorly done. One of the biggest reasons being it really didn't discuss or even consider intensity of the exercise at all. It was a study that started simple and at bottom level to become a framework for future study, but it was still horribly done.
How they measured their results and obtained them was sloppy.

To me it just seemed very short and didn't really consider any major factors. But again, was a standard setter for future replications.

There has been evidence to show excessive aerobic exercise is harmful, however 2.5 hours a week? Gimmie a break.