Re: Running in marathons impairs immunity

Once upon a time, our fellow Van Bagnol
   rambled on about "Re: Running in marathons impairs immunity."
Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

>The headline of the article is stating that vitamins are not a panacea, 
>a statement supported by the research it cites. And while marathon 
>running may be somewhat off the beaten path (so to speak), endurance 
>activities aren't really so uncommon as to be "bizarre circumstances".
>
>And if _you_ didn't care, why post the article to begin with?  :-)

Why, how now, kinsman! wherefore storm you so? -- Romeo and Juliet

This article brings up the topic of exercise impairing immunity. :)

Or more precisely, exercising the WRONG way can impair immunity rather
build it.

The research that I had referenced was written by the same author who
was interviewed in the article on vitamins.

>> "Many components of the immune system exhibit adverse change after
>> prolonged, heavy exertion lasting longer than 90 minutes."  Thus, 90
>> minutes should be the maximum length for all workworks, particularly
>> for continuous exercise activities.
>
>Your conclusion is faulty. The story states impaired immunity for a 
>(depending on system) 3- to 72-hour period of time after...
>
>    (A) Prolongued heavy exertion
>    (B) For more than 90 minutes
>    (C) Without a break
>    (D) Without carbohydrate replenishment

What is faulty is trying to dream up ways, like taking vitamins, in
order to continue to engage in dangerous activities for who knows what
reasons.

Excessive drinking of fluids, including carbohydrate replenishment,
can and has resulted in death during periods of excessive exercising
by the way.   This happens quite a lot in marathon running.  :)

>...which the interviewed researcher attributes to the stress response 
>kicking in. To reduce the stressor, it would appear that you could do 
>any _one_ or more of the following:
>
>    (A) Exercise less intensely
> or (B) Exercise for a shorter period
> or (C) Take breaks
> or (D) Keep your carbo stores up (don't bonk)
> or (E) Take care of yourself as you recover after exercise.
>
>It doesn't follow that you should never work out for more than 90 
>minutes.

I am suggesting that there always are limits.  That perhaps 90 minutes
is a reasonable limit.  And, that the reason would be impaired
immunity.   Other reasons, might be dropping dead from heart attacks,
etc.  :)

>> By paying attention to your exercise intensity, such as with METs, it
>> is better for your heart to cram more intensity into a shorter workout
>> than to perform low-intensity activities over a longer duration.

>Once again, I don't see how you can logically reach that conclusion 
>about the heart. Care to explain?

A lot of recent research suggests that exercise intensity counts,
rather than duration.  And, that low level exercising,m like walking,
simply does not protect your heart very well.

See the full text of the following study for FREE online in pdf file
format.

Tanasescu M, Leitzmann MF, Rimm EB.
Exercise type and intensity in relation to coronary heart
disease in men.
http://www.fchn.org/fmh/wmchh/articles/oct/exercise_type_intesity_cad_men.pdf
JAMA. 2002 Oct 23-30;288(16):1994-2000.
PMID: 12387651

The higher the exercise intensity the better the exercise is at
avoiding death from heart conditions.  Of course, I would also suggest
that just like with exercise duration there are reasonable limits to
exercise intensity, too.
--
John Gohde,
     Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science!
     
Get started on improving your personal health and fitness, today.
http://www.Tutorials.NaturalHealthPerspective.com/
Offering easy to understand lessons that will change your life.