Slashdot Mirror
Too Much Exercise May Not Be Better Than a Sedentary Lifestyle
jones_supa writes: The importance of exercise has been arriving in spades for geek culture. However, when approaching extremes, a point is reached where vigorous jogging erodes some of the benefits light jogging has over a sedentary lifestyle. "Long-term excessive exercise may be associated with coronary artery calcification, diastolic dysfunction and large artery wall stiffening," wrote lead author Peter Schnohr of Copenhagen's Frederiksberg Hospital in a Danish study (abstract). Although previous research has found that physically active people have at least a 30% lower risk of death compared with inactive people, the ideal amount of exercise remains somewhat uncertain. In this study, strenuous joggers — people who ran faster than 11 km/h for more than 4 hours a week; or who ran faster than 11 km/h for more than 2.5 hours a week with a frequency of more than three times a week — had a mortality rate that is not statistically different from that of the sedentary group.
Medical journalist Larry Husten notes that this study, while interesting, should not be taken as the final word on the subject.
Everything ever about diet and exercise.
I guess we need to rehash this?
Lift weights
I always kinda expected that. At some point there has to be a transition between increasing the strength of your body and just wearing it out. I imagine this is especially true of things like joints.
The lesson seems to be that you really can't win doing anything in excess.
I feel like I just stumbled into a screening of The Sleeper.
"Helping to keep you two steps ahead of the Thought Police!"
Who hasn't seen some of these joggers who do it obsessively?
I've seen a bunch of people who look skinny and emaciated from being jogging freaks. At a certain point you look like you're ill -- and quite disturbingly so.
Hell, back when I used to go to the gym there used to be one lady on the treadmill ... she stayed on it for hours, and essentially looked terrible to the point it looked like she could probably use some therapy ... she looked anorexic.
That's not healthy, that's obsessive.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
While you were out running yourself to death my moderate exercise and excessive gaming turned out to help me live longer.
I wonder how it must feel to read this after getting up at the crack of dawn and running for 2 hours in the cold.
You mean there is nothing I can do to live forever?!
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
"First of all, I want to reiterate that the study is worth paying attention to, and we should take the results seriously if and when the data reaches any reasonable threshold of statistical significance. At this point, though, they're nowhere near that threshold. The main problem is that sample sizes are large in the "less exercise" groups, which means they have a statistically significant reduction in mortality, but they are tiny in the "more exercise" groups, which means they don't have a statistically significant reduction in mortality. This allows the authors to make the shamefully disingenuous argument that "strenuous joggers have a mortality rate not statistically different from that of the sedentary group"–which is almost a foregone conclusion, given that the sample size is less than a tenth as large."
The (Supposed) Dangers of Running Too Much By Alex Hutchinson;
http://www.runnersworld.com/health/the-supposed-dangers-of-running-too-much
By offering this simple advice for a long and healthy life: Do everything in moderation. Too little or too much of anything will kill you.
"Although previous research has found that physically active people have at least a 30% lower risk of death compared with inactive people"
Wait... don't we all have 100% risk of death?
You mean more isn't always better? Shock!
Too Much Exercise May Not Be Better Than a Sedentary Lifestyle
Too Much
Well, that seems true by definition.
To quote Stephen Fry:
"Of course 'too much' bad for you. 'Too much' of anything is bad for you, you blithering twat. That's what 'too much' means. 'Too much' water would be bad for you. Obviously 'too much' is precisely that quantity which is excessive. That's what it means. Jesus!"
As with anything in life, moderation is key.
Take a look at any centenarian, they all do everything in moderation.
MABASPLOOM!
Near-constant pain or diabetes and sleep apnea, take your pick!
The error range for the strenuous jogging group is absolutely huge and only represents 2 deaths out 36 (or 40, depending on which plot you're looking at). Yeah, the differences between strenuous jogging and sitting on your ass might be technically statistically significant, but are the numbers in these groups sufficient to tell if there's a difference, ie is the study sufficiently powered?
well some things shouldn't be done in moderation...
smoking, eating feces, etc
A sedentary lifestyle + poor diet = a cornucopia of preventable diseases that will slowly take away your quality of life. Working in devops is on par with being a long-haul trucker that happens to know python. The food is always fast, and the hours at the desk are as random as your sleep schedule. Ive found transitioning to a standing desk and taking walks around the office has helped some.
Good people go to bed earlier.
Exactly. My father was a big jogger in the 1970's and 1980's. He ran 5 to 10 miles almost every day.
Around age 68 he had to get a knee replaced. At 73 he had the other knee replaced. The doctors told him that pretty much anyone who jogged that much has to get new knees. Now he still has trouble walking long distances, which sucks for him since he lives in the mountains and loves to hike.
My father has advised me against jogging more than a couple miles twice a week.
Should be the headline for about 66%* of media science reporting.
* Results of a vigorous study of glancing at three headlines in my Google News Science section.
I stole this Sig
Awaiting the inevitable comparison between this science and AGW.
Just another day in Paradise
Your heart is a very complex muscle, sure, but in the end it's still just a muscle. You want to strengthen it, but putting it under massive duress has just as much negative effect as letting it atrophy? No big surprise. Blame the frenzy of fitness/diet/"clean living" obsessed culture. There's people who are into fitness (myself included) who understand that it's not a lifestyle in and of itself, but something to be done in moderation to help you feel better, concentrate better, and just get a bit more out of your life. These people who are spending so much time they have no other hobbies are just senselessly wasting time and wrecking their bodies.
Apparently this whole thing is based on a total of 2 people(out of 36) dying. Maybe too soon to change your entire lifestyle. http://content.onlinejacc.org/article.aspx?articleID=2108914
Moderation being to limit to a healthy amount, which in some items in none.
Too much exercise is as bad as a sedentary lifestyle
Good work. Now all you need to do is define 'moderation' for all types of food/activity.
"Too much" is too much by definition. Even too much water will kill you. The study isn't to blame though, as its point seems to be finding out how much is too much.
I don't care now long I live. I do care about how well I live. I'd rather be muscular, look good and have the freedom to go snowboarding as much as I want, and die in my 70's, than be out of shape and have difficulty getting around until I'm 100.
sig: sauer
There is no scientific evidence that running damages knees. It is a myth. The fact that your father's doctors believe this is true is concerning.
Running is a complex biomechanical activity. Most people I see running are not running with biomechanically-correct form. This probably stems from lack of knowledge of how to run correctly, lack of core strength to run correctly, shoes that do not fit their physiology and personal running form, etc., etc.
Since most people run with poor form, it's not a surprise that most people that jog require knee replacements.
Running, when done correctly, produces minimal stress on knee joints, even at 10+ mph.
2) Measure things until one of the outcomes reaches "statistical significance".
Look at the small number of participants shown in the original data here, and the conclusion that is being echoed all over the Internet seems dramatically overstated. The original authors acknowledged this and called for further research, as did the editorial accompanying publication, but of course that hardly gets mentioned in all the Internet echo chamber "don't do too much exercise, you might just as well slob around on the sofa" rhetoric.
I can't find a publicly available primary source to cite, but it looks like only a little over a hundred "strenuous" joggers were included in the study, and of those only two actually died. The remaining ones could go jog their normal route and still not travel the length of the error bars here.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Sorry, I misread the figures in the parent post. Actually there were only 36 strenuous joggers studied. Go read the Larry Husten link under TFS, he explains the problem here better than I did.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
This is all correlation, not causation.
People that exercise more might also east more beef or take in more protein or god knows what.
I've always thought that running and jogging was too jarring to joints and such. I stay in great shape by *walking* ~5-6 miles a day, but I wouldn't run. Walking (fast) provides the same benefit as running, but without the joint wear and tear, and of course, it takes about twice as long.
I don't respond to AC's.
For you US runners that "strenuous jogging" line was drawn at 6.84 mph or about an 8 minute 47second mile.
Who should I believe, a doctor and someone who's experienced destroyed knees from running, or some random AC that's concerned that doctors believe something contrary to the ACs delusions?
This is a another case of intellectually deprived 'journalists' with about as much understanding of statistics as my pet goldfish making their own inept conclusions of studies in order to create a 'click-bait' snappy headline.
40 Joggers formed part of the strenuous jogger group! 40! 2 of them died! This is not statistically significant! You CANNOT conclude anything from this, other than jogging is not instantly fatal!
I would say my long term health been progressing about same as more sedentary siblings and parents at the same age. Most recent ailments idiopathic (no obvious cause) high blood pressure and some arthritis. I'd say short-term I was able to do more than my relatives in terms of hiking up mountains and long biking due to high general fitness.
There are a number of "half century" cardio people around encouraged by Dr.Cooper's book Aerobics published in the mid 1960s.(He coined that exercise term.) Cooper was the main promoter and researcher of cardio over just calesthetics. But he has also been claiming for decades that extreme endurance exercise may be harmful.
EVERYTHING!? that's way too much moderation! you die.
Film at eleven.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
A lot of people think he's a quack...but I followed his advice from my death bed in 2010 and am fully recovered without having been remotely sick since: http://fitness.mercola.com/sit...
That is a pretty narrow study group to try and say plaything about general exercise. Not only is running not the same as any other exercise, who knows what sort of things people who "ran faster than 11 km/h for more than 4 hours a week" took, injected, ate.
Even if we ignore the taking steroids angle, sometimes these exercise freaks eat salads after running 60 miles, when they should be downing 5 pound steaks.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
5 doctors, two of which agree with you, 3 of which don't:
http://www.livescience.com/36241-5-experts-answer-running-bad-knees.html
Basically, if you're the perfect shape, perfect weight, and have perfect running motion, you won't be hurt.
If one of those is not true, you will be hurt.
Or you could just not take a risk and limit your running to the peak healthy amount.
Up to you.
The Forbes article linked in the summary is telling:
Come on! We've been running for thousands of years. Running is one thing that defines Homo Sapiens. Please spare me of this technical mumble-jumble.
I always feel bad for folks obviously trying to drop weight out in the park jogging... There isn't much about jogging that strikes me as healthy. Better off with walking interspersed with occational all out sprints once or twice a week and lifting weights.
You sound fat.
Oh, cool! Your anecdotal evidence with a single point of data prevents us from having to rigorously apply the scientific method! Hey, thanks, man!
I hear there are some guys in Scotland with really good form.
I don't care if I'm really extending my life any longer. We're all going to die, that's a given, and nothing other than medicine and hygiene (both personal and societal) have been statistically shown to significantly increase that life span. What I care about is how I feel while I'm alive. I don't exercise to live longer, I exercise to feel better while I'm alive. That's also why I don't exercise in a gym. Go out and play.
"Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
In the old days, Homo Sapiens rarely had to worry about worn-out knees as they passed away before the age that the knees would have to be replaced. So there was no evolutionary pressure to have sturdy knees that would last into your 80s.
But we haven't been doing it in shoes. Or with feet modified by wearing shoes. Or on pavement, or mostly in cold climates.
I am not sure which of these changes is more important. My best guess is the shoes. It is easy to tell when humans started wearing shoes, the feet are distinctly different. Different feet + padding = different running which may = damaged joints.
T
Laws are horrible moral guides, moral guides make even worse laws.
That's because of running wrong. Not because of running.
'Natural running', landing on the forefoot/toes, allows the foot to slowly load on impact. Running as most people do, landing on their heels on their thick heeled running shoes transfers a huge shock load onto the knees. If you have someone run barefoot across a lawn, you will see that they naturally land on the forefoot/toes. Put standard running shoes on them, and they land on their heels, trashing their knees.
So... "everything in moderation"? Just like... everything else? Got it.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
11 kilometers per hour works out to a pace of roughly 8.77 minutes per mile (the more familiar way of measuring pace by American runners). That's by no means particularly fast.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it dissolve.
"people who ran faster than 11 km/h for more than 4 hours a week"
If the study was based on one set speed, I doubt the findings are valid. Percentage of max heart rate would be a better metric. Some people jog effortlessly at 11 km/h (or, as runners in the US would say, 8:46 / mile). Their heart rate might not get much over 130 bpm as they carry on casual conversation with a friend during the jog. Other people would be gasping for air and their heart rate pegged at 180+ bpm by the time they made it 11 km at that pace...on the verge of throwing up and/or passing out. The former would benefit from the nice easy 6.8 mile jog on their lunch break. The latter just stressed their muscles and cardio system to the max...and they will need about 7 days rest to fully recover (1 day of rest per mile raced is the rule of thumb).
Don't read stupid studies. Eat healthy and exercise at a comfortable pace...no science needed.
I dislike statements that start "Too much ... leads to ...". By definition "Too much" of anything is negative. Sometimes there is a discussion of what "Too much" is, I.E. Too much money ...". But once everyone is in agreement over "Too much" then it is always bad. Its just too much.
I have yet to talk to a doctor that didn't believe that excessive running damages knees.
That's why it's called "excessive."
I have heard that shoes are the main culprit as well.
I wonder if anyone has studied the knees of Tarahumara people? They run insane amounts and rarely wear shoes.
See? I shouldn't exercise at all, it'll kill me quicker! Honey, could you get me another beer from the 'fridge? I don't want to get up.
Seriously, I'd like to just shoot so-called 'researchers' who publish crap like this.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
More than enough of anything is bad for you, so the headline & study is pretty pointless.
This entire idea is championed by one of the authors - James O'Keefe. He's made this his cause celebre'. I find his conclusions not well supported by the evidence. He makes jumps. And then the media takes it and runs with even more eye-catching headlines.
To me, if you told me that riding my bike excessively will give me the same life span of a sedentary person, say 75 years, I'm still going to ride. Exercising is a significant part of my life. When running or riding I'm able to release a lot of work and life stress and often times solve problems as I let them work out in the back of my mind. I have many scars with greats stories for most of them. When my time finally does come and I'm laid out on the table, I want to doctor to be able to at a glance see that I was out living life everyday and not just existing. What good is it if you live to be 150 years old but never do anything with that time.
Stress factors will always swamp out everything else.
There is never going to be any valid studies of heart disease as long as sources of stress aren't being accounted for.
This study isn't about *exercise*; it's about long fdistsnce running. The study isn't even the first study to show that long distance runners suffer cardiac events in similar proportion to nonrunners. Slashdot, unlike the LA Times, confuses the issue and paints it as though exercise will be equally damaging as a sedentary lifestyle. The only issue here is whether long distance running improves cardiac health.
"Too much exercise"?
"high-intensity, high-mileage joggers"?
I figured the article was going to be discussing triathletes and ultra-marathon runners. Instead, it's talking about:
"people who... ran faster than 7 mph for more than 2.5 hours a week with a frequency of more than three times a week..."
That doesn't seem like very much. Running at 7 mph means doing an 8:35/mile pace, and 2.5 hours per week at that pace means 17 miles. I wouldn't call that "high intensity" and "high mileage".
The doctor said I was in "too good of shape".
Do you believe it?
Too good of shape..
First of all, jogging is fucking stupid. Second of all, who is going to be a bigger burden on the health system, an obese diabetic with hyptertension, heart disease, and a myriad of other chronic health problems, or a stupid jogger who gets lightheaded when they stand up and just keels over dead one day?
Do your civic duty and become a stupid jogger
Sincerely,
A stupid runner/cyclist whose most recent cardiac calcium score showed no significant calcification of anything despite spending 20+ hours/week in the zone.
Running is a complex biomechanical activity. Most people I see running are not running with biomechanically-correct form. This probably stems from lack of knowledge of how to run correctly, lack of core strength to run correctly, shoes that do not fit their physiology and personal running form, etc., etc.
Since most people run with poor form, it's not a surprise that most people that jog require knee replacements.
Running, when done correctly, produces minimal stress on knee joints, even at 10+ mph.
Modern padded running shoes promote bad form, causing knee and other injuries, and prevent your feet from strengthening, causing planar fascitis and a few other maladies. Your foot is actually well constructed to run, but it can't do it's job wrapped in a ton of leather and foam.
I've had some success with minimalist running shoes (abrasion protection only, no padding, sole is about 1/8" thick)- it's important to enable your feet to strengthen. After a few weeks of walking around in thin shoes, I started running again and it felt like I had new feet- it was awesome.
Wearing thin shoes forces you to land on your forefoot, allowing your very complicated foot to absorb shock like it's supposed to. Wearing thick-soled shoes allows you to land on your heel, and that force is transmitted straight up to your knee. The padding prevents immediate pain but the shock goes through nonetheless.
There's a great book on running, called "Born to Run", that discusses this and many other aspects of running. I highly recommend the book.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
yeah bullshit.
I see. Actually, everyone, including active people, has a 100% risk of death. What the study found was a lower mortality rate among joggers over a 12 year period. Before we mock the OP, note that he quoted that directly from the LA Times. The LA Times Science section. Contemporary science journamalism, gotta love it.
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
10 years ago in college I was talking with a teacher with a PHD related to wellness and we got on this exact topic. They told me too much exercise is well known to increase arterial plaque and was a major health issue with long distance runners. Great hearts, bad plaque.
It is certainly possible that performing very high levels of physical activity is worse for the human body in some respects than performing lower levels. However, this study doesn't support that theory to any statistically useful degree.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
This is yet another incomplete quote. They grouped joggers into 3 blocks - Light, moderate and strenuos. The last group had only 40 people in it,with 2 deaths , so that doesn't count.i.e. you can't conclude that running a lot is worse than not running at all.
But on the other hand, there is 200+ people in the moderate joggers and they died at a significantly higher rate than the light jogger. So, the evidence on "running too much is a waste" is not too weak.
Running is a traumatic activity. It will wear out your joints.
There's a 92 year old man in our bike club who rides 50+ miles a week.
Former marathon runner. Can't run anymore. Has new hips and is on his second set of replacement knees. Cycling is considered zero impact, so he does that.
His doctor used to give him crap about his bike riding, to which he responded. "You might as well fucking kill me right now, Doc."
Watched this documentary, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert_Runners, on netflix a few nights ago. Four 5-day, 250km desert runs in a year. Those guys (and gals) aren't doing the bodies any good.
This isn't a failure of science, it's a failure of science journalism.
"though in both cases these differences were not statistically significant after adjusting for other risk factors"
In other words, there's nothing to see here. No significant results = no conclusions can be drawn, PERIOD. Otherwise you might as well throw dice and speculate about the meaning.
Of course, too much exercise is bad for you.
too much of anything is bad for you, that's what "too much" means.
What % of the pop over-exercise vs don't exercise?
As a health care provider, I can tell you non-exercisers out-number exercisers (just exercisers, not over-execisers) by at least 8 to 1, and maybe 10 or 10.9 to one. Over-exercisers probably make up well under 1% of the population at any point in time, and probably less than 5% over-exercise during their lifetime. And of those who do overexercise, most don't do it for too long. Unfortunately many will read about this, and decide sit on the sofa, "just to be on the safe side."
Another interesting topic regarding news on health issues*: how does raw scientific research get noticed by news reporters, or promoted by people with an axe to grind, gets digested by reporters with their spin**, turned into a provocative story-line, misunderstood by the general public, who, understandably, end up like Scott Adams (Dilbert; see his recent blog about health science).
* Similar issues occur in news reporting on any science story.
** If you look close at major news stories about health, you will find a fair % report one study, often months old. Why that study? Why report it now?
Nothing reduces your death risk by 30% Your risk of dying is 100%, eventually. Some things may reduce risk of death somewhat at certain ages. The major benefit of exercise is to improve health, and hopefully quality of life, at any age.
As a geriatrician for 25 years, I tell my patients that they should undertake a program of moderate cardio exercise. Walking seems as good as anything. The exercise that really reduces frailty as we age ( and therefore improves length of life in many) is resistance exercise. Maintaining lean body (muscle) mass seems vitally important. Even if you have been a couch potato most of your life, resistance exercise will benefit you. Just don't do too much too soon.
We have a joke - life is a sexually transmitted condition with a one hundred percent mortality rate.
Exactly. My father was a big jogger in the 1970's and 1980's. He ran 5 to 10 miles almost every day.
Around age 68 he had to get a knee replaced. At 73 he had the other knee replaced. The doctors told him that pretty much anyone who jogged that much has to get new knees. Now he still has trouble walking long distances, which sucks for him since he lives in the mountains and loves to hike.
My father has advised me against jogging more than a couple miles twice a week.
Its the same with any form of high impact sports. Former (Australian Rules) football players getting hip replacements in their 40's. A lot have their hamstrings pack it in whilst still in their 20's (effectively ending their career).
Also with lifting weights, its far more important to lift correctly than to lift heavy. Sure you can squat twice as much if you only drop by 2 inches instead of putting your arse below your knees like you're meant to, but the former will leave you with a serious back problem in a short time.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
In your 200+ sample, eight died. Certainly that's more than the seven deaths in 570 light joggers, but we really are stretching the meaning of statistically significant when we work with such small numbers. The tiniest factor that wasn't accounted for could easily make the difference.
Also, given the time period of the study, it's likely there's a great reliance on self-reporting of activity level. Doing the same study today, over ten years should be possible with a much better data set thanks to apps like Strava, MapMyRun, etc.
If all you care about is getting laid, that's probably true.
Got it!
10 years ago in college I was talking with a teacher with a PHD related to wellness and we got on this exact topic. They told me too much exercise is well known to increase arterial plaque and was a major health issue with long distance runners. Great hearts, bad plaque.
So, that's interesting, but why does it happen?
My rule of thumb: if your statistical analysis can be changed by a change to one data point, you've got nothing. A two-fold increase would turn into the same rate if one less strenuous jogger had died.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
From TFA "Although previous research has found that physically active people have at least a 30% lower risk of death compared with inactive people, the ideal amount of exercise remains somewhat uncertain. In this study, strenuous joggers — (omitted)— had a mortality rate that is not statistically different from that of the sedentary group."
No. Everyone will die... Inactive people may just die sooner.
Listen carefully to your body. I'll tell you what's missing.
Casteism
This study is old as hell and it resurfaces from time to time.It has been debunked so many times that is gets already boring.
What these guys did was "normalizing" the datasets of both, active and sedentary subjects eliminating the effects of smoking, etc, etc. What is compared thus makes no sense as it is not "Sendetary vs Active" but "How would sedentary people compare to active if they weren't dying earlier do to lung cancer and heart disease" or putting it in other words "How would sedentary people do if they weren't sedentary"
The very initial premise makes no sense:
"As part of the Copenhagen City Heart Study, 1,098 healthy joggers and 3,950 healthy nonjoggers have been prospectively followed up since 2001"
How can you compare that? A "healthy non-jogger" may be anything from a runner (don't EVER call us "joggers") to a bodybuilder, cyclist or swimmer, but that's NOT a sedentary person.
By definition an individual that does some activity (and is thus healthy as defined by the standards of physical fitness) is NOT sedentary. Or what is a "healthy sedentary" then? People who just by pure random chance and without doing any sort of sport do not get fat, are nimble, strong, have good balance and don't get sick? I don't say this may
And I assume that these guys aren't going to say that a fat guy with 5 heart bypasses is "healthy"... according to what parameters? Not having got a cold in the last 5 days?
Every 2-3 years a study of this type is made and rapidly debunked... but the target of these is not the scientific or sports communities but the general public and the "Wellness" industry who is eager to give credit to these studies and sell low-ass fitness programs for everybody who is too lazy to do much more than 10 minutes of thumb gymnastics a month giving them a "valid" excuse for being lazy and not feeling guilty about it.
Anyway: This is like the joke of the guy who goes to the doctor and the doctor tells him "You are deadly sick, you will only live for a year" "Can I do something?" "Yes, no sex, no drinks and avoid excitement" "Will I live longer then?" "Nope, but it will look like a hundred years to you"
-- 29A the number of the Beast
I was also going to state that one of the basic premises is utterly wrong:
What is strenous? 5 mph? This is 8 km/h or 7:30 min/km (12:05 min/mile)... somebody "jogging" from 2001 to 2015 wouldn't even break sweat at this pace.
My recovery pace is 10 km/h and my heart rate isn't going any higher than 127... Please note that this is way below the heart rate that is considered an "easy" pace (~143 for somebody with a maxHR of 185)
And the more you train the faster you can go at low heart rate. Thus, why are they talking about pace at all? This makes absolutely no sense from a medical point of view: if you want to measure effort you cannot use the parameter speed, exactly as in physics, speed has nothing to do with work.
M-O-O-T
No matter the effect of the internet, this study shouldn't have been published in the first place
-- 29A the number of the Beast