Can Rowing Kill You?

[gooseflight]

So much depends on the hand one is dealt. Nothing to do with rowing but from my own history, this:

I have an aunt who is in her mid eighties and still going strong. She smokes a bit, she drinks probably a bottle of wine a day. On turning 80 she had a hip replacement.

She needed a pre-op' blood test; the first blood test of her life. The op' was her first ever admission to hospital.

My mother -- her sister -- never smoked, never drank, battled rheumatoid arthritis from her late 30's and succumbed to blood cancer in her early seventies.

Go figure.

[Anth_F]

So much depends on the hand one is dealt. Nothing to do with rowing but from my own history, this:

I have an aunt who is in her mid eighties and still going strong. She smokes a bit, she drinks probably a bottle of wine a day. On turning 80 she had a hip replacement.

She needed a pre-op' blood test; the first blood test of her life. The op' was her first ever admission to hospital.

My mother -- her sister -- never smoked, never drank, battled rheumatoid arthritis from her late 30's and succumbed to blood cancer in her early seventies.

Go figure.

Couldn't agree more with what you said about the hand one is dealt.

My grandad lived until 89 years of age!! Never exercised apart from some gardening and the odd game of pool and darts. Started smoking when he was just 14 years old The last 25 years of his life he smoked like a chimney and was going through 80+ ciggies a day average.

Now my grandmother on the other hand, Never smoked, was totally health conscious, ate the right foods, played tennis, bowls, lots of swimming etc etc... and god rest her soul, she passed away from a stroke at just 63 years of age.

[Cyclingman1]

I don't think the answer to this question is mysterious or difficult.

Actually, I think the opposite is what the study is actually saying. There is the common perception that exercise is good for everyone and that even more is even better.This study is saying that MAYBE that is not the case, but results are mixed. It is a difficult question. It is not a study about moderation. Also, it is hard to say that someone chooses to damage themselves by years and years of hard cardiovascular exercise. Who knows what is going inside their bodies. Those that have athletic success are often driven to improve on that. Isn't that the way of the world? I seriously doubt that any coach, anywhere, anytime, has ever recommended reduced training due to possible heart damage. It appears that several athletes have discovered after the fact, that their training was a detriment to their wellbeing. Would they have cut back had they known? Who knows. Do steroid users cut back even though they are well aware of adverse consequences? The study raises a valid question, but it is out there on the fringes. Most people just do not reach the prolonged intensities that this study is discussing.

[S-man]

For anyone concerned about the possibility of having a heart attack, I suggest reading How to Prevent and Reverse Heart Disease by Caldwell Esselstyn, and The China Study by Colin Campbell. Eating a whole foods plant based diet has been shown to reduce the statistical likelihood of having a heart attack (attributable to heart disease) to zero.

Not sure anything is going to reduce the chance of a heart atack to zero. Can't comment on the prevent and reverse heart disease book, but I've read the China study and it's a mixture of poor science and propaganda. The author seems to have an agenda that plant food is all good and meat is all bad. I don't think it is quite so clear cut in reality.

[SkySaw]

Not sure anything is going to reduce the chance of a heart atack to zero. Can't comment on the prevent and reverse heart disease book, but I've read the China study and it's a mixture of poor science and propaganda. The author seems to have an agenda that plant food is all good and meat is all bad. I don't think it is quite so clear cut in reality.

Ouch. The assertion that Colin Campbell's research is poor science is an internet meme that has no basis in fact. The Esselstyn book arrives at the same conclusions as the China study, but from a completely different perspective. Scientific findings are even more compelling when they converge on the same thing from different starting points. By all means go with your preferences, but science is not on your side on this one.

[ArmandoChavezUNC]

Not sure anything is going to reduce the chance of a heart atack to zero. Can't comment on the prevent and reverse heart disease book, but I've read the China study and it's a mixture of poor science and propaganda. The author seems to have an agenda that plant food is all good and meat is all bad. I don't think it is quite so clear cut in reality.

Ouch. The assertion that Colin Campbell's research is poor science is an internet meme that has no basis in fact. The Esselstyn book arrives at the same conclusions as the China study, but from a completely different perspective. Scientific findings are even more compelling when they converge on the same thing from different starting points. By all means go with your preferences, but science is not on your side on this one.

This is a conversation for a different forum, but the evidence AGAINST what is presented in the book The China Study is pretty damning. The book is founded on shoddy science and research and definitely falls into propaganda. It was viewed almost as revolutionary when it came out, but slowly but surely it has been debunked as junk. Sure, there's still people who are blinded by it and think it's the bible of food science, but then again there are people who feel the same about Dr. Oz. One will believe what one wants to believe and there's not much others can do to make one see the truth.

Anyway, The China Study is a bunch of propaganda based on bad science. Yes, some of it is true, but on the whole the book is garbage.

[sekitori]

I routinely finish these sessions above 95% of my HRR. I wonder if I should cap the sessions at a lower maximum heart rate to avoid accumulated damage.

I assume that by HRR you mean heart rate reserve or maximum heart rate minus resting heart rate. I have no idea what your heart rate really is, but it sounds as if you're working pretty hard. It seems to me that you're letting a bunch of numbers dictate how you feel. Formulas such as 220-age used to determine theoretical maximal heart rate often don't apply to many people. Unless people have a medically supervised maximal stress test, they don't know what their maximal heart rate really is. I happen to be one of those people who have no idea what mine is. All I know is that at the end of a one hour workout, my heart rate can be 30 to 40 beats per minute higher than my theoretical maximum. That sounds strange, but it's true. Yet aside from being somewhat tired, I have no other ill effects. I try to go by how I actually feel rather than a number indicating how I should feel. It's called perceived exertion and while some people don't care for that idea very much, it works for me. If you care to, check it out.

http://www.cdc.gov/physicalactivity/bas ... ertion.htm

After one minute, I check my other HRR which stands for heart rate recovery or the number of beats per minute one minute after I stop. It usually decreases to half the number a minute earlier and that's pretty good.

My amateur, non-medical advice is this. If you are working out at a fairly hard pace and are having absolutely no ill effects at all, I doubt very much if you're doing any damage. I also believe it's very wise to see your doctor occasionally to be certain that everything is okay. However, if he or she suggests that you take one of these maximal stress tests to complete exhaustion, avoid it unless there is a really good reason for doing so. I had one many years ago and it wasn't much fun.

[SkySaw]

Not sure anything is going to reduce the chance of a heart atack to zero. Can't comment on the prevent and reverse heart disease book, but I've read the China study and it's a mixture of poor science and propaganda. The author seems to have an agenda that plant food is all good and meat is all bad. I don't think it is quite so clear cut in reality.

Ouch. The assertion that Colin Campbell's research is poor science is an internet meme that has no basis in fact. The Esselstyn book arrives at the same conclusions as the China study, but from a completely different perspective. Scientific findings are even more compelling when they converge on the same thing from different starting points. By all means go with your preferences, but science is not on your side on this one.

This is a conversation for a different forum, but the evidence AGAINST what is presented in the book The China Study is pretty damning. The book is founded on shoddy science and research and definitely falls into propaganda. It was viewed almost as revolutionary when it came out, but slowly but surely it has been debunked as junk. Sure, there's still people who are blinded by it and think it's the bible of food science, but then again there are people who feel the same about Dr. Oz. One will believe what one wants to believe and there's not much others can do to make one see the truth.

Anyway, The China Study is a bunch of propaganda based on bad science. Yes, some of it is true, but on the whole the book is garbage.

The 'evidence' against it was written by one person who doesn't actually engage in or properly understand scientific research. Your statement about people believing what they want to believe is is why we have science in the first place. Unfortunately we have come to a place where the signal is drowned out by the noise in areas of science that are of strong social interest. But you are right that this is not the place to discuss this. I hope I have not hijacked this thread to make it about nutrition.

[gregsmith01748]

I routinely finish these sessions above 95% of my HRR. I wonder if I should cap the sessions at a lower maximum heart rate to avoid accumulated damage.

I assume that by HRR you mean heart rate reserve or maximum heart rate minus resting heart rate. I have no idea what your heart rate really is, but it sounds as if you're working pretty hard. It seems to me that you're letting a bunch of numbers dictate how you feel. Formulas such as 220-age used to determine theoretical maximal heart rate often don't apply to many people. Unless people have a medically supervised maximal stress test, they don't know what their maximal heart rate really is. I happen to be one of those people who have no idea what mine is. All I know is that at the end of a one hour workout, my heart rate can be 30 to 40 beats per minute higher than my theoretical maximum. That sounds strange, but it's true. Yet aside from being somewhat tired, I have no other ill effects. I try to go by how I actually feel rather than a number indicating how I should feel. It's called perceived exertion and while some people don't care for that idea very much, it works for me. If you care to, check it out.

http://www.cdc.gov/physicalactivity/bas ... ertion.htm

After one minute, I check my other HRR which stands for heart rate recovery or the number of beats per minute one minute after I stop. It usually decreases to half the number a minute earlier and that's pretty good.

My amateur, non-medical advice is this. If you are working out at a fairly hard pace and are having absolutely no ill effects at all, I doubt very much if you're doing any damage. I also believe it's very wise to see your doctor occasionally to be certain that everything is okay. However, if he or she suggests that you take one of these maximal stress tests to complete exhaustion, avoid it unless there is a really good reason for doing so. I had one many years ago and it wasn't much fun.

My max hr is based on an erg based step test and updated on a seasonal basis using the maximum seen in longer time to trials like a 30' or, 10k. Currently I am working with a Maxhr of 185 and Minhr of 47.

I agree the formulas are bunk and I don't use them.

[sander]

Just to put this into perspective. I am now reading on the effects of alcohol. Only one glass per day already significantly increases the probability that you get breast cancer or bowel cancer. The serious medical research is quite sobering about this, even though the alcohol lobby would like you to believe that a glass a day is actually beneficial.

I think there are a lot among us who can do more for their health by limiting alcohol consumption than by reducing the number of minutes at high heart rate. If you want to do something about your health, you've got to tackle the big things first.

Enter Shakespeare:

PORTIA
You think it’s that easy? If doing good deeds were as easy as knowing how to do them, then everyone would be better off. Small chapels would be big churches, and poor men’s cottages would be princes' palaces. It takes a good priest to practice what he preaches. For me, it’s easier to lecture twenty people on how to be good than to be the one person out of twenty who actually does good things. The brain can tell the heart what to do, but what does it matter? Cold rules don’t matter when you’ve got a hot temper. Young people are like frisky young rabbits, and good advice is like a crippled old man trying to catch them.

[gooseflight]

Heck, water can kill you. If it's deep enough.

[gregsmith01748]

OK, I agree that there are many things that can kill you. And it's important to keep things in perspective.

The reason I started this thread was to focus this particular thread on the potential negative impact of training at a high level of intensity over a period of many years. When discussing a topic like this, it may be useful to define two scenarios.

1. The first scenario is training within certain limits, perhaps setting a maximum number of hours per week (say 10 hours) and setting a HR limit (say 95% of HRR) that you avoid exceeding in normal training activities.

2. The second is that you do not limit training hours and you push HIT sessions to the point where you have at least a few minutes above the 95% level in most of them.

If you think through the implications of the two scenarios, I think that the second scenario would result in greater training effect (and faster times), but it might increase the risk of premature death because of cardiac issues. The question is how much more effective is the training, and how much higher is the risk. As far as I can tell, there is no published research to help sort it out for me. My gut feeling is that it would probably mean that I would max out at a 6:45 2k versus a 6:40, if I trained to those limits. I have no idea if it would have an impact on potential health problems.

Having said all of that, I don't think that I really want to give up going really hard, at least once every couple weeks, and I certainly do not want to give up having a beer to celebrate a good race.

[hjs]

I think training can hide a lot of not healthy habits. When you see a fit athlete you recognise a fit athlete. Lots of ergers, even the ones who train a lot, don,t look fit or super healthy. Don,t think the training is the problem, but other habits.

[gooseflight]

I think training can hide a lot of not healthy habits. When you see a fit athlete you recognise a fit athlete. Lots of ergers, even the ones who train a lot, don,t look fit or super healthy. Don,t think the training is the problem, but other habits.

It's a virtuous circle Henry. We drink wine, eat cake, and therefore we train

[hjs]

I think training can hide a lot of not healthy habits. When you see a fit athlete you recognise a fit athlete. Lots of ergers, even the ones who train a lot, don,t look fit or super healthy. Don,t think the training is the problem, but other habits.

It's a virtuous circle Henry. We drink wine, eat cake, and therefore we train

Most do some don,t. Take Greg, sorry but you are a prime example , you talk about a few seconds extra on the 2k, and how you should train to get those. While other parts of your fitness are a lot more from optimal.
To me every rower, who is ambiteus, but can,t get his act together on the body composition front/eating is not really ambitieus at all.