I love running. I run regularly and competitively. In my early years, teachers and family told me it was the best thing I could do if I want to live long (together with good diet).

But more and more I've been hearing about the wear and tear it does to the body (not just on the joints, but also on the heart).

I think it goes without question that running keeps us healthy for the first few decades of our lives, but it seems the number of runners dying before 90 or 100 is relatively much larger than in other groups of people, for example:

In this comprehensive list of oldest surviving athletes, only 3 are runners (2 long-distance and one 400m), whereas for sports that are much less intense on the cardiovascular system we have far more. There's 27 baseball players (according to this, they barely run[1]) and 13 gymnasts. There are far more runners than baseball players or gymnasts (baseball is only popular in a few countries, and gymnastics requires training and equipment that not everyone has access to), so comparatively, more runners are dying before age 100 than average.

The other cardiovascular sports also have very low proportions of people surviving to 100: 5 cyclists, 2 swimmers, 3 rowers.

There should be far fewer world leaders than professional runners, but 17 world leaders have survived to 100 and the latest data shows only 3 professional runners. Likewise there's more professional runners than physicists, chemists or mathematicians but there's 14, 15, and 16 of them surviving to 100 respectively. There's also been 18 pianists, 36 composers, and 20 singers that survived to 100, but it seems only 3 runners.

For me and all the runners out there, I ask if there's any (credible) studies on the longevity of competitive runners? If not what are some of the scientifically accepted LONG-TERM health effects of running?


[1] "Some New Yorkers walk a greater distance to work each day than the average player runs during a game, which is likely less than half a mile even for multiple home run hitters and fielders. The bases are only 90 feet apart" from this article.

  • I think the jury is still out on running and for endurance sports, in general. Although recreational running has been around since, well, forever, I doubt the documented instances of long life in runners over time has even been around for 30-40 years. Living to 100 is probably more genetic than anything. Also, runners tend to eat like crap to fuel their runs which probably contributes more to heart disease than they’d like to think. You may be burning off yesterday’s Big Mac on today’s run, but only the calories. All of the contributions from the sugar and saturated fats have been made. – Frank Aug 26 '18 at 2:22
  • @Frank: There seems to have only been 3 professional runners that became centenarians (2 long-distance, 1 short-distance), 5 cyclists, and 3 rowers, whereas there's 13 gymnasts, 27 baseball players (who typically, using your words, "eat like crap"), 17 world leaders, 18 pianists, 16 mathematicians, etc. If genetics plays more role "than anything", then why are so few cardio athletes making it to 100 compared to basically every other profession (including other types of athletes)? – Nike Dattani Aug 26 '18 at 5:45
  • 1
    You have to at least normalize the data so that you account for the populations of each group. I’d be willing to bet that “pro runner,” specifically distance runner, is one of the smallest populations. Does the discrepancy still exist when comparing populations? – Frank Aug 26 '18 at 6:44
  • 1
    OK. There are some preliminary studies indicating that heavy endurance sports could lead to increased heart problems. Endurance athletes also tend to have lower resting heart rates which is thought to possibly cause problems with heart rhythms later in life. But, truthfully, this is all preliminary data that a lot of people reject. – Frank Aug 26 '18 at 7:12
  • 1
    I’m on my phone right now, which isn’t really suitable for an answer. This link is a TedTalk video from 2012, where all these claims originated. youtu.be/Y6U728AZnV0. However, in 2016, a pretty large study from Belgian scientists seemed to refute the claims in the TEDTALK. sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/05/160531104518.htm That should get you started. If you look on bodybuilding sites, they covet the “running is bad for you,” stuff. :-) – Frank Aug 26 '18 at 7:19

It is well accepted that longevity has more to do with poverty rather than exercise.

In countries where diet is dictated by poverty we see record longevities like the Okinawa's or the most infamous example when Finland was allied with Nazy Germany they gave all their livestock away and Finland hit a record with the lowest mortality they ever had, not even to this day with modern medicine they are as healthy as they were during ww2. And both the Okinawa and Finland during ww2 didn't get much exercise.

It seems diet is more studied than exercise when it comes to longevity, and for good reason.

So no, there isn't much evidence in defense to exercise increasing longevity.

| improve this answer | |

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.