Literary Legs

It's Official: Runners Live Longer

We all know that running, or any cardiovascular exercise, does many great things for your body.  It cuts down on the risk of heart disease, cognitive decline, hypertension, cancer, depression, and obesity, among other things.  Exercise also, as I've written about many times before, improves your cognitive functioning and higher order thinking. It is better than any pill you could take.  So we always assumed, of course, that runners lived longer because they were healthier. But was it ever proven?

Well, now we have proof.  At the recent American Heart Association's annual epidemiology and prevention conference, Dr. Jarett Berry from the University of Texas Southwest Medical Center presented results from a longitudinal study showing that regular exercisers did in fact live longer.  Researchers studied 2,087 men and women who had physicals in the 1970s and 1980s.  At the time of their exam, all were between 50 and 69 years old.  Those with a history of heart problems or cancer were excluded from the study. The difference between this study and others that stressed the connection between fitness and longevity is that Berry's subjects underwent a treadmill test when they had their physical, whereas with most other studies, people just estimated--or likely overestimated--their physical activity level.  But the treadmill does not lie! 

In 2006, 63% of the men and 74% of the women from the study were still alive. Men were nearly 1.8 tines as likely to reach age 85 if they were fit as opposed to non-fit, and women were 2.2 times as likely. 

Of course, beginning an exercise routine at any age will have fantastic health benefits, and even getting off the couch and briskly walking for 30 minutes a day will do wonders. 

Some other highlights from the study:

• Fitness level was more important than quitting smoking when it comes to health benefits (this must explain the people I see leave the gym then light up).
• On the whole,  people exercise less after age 30.
• One doctor involved in the study said that if you make it to middle age "with optimal risk numbers and healthy behavior, you've essentially abolished your risk of cardiovascular disease." So if you are dying to start smoking, wait until you are at least 50.v
• Regular exercise lowers blood pressure, gives you better cholesterol numbers, and lowers blood sugar--the trifecta against heart disease.

But doc, that's great and all, but what does this translate into as far as longevity?  On average, says Berry, if you are out of shape in your 50s, you will die eight years sooner than people who are in shape. (It should be noted that Berry's exact words were that if you are not fit, your life span "is eight years shorter than if you are fit," but I prefer the much more direct scare tactic of impending death. Why sugarcoat?)

Of course, another presenter at the same conference also gave us this conclusion: long term exposure to traffic particles increases blood pressure.  So for all of you urban runners, maybe it's just two steps forward and two steps back; you need to run to tame the high blood pressure that running in the city gives you.  But as I wrote about a few months ago, one recent study showed that running in a natural environment will strenghten your cognitive powers, specifically your executive attention.

Full Wall Street Journal article here on how running adds years.

 

Keeping Your New Year's Resolution to Exercise

What's wrong with this picture? 

This is a picture from Tuesday's Wall Street Journal accompanying the article "Quest for a Free Workout." Rising health club dues, according to the article, have made trails, paths, and...malls more crowded with exercisers.  This is a problem in January, when newbie exercisers not following proper etiquette tend to crowd trails, paths, and malls by not walking or running in single file, thus adding to congestion.

These are "veteran" mall walkers in a Sarasota, Florida mall who are power walking in January.  They are part of a group that meets regularly.  It's a distressing picture on two levels.  One, they are exercising in a mall, arguably the most depressing symbol of suburban American culture for, among many other reasons, its faux outdoorsy look.  Save for a prison yard--and hey, at least that's outside--I can't think of a more depressing place to exercise.

But it's more distressing because they are in a mall in Florida in January.  Don't people move to Florida in the first place precisely for the weather?  Because the winters are pleasant, because they can be outside in the winter in sunny 70 or 80 degree weather?  Don't get me wrong--if it's a choice between mall exercise and no exercise, hit the mall.  However, this is Florida, the Sunshine State.  I can understand exercising in the Mall of America in Minneapolis in January, but Florida?  Get those kids outside, ladies, where they belong! 

Starting an exercise program is one of the most popular New Year's resolutions.  It's also one of the first that people give up on. And this makes me wonder: do people give up on exercise routines--specifically running--because they begin them in the middle of the winter, when it's cold and dark and dreary? These conditions are tough on anyone, even veteran runners; it's a constant struggle for me to head out in the cold darkness at  6:30am.  Other people begin their exercise programs at the local gym.  But while indoor aerobic exercise can be more comfortable, it's also mind-numbingly boring.  The only thing I can do on a treadmill is a speed workout, since the thought of a steady 60 minute run horrifies me.

So, I wonder, then, how many people give up on exercise programs not because they hate the act of exercising, but because they hate the environment in which they are doing it?  Do fewer people give up on exercise routines in warm weather climates than in cold weather climates, since the warm weather people start their programs in the sunny, pleasant outdoors instead of being surrounded by sweaty, stinky people in the gym?

My solution: move the New Year to June in the Northern Hemisphere, so everyone can start their programs outside.  I guarantee more people would stick with it. 

Warm weather outdoor running certainly boosts my motivation.  I frequently travel for work, and I go to Southern California three times a year. I'll be there next week.  So Saturday I'll be running in sub freezing temps here in DC, and Sunday I'll be running along the water where the high will be in the upper 60s.  My legs will be fresher, my lungs magically larger. 

The lesson here? Exercise outdoors (more specifically, in nature, since it's better for your brain, and especially if you want to be a canonical poet).  The change of scenery—no two runs are identical, even if you cover the same route—will keep you fresh and energized far longer than a treadmill will.  Or a mall.   

Exercise=Good. Exercise Hard=Better.

Yesterday's Wall Street Journal contained two articles on the benefits of exercise, just in time for the legions of people whose New Year's resolutions include beginning an exercise routine. One article, "The Hidden Benefits of Exercise" by Laura Landro, mentions how exercise plays a role in fighting off a variety of ailments, from the common cold to cancer to depression to Alzheimer's.  This is nothing new to anyone who exercises. "No pill or nutritional supplement has the power of near-daily moderate activity in lowering the number of sick days people take," says one researcher in the article.

The Department of Health and Human Services recommends that adults get at least two hours and thirty minutes weekly of moderate-intensity aerobic physical activity, or one hour and fifteen minutes a week of vigorous intensity aerobic exercise, or an equivalent combination of both (see here for the government's guidelines).  According to Landro, you can meet the moderate-intensity guidelines by merely walking briskly for 30-45 minutes five times a week.

Dr. Paul Williams has a problem with this, according to the other article "And Why More May Even Be Better" by Kevin Helliker.  Williams studied 100,000 runners over 20 years and found that increasing your exercise intensity leads to even greater health benefits.  "Exceeding the federally recommended guidelines can reduce the risk of stroke, heart attack, glaucoma, diabetes, and other diseases by as much as 70% above the benefits of merely exceeding the guidelines," Helliker writes. The problem is that many of Williams's colleagues don't want to hear this.  They exclude Williams from guideline-formulating committees and reject many of his grant proposals because they don't want to hear the idea that more is better.

The Best Time to Run

Last week in her Fitness and Nutrition column, Gina Kolata in the New York Times had an interesting discussion about the best time of the day to exercise.  She became curious when she realized her heart rate was always lower when she exercised in the morning as opposed to the late afternoon or early evening.  She first thought this might mean that since her heart rate was lower for the same workout, she was a more efficient exerciser in the morning.

Instead, after talking to exercise researchers, Kolata discovered the following:

• Speed, power, and strength are the worst in the morning
• The same workout, in terms of perceived exertion, actually appears harder in the morning
• Everything--heart, lungs, and muscles--is more efficient later in the day. 

Of course, this flies in the face of almost every road race start time, since most begin around 8am.  But it appears that the best time for your workout is late afternoon or early evening.

I was just thinking about this the other day.  I like to exercise early in the day because there are no excuses at 6:30am.  There is no place I have to be.  And I can get it done without having to fit it in later in the day.  But there are two drawbacks.  One, I have never been able to just roll out of bed, lace up my shoes, and head out the door.  Instead, I need at least 30 minutes of awake time.  And two, these runs always require more effort; they always seem to be more laborious.

On the other hand, the last thing I want to do after work is run.  I am tired, I want to relax, and I want to eat dinner.  I know myself well enough to realize that the likelihood of my going out for a run decreases with each passing hour; by the time 7pm rolls around, I can produce a whole litany of excuses for staying home.  Yet a funny thing happens when I do run in the evening: it is effortless. I can run longer at a faster pace.  I make a mockery of hills. I breeze down long straightaways. I feel more efficient, and my form (at least to me) feels perfect. Everything feels good. 

So the evening run is paradoxical to me: I dread starting it, yet I also know that it is easy once I get started.  The morning run is easier to start, but not as easy to power through.

Running Improves Cognitive Function. Lifting Weights, Not So Much.

Continuing my discussion on how exercise improves creativity and executive function--and thus the writing process--today we'll focus on a recent study that examines how aerobic exercise fares compared to resistance exercise.  In other word, what's better for the writing process, lifting or running?  Should you go for a 5 mile run or a 60 minute weight routine?

Runners, rejoice! 

Authors of an April 2009 article in the journal Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise entitled "The Effect of Acute Aerobic and Resistance Exercise on Working Memory" found that running reduced reaction time and increased accuracy on a working memory test, while resistance training had no effect.  The article was published by a group of researchers in the Department of Kinesiology and Community Health at the University of Illinois. 

Subjects (all undergraduate students) in the study were placed in three groups.  One was the control group at rest, one completed 30 minutes of treadmill running at 60-70% VO2 max, and the last group completed three sets of 8-12 reps at 80% of their one-rep max for each of the seven major muscle groups.  The resistance participants rested for 60 seconds between each set and 90 seconds between each exercise.

After exercise, participants were given a cognitive task that required them to encode a set containing either three, five, or seven letters and to then decide whether a single "probe letter" was present in the set. Subjects were tested both immediately after their workouts and again 30 minutes later.

The researchers found shorter response time during the tasks for the 30 minute treadmill group, both immediately and 30 minutes after their exercise session. Similar effects were not observed in the resistance training group.  The researchers said that "shorter RT (response time) latency was observed for task conditions requiring increased working memory capacity after aerobic exercise, relative to the pretest, providing support for the view that changes in cognitive function after acute exercise are disproportionately larger for tasks requiring greater amounts of executive control." 

So it appears as if aerobic exercise has a beneficial effect on tasks requiring executive control, or those that require higher-order thinking like writing. While researchers are still trying to determine why, the prevailing thought is that increased blood flow to the brain--present during aerobic exercise, which increases heart rate, but not nearly as much during weight training--increases the movement of brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), affectionately known as "Miracle Gro for the Brain," across the synapses.

The Lakefront Marathon Controversy--and a Very Happy Ending

A controversy developed last week at the Lakefront Marathon in Milwaukee after the top two competitors were disqualified for mid-race rule infractions. The first woman to cross the line, Cassie Peller, was dq'ed after it was discovered that she took water from someone at an area that was not an authorized water station.  Peller claims that she only took water from a boy in his yard early in the race (way to throw a kid under the bus, one commenter said) and from a friend who offered her a "sip" later on, though the race director says that the "sip" was actually from a friend who got out of a vehicle, gave her a water bottle, and ran with her for a short time. 

This gave the victory to Jennifer Goebel, who was the promptly dq'ed after it was discovered that she wore an iPod for a couple of miles during the race. I say "discovered" because no race officials noticed this during the race; they were alerted only after online pictures of Goebel were posted with her wearing the headphones between miles 19 and 21.  This, in turn, gave the victory to Corina Canitz, a 42 year old mother of four (!) who won the 2007 and 2008 marathons. 

All runners had to sign a form stating that they had read the race rules, which contains the following:

With the exception of “citizen aid stations” where neighbors provide additional aid available to ALL participants, you may not accept aid outside of the designated aid stations.  This means that your friends and family cannot meet you on the course to provide aid to you.  Such behavior violates the USATF Rules of Competition and provides you with an unfair advantage over participants who do not have people out there to help them.

AND

The USATF Rules of Competition also prohibit the wearing of headphones used with MP3 players and other similar devices for persons competing for USATF Championship awards or prize money.  Other participants are allowed to use Mp3 players . . . Participants who fail to comply with the directions of ANY race official will be subject to disqualification.

It seems pretty clear that both runners, since they signed a statement agreeing to adhere to the course rules, should be disqualified.  I don't know how you can argue against that. Neither runner had a particularly persuasive reason why they should not be disqualified.  Both Goebel and Peller offer the weak defense that they should not be dq'ed since so many other people were doing the same thing. USATF rules state that non-elite runners can wear headphones, and Goebel seems to also want us to believe that she is, in fact, a non-elite runner, so she should not be disqualified.  "If they're going to disqualify me for having an iPod they should disqualify everyone who had one," she said. "It's just a little ridiculous. I went there to have a fun race with my friends." 

For her part, Peller said, "There were several other people that took aid," she said. "I had some friends running the marathon who said people around them were doing the same thing."  "Everyone else was doing it too" is hardly a justification, and it actually underscores why this rule is in place: if people are allowed to take water anywhere on the course, there could be collisions as runners cut each other off trying to get to the spot where their accomplice is standing with the water. 

(From a rhetorical point of view, Goebel's argument is more incriminating.  It's an example of how the less you say, the more credible you appear.  I read her statement and had a hard time believing that she really thought she was just going to have a good time with her friends and not try to win the race.  And that thought never would have crossed my mind had she not put it there in the first place.  In other words, she unintentionally arms her detractors.)

Both runners, however, are receiving support from fellow runners who think they should be reinstated. 

Coaching Ourselves Through the Pain

This is the first guest blog post on Literary Legs.  It's written by Mary Goldschmidt, PhD, the director of the writing program at the College of New Jersey.  Mary is, in her words, an "avid cyclist, winter runner, and long-time teacher of writing."  Mary's topic is how running and writing intersect in her life (quite appropriate, since it's the tagline of this blog).

Interested in writing a guest blog post about how running and writing intersect in your life?  Drop me a line using the email link to the left.

I recently read a startling admission by one of my students.  In an assignment to introduce themselves as college writers to their classmates and me, one student began her essay with the following statement: “YOU CANNOT WRITE THIS PAPER!”  She explained that this was the message her inner voice (“the petite person with the enormous mouth”) screamed to her every time she received a paper assignment.  I’ve met many students over the years who dislike academic writing, but I was particularly struck by this young woman’s experience: writing, she claimed, had “killed” her self-esteem. 

This is so unlike my own experience of writing that it’s difficult to understand.  Not that I’m unsympathetic.  After seeing how some high school and college teachers mark up papers, I know that students often get an overwhelming array of feedback, mostly critical and rarely helpful. The comment that something is “awkward” doesn’t actually help the writer see why it’s awkward or to revise it to make it less so.  Likewise, the direction to “be more specific” sometimes leads the writer to want to say back: YOU be more specific!  Pages filled with corrections, slashes, and circling send a very clear message: I’m not interested in what you have to say; I’m interested in showing you how you’re wrong.

Can you imagine a running coach using this method?  If your coach gave you critical feedback on every aspect of your form and training process all at once, it would be very difficult to absorb.  That’s why coaching is structured around goal achievement, and feedback is tailored to the specific focus of a given training session.  Moreover, coaching involves showing as often as it does telling.  It’s no different with writing.  I know that my love of sports has made me a better teacher, not only because it often allows me to connect with students, but also, and more importantly, because it’s helped me think of myself as a coach, not a corrector. 

Writers Talking About Running

This month's issue of Runner's World contains two fantastic examples of where running and writing intersect (the tagline of this blog, by the way).

One, Mark Bittman writes about how runners can prepare food that tastes good, fuels their running, and is easy to make.  Bittman, who writes for the New York Times, is my favorite food writer.  He has no formal training as a chef, though he wrote my favorite cookbook How to Cook Everything.  His training is as a journalist and editor.

In the RW article, Bittman discusses how he fell into the trap of overeating, thinking that as long as he ran he could maintain his weight regardless of how much he consumed.  Before he knew it, he had gained so much weight--40 lbs.--that running became difficult (literally, his form broke down) and he became injury prone.  Now, eating sensibly with a plant-heavy diet (though he is not a vegetarian), he is running better and faster than ever.  His diet makes his daily runs easier.

Bittman's article contains some great recipes, though I can do without his annoying David Foster Wallace-like habit of footnotes.  Read the article here.

And two, Kay Ryan, the US poet laureate, is featured in the "I'm a Runner" section this month.  She talks about revising poems in her head while running (a la Wordsworth).  She discusses how poetry and running are similar.  But my favorite line is her response to why she loves running so much.  As only a poet could answer: "It evens out my disposition. It sweeps out my mind. It's a brain conditioner, rinsing out the brain the way that hair conditioner rinses your hair."  Read the interview here.

More on the Barefoot Running Craze

The New York Times a couple of days ago published a story on the barefoot running craze (more on barefoot running here). Proponents of barefoot running say that running shoes have had no measurable impact on reducing injuries. In fact, some say they have led to more knee and Achilles' tendon injuries. Running shoe supporters, including many orthopedists and--unsurprisingly--shoe manufacturers, say that running barefoot is a sure road (pun intended) to injury.

Running barefoot, the proponents say, is merely an extension of what our ancestors did.  They ran barefoot through the plains while chasing prey, so why can't we? (I must admit, this argument gives me pause.  Humans have changed a tad since our prehistoric days; just because our mammoth-chasing ancestors ran barefoot isn't convincing enough for me.)  Shoe proponents say that barefoot running works for the small percentage of people who are biomechanically perfect, or close to it.  For everyone else--and this includes most people--shoes can correct biomechanical errors.  If you pronate or supinate, for example, shoes can align your ankles with your feet and reduce the chance of injuries.  From the Times article:

"Things changed in the early 1970s, when Bill Bowerman, a track coach turned entrepreneur, created a cushioned running shoe that allowed runners to take longer strides and land on their heels, rather than a more natural mid- or forefoot strike. Mr. Bowerman and his business partner, Phil Knight, marketed the new shoes under the Nike brand, and the rest is history."

Of course, as I posted a few weeks ago, that heel strike can lead to overstriding. 

Some companies, capitalizing on the craze, have developed gloves for the feet.  Vibram, for example, has its Five Fingers line:

For those of us who live in suburban or urban environments, running barefoot is impossible.  I can't think of any surface free of objects that might puncture my feet.  But these shoes seem to have a fair amount of protection in the soles.  Still, the advantage of running shoes is that they offer protection from anything underfoot; when I go out for a run, I can go over grass, trails, rocks, roads, sidewalks, you name it, without worrying about what I'm stepping on.  The joy of the run is in the relief of stress and in freeing my mind to think creatively, not in wondering what my next step will feel like. But would I try these?  Absolutely. 

The 2009 Senior Games 5K Recap

At the 2009 Senior Games on the campus of Stanford University, the first thing I noticed at the 5k road race was the cheering. When we were children, our parents always cheered for us on the field of competition.  Now it was time to pay them back. Crowds lined the homestretch of the race—where every runner needs encouragement—with cheers of “Go Mom!” and “Way to go Dad!”  Yet even more spirited were the cheers of the young grandchildren shouting words of encouragement to their grandparents (and probably great grandparents).  Entire families came to cheer on this 50 and over crowd, and they were decked out in custom made family team shirts, their name proudly emblazoned on their backs.   

 

The Senior Games are equal parts competition and family reunion.  I came to coach my mother in the 60-64 age group (she finished fifth), but it turns out I was only one of several children coaching their parents.  Some sons and daughters did me one better, running with their parents.  But lest I make this race look like a leisurely family outing, these were not your grandfather’s grandparents.  No, these seniors were fast.  Not fast for their age group, but fast, period: the 60 year old female overall winner (besting women 10 years younger), ran a 19:55, and the overall male winner ran a 17:25.

 

This group was not out for a jog around Stanford’s campus.  They were finely-tuned athletes who had trained months for this race, and they wanted a pre-race routine free of distractions.  Take, for example, the long line before the race to pick up the numbers.  For a race this important, many grumbled, why couldn’t we have done this yesterday?  This is cutting into my warm up time. And no computer chips, no way to accurately measure our finish time? How will I know my real time?  The grumblings got louder. 

 

And from a spectator’s perspective, the games were an instant support mechanism for anyone in the middle of a midsummer running funk.  I watched this race in the middle of my own funk, but this race energized me.  Make no mistake: these were racers, not runners.  Dispel any notion in your head of senior citizens shuffling towards the finish line. (As an aside, is a 50 year old really a senior?) All the way to the 90 year olds in the race, they were competitors.  This was not the “I’ll just be happy to finish crowd.” No—this was the “I’ll be mad I don’t PR” crowd.     

 

What I hope these athletes recognize is the example that have set for their grandchildren.  If we want our kids to be physically fit, is there no better way than to see grandpa or grandma (or great grandpa or grandpa) running a race?  And forget those controlled scientific studies that link exercise with improved cognition and a slowing of the aging process.  The Senior Games are the only lab you need.  This was a crowd—in their body types and energy level—that could have held its own in DC’s hottest clubs.   Need evidence that exercise energizes everyone, regardless of age?  Many were running the 10k the following day. 

 

After my mother finished, I sat along the rail about twenty meters from the finish line.  The crowds thinned a bit along the rail as the family members of those watching crossed the finish line, but I was determined to remain until the last finisher—especially until the last finisher—crossed.  How many more times, I thought, will a 90 year old woman get to hear a crowd applaud in her honor?  Predictably, the runners got older as the minutes passed.  Joints seemed a little tighter, and knees weren’t lifting quite as high off the ground. I used to look at Mick Jagger and marvel at how his moved his body on stage, lithe and limber well into his 60s.  I sure would love to move like that at my age, I used to think.  But Mick Jagger, move over: my new role model is 91 year old Albert Davis from Arkansas, who finished in 51:46.

 

But my enduring image of the race is this.  As I watched from the rail, I could see one of the last competitors begin to struggle.  With about 150 meters to go, he pitched forward, his form breaking down.  As a crowd, we collectively winced, willing him on to finish the race.

 

Just then a young boy, probably 13 years old and in the midst of his own awkward, pubescent gait, appeared alongside the man and began running with him.  “Go grandpa, go!” he prodded, pacing alongside. No course marshal would dare stop him—anyone who tried would have been tackled.  Suddenly, grandpa picked up those knees, pushed his head up, and began swinging arms that only a minute before had been dead weight.  Together the two of them ran to the finish, the boy peeling off just before the finish line, repaying his grandfather for all that he had done. 

 

Note: The complete results for the 2009 Senior Games—there were 25 sports—can be found at http://www.2009seniorgames.org/.