This article is about endurance athletes, but it brings to mind some common assumptions from the strength training world. “It fits into my macros” or “I can eat whatever I want without worrying about my heart because I will work it off in the gym”. The guy from the article…“I figured if the furnace was hot enough, it would burn everything.”
Athletes who look healthy on the outside, but their Dairy Queen habit may be contributing to cardiovascular disease.
^ I know there have been several articles in the last couple of years about “extreme running” being hard on the heart as people age. Some of us have wondered where “too much” might cross over to unhealthy for strength athletes. As with a lot of research on humans, it’s can be very hard to parse out correlation vs. causation, but this one focuses on the fact that a lot of these athletes aren’t eating well, and they think their exercise regimen is protecting them. It was surprising that many of their much less active spouses were actually healthier. A friend of mine recently attended the LA Fit Expo, and watched Jay Cutler eat a huge cheeseburger. 
Good share.
Though one might argue that endurance-athletes often don’t even “look healthy on the outside” in the first place.
[quote]chillain wrote:
Good share.
Though one might argue that endurance-athletes often don’t even “look healthy on the outside” in the first place.
[/quote]
Hey, Chillain. Glad you liked it. I sometimes think like that guy in the article. I can “get away with” a certain amount of junk and it doesn’t show on the outside. In fact, it might even help my physique goals.
Those people running tons of miles every week have to have energy to fuel all that, but they have to be disappointed to find out that despite all their running, they’ve build up arterial plaque by eating poorly. “Hey, your spouse who eats moderately and doesn’t do all that running is healthier than you.” - That has to hurt when you think of yourself as an elite athlete.
To be fair to the cheeseburger eating Jay Cutler, he’s probably never claimed to be the healthiest guy on the block who’s main concern is longevity. His goals seem pretty singular.
Running itself builds arterial plaque by increasing stress-the main cause of calcification, and oxidation. Running=oxidation, but running clearly has net benefits up to a point. The point is pretty well established in literature, and has not varied since I was in grad school. When runners average more than 40 km a week, they go over the peak and start down the other side. At 80 km per week they are as likely to die from heart attack as someone who does no exercise whatsoever. When oxidative stress exceeds the bodies ability to handle it, we get damage to arterial linings. Then calcification, and only lastly fatty plaques (which are the body’s attempt to heal the damage, though it ultimately backfires if the stress itself can not be dealt with).
So a GOOD diet may kill a runner, by allowing them to run more miles and oxidize more nutrients, and create more free radicals.
40 km a week, or 3000-3500 total cals a week (AVERAGE) due to exercise (in other studies, which also matches the 40 km output) is the point where MORE becomes worse.