Tuesday July 29, 2014
Jump to content
Um, Joseph Wood not Robert Jones
Well Tom, yet another study has concluded that runners are at less risk of OA and hip replacement than walkers because of running's effect on body mass index. This one is from 2013. Here's the abstract:
Effects of running and walking on osteoarthritis and hip replacement risk.
Running and other strenuous sports activities are purported to increase osteoarthritis (OA) risk, more so than walking and less-strenuous activities. Analyses were therefore performed to test whether running, walking, and other exercise affect OA and hip replacement risk and to assess the role of body mass index (BMI) in mediating these relationships.
In this article, we studied the proportional hazards analyses of patients' report of having physician-diagnosed OA and hip replacement versus exercise energy expenditure (METs).
Of the 74,752 runners, 2004 reported OA and 259 reported hip replacements during the 7.1-yr follow-up; whereas of the 14,625 walkers, 696 reported OA and 114 reported hip replacements during the 5.7-yr follow-up. Compared with running <1.8 MET · h · d(-1), the risks for OA and hip replacement decreased as follows: 1) 18.1% (P = 0.01) and 35.1% (P = 0.03) for the 1.8- and 3.6-MET · h · d(-1) run, respectively; 2) 16.1% (P = 0.03) and 50.4% (P = 0.002) for the 3.6- and 5.4-MET · h · d(-1) run, respectively; and 3) 15.6% (P = 0.02) and 38.5% (P = 0.01) for the ≥ 5.4-MET · h · d(-1) run, suggesting that the risk reduction mostly occurred by 1.8 MET · h · d(-1). Baseline BMI was strongly associated with both OA (5.0% increase per kilogram per square meter, P = 2 × 10(-8)) and hip replacement risks (9.8% increase per kilogram per square meter, P = 4.8 × 10(-5)), and adjustment for BMI substantially diminished the risk reduction from running ≥ 1.8 MET · h · d(-1) for OA (from 16.5%, P = 0.01, to 8.6%, P = 0.21) and hip replacement (from 40.4%, P = 0.005, to 28.5%, P = 0.07). The reductions in OA and hip replacement risk by exceeding 1.8 MET · h · d(-1) did not differ significantly between runners and walkers. Other (nonrunning) exercise increased the risk of OA by 2.4% (P = 0.009) and hip replacement by 5.0% per MET · h · d(-1) (P = 0.02), independent of BMI.
Running significantly reduced OA and hip replacement risk due to, in part, running's association with lower BMI, whereas other exercise increased OA and hip replacement risk.
Tom: more on the topic including a few other studies and brief interviews with long-term, recreational runners. You might also want to pick up "Born to Run" and read that. It has a lot of research on anatomy and running. It's bottom line is obvious from the title -- we are born to run long distances
Sorry, Tom, but it is a myth that running "as a long-term method of exercise ... comes with some great drawbacks where knees and hips are concerned."
The research does not support that, except possibly (and that one is up in the air) for elite-level runners who maintain a very high-volume, high-intensity training program over many years.
But long-distance running, in the proper shoes, may actually be beneficial to the hips and knees. Staying off of concrete makes a big difference, too.
The research, at least that which I've come across, shows there certainly is no evidence that runners are at a statistically greater risk of osteoarthritis than non-runners.
As for the trail-sharing in town, I understand what you're saying about a possible conflict there -- in theory. I doubt anybody who rides bikes would care much if those stretches of trail (and sidewalks) were designated as off limits for mountain bikes. As far as that goes, I think I've said here before that I don't think bikes belong on sidewalks at all. It's a hazard for the bike rider, especially going against traffic.
But in practice, at least on the actual "trail" sections, I don't think it's an issue.
I run on the trails within town, too. (And on the streets). In fact, my home is about 400 feet from a "trailhead." I have yet to encounter a mountain bike on a trail in town.
I have seen some riders around town on the streets, and often coming up Doll Baby Ranch near the golf course after riding, I assume, on Peach Orchard road and loop or somewhere else out off of Doll Baby Ranch. When I ride my mountain bike, I just go out on forest roads and ride.
Riders evidently don't use the "trails," such as they are, within town. Heck, I don't even run on some stretches of the in-town trail because they're often overgrown with weeds.
Now, as for the college campus in Payson.... I've been in a lot of college towns, and I think they are some of the greatest places I've been. They tend to be economically strong with a diverse population.
Yes, there will be changes. I believe those changes will be beneficial far more often than they will be a drawback. I'd say it sure beats the alternative, which is to live in a town or city where the economic engine has died.
Just to weigh in on the original topic here and leave the college campus for another day, I really see no problem with bikers and hikers sharing trails in this area. I have run and hike and ridden a mountain bike in and around this whole area and I almost never encounter anybody on foot or bike.
It's hard to imagine that the trails are suddenly going to become overcrowded.
Further, Tom I think most of the examples of mountain biking that you cited refer to downhill mountain biking, which is more of an extreme sport than what is typical "cross-country" mountain biking.
The downhillers stick to ski-resort towns in the offseason for the most part. Most riders are on cross-country bikes and ride at a leisurely pace. Even when they're trying to go fast, they're really not going to be able to in most instances.
With all that said, I also do a lot of running and hiking at South Mountain and at McDowell Mountain Park in the Valley. There are hundreds of mountain bikers and hikers and runners all over the place out there. Horses, too, although I've only encounter those riders at McDowell Mountain.
I have run several times in the White Tanks Mountains, at Pass Mountain (east Mesa) and Elephant Mountain (north Valley).
I've never had a single problem with anybody. Not once.
Hikers and bikers alike tend to be polite people and usually give way if the trail is tight. If I'm going downhill, I always let the guy coming up go because it's harder (on a bike anyway) to get going again going uphill than down.
I always say thanks when somebody yields to me. I always say, "have a good run" or "have a good ride" after we pass, whether I yield or the other person or persons yields to me.
Oil and water may not mix. Payson and a college campus may not either, though I tend to say that they'll mix just fine there.
But mountain bikers and hikers get along just fine, at least in my experience.
I'd be interested to know what Mick, who owns Bicycle Adventures (formerly Hike, Bike and Run) thinks about the topic. He has far more mountain-biking and hiking experience than any of us.
The drug stuff is urban myth. I recall seeing a story not that long ago from Tucson, in which a police spokesman said that there is no correlation. Shoes show up in drug areas. They show up in areas where there are no drugs. Here's another item on it.
Hey, they can use a couple hundred gallons of that water to put out "stove" fires...
I checked in on this case just out of curiosity. Both defendants entered guilty pleas in exchange for having other charges dropped. The woman, Desiree David, entered a guilty plea to aggravated DUI/Suspended license. In exchange, two child endangerment charges were dropped.
The male defendant, Alex Landry, pleaded guilty to contributing to the delinquency of a minor. I'm not sure how they arrived at that, but there it is in the records.
As I mentioned earlier in this thread, the woman has a rather lengthy history of this stuff and had just gotten out of jail. She'll be sentenced in June, and I hope this time she stays in jail for a very long time.
The cop made a good arrest and two bad people were convicted.
As for the kids, man, I feel sorry for them.
This horrible day in Connecticut will prime the gun debate, but a troubled mind will find a way with or without a gun.
Yesterday's shooting was not the largest mass killing at a U.S. school. That happened in 1927, the Bath School Massacre. Google it. The killer used a gun for only one purpose, and that was to detonate a car bomb in his car. He tried to destroy an entire school with bombs, and very nearly succeeded. In many ways, it mirrors what happened in Connecticut. His day started with him killing his wife rather than his mother. Most of his victims were in 7 to 11 years old.
Last login: Wednesday, July 23, 2014