Beyond Career

Endurance Running: Heart Health or Heart Hell?

Shoe shot of post-run group

I am the tortoise. While all the hares are racing around the track, I’m at the back, being lapped, and lapped often. However, like the tortoise, I will be making up those laps and adding several more long after the hares have crashed.

Endurance running is for us tortoises; but is it healthy or destructive? Are the frequent Facebook shares, tweets, and emailed articles predicting the early death of all marathoners backed up by research? Reviewing the literature, the answer is no, as long as you stay within some limits.

“Well no, actually I don’t. I play real sports. Not tryin’ to be the best at exercisin’.” – Kenny Powers, “Eastbound and Down”

The Good News

The November 2014 meeting of the Society for Neuroscience focused on the two factors that have the greatest positive impact on brain health: aerobic exercise and intermittent energy restriction (IER) or intermittent fasting. (My adventures in IER are coming soon in a series of blog posts.) There are inarguable mountains of data to support the benefits of aerobic exercise and this includes running. Running is associated with improved physical and mental health, stress reduction, weight reduction and maintenance, as well as increased socialization, which contributes its own long list of benefits. New runners report positive lifestyle changes such as improved sleep, improved eating habits, and decreases in alcohol and tobacco use that contribute to the long-term physical and mental health benefits.

Running is pain and pleasure

Who wouldn’t want to run ten miles, uphill, on a hot summer afternoon? See, I’m smiling.

A 2012 review in the Mayo Clinic Proceedings (MCP) reports that physically active people live longer, have less chronic disease (such as coronary heart disease, hypertension, heart failure, and diabetes), and runners have a 19 percent lower risk of all-cause mortality. In 2014 a multi-university study with more than 55,000 adult subjects published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology (JACC), found an even greater, 30 to 40 percent, lower risk of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality for runners. Research published in the American Journal of Epidemiology on longevity in joggers vs non-joggers, with over 17,000 participants from the consummate study of heart health, The Copenhagen City Heart Study, found that male joggers live 6.2 years and females live 5.6 years longer than their non-jogging counterparts.

The Bad News

With all these positives, what excuse do you have not to lace up your Nikes and head out on the road (besides work, napping, or Game of Thrones)?  Despite all the benefits, evidence of dangerous running-related side effects is accumulating. In the 1970s, Tim Noakes was the first to publish on the realities of running, which he mentions in his enlightening TEDxCapeTown talk. By 2012, the MCP review includes studies finding that “chronic intense and sustained exercise” can lead to patchy myocardial fibrosis, coronary artery calcification, diastolic dysfunction, and artery stiffening, with marathoners showing a 5-fold increase in artrial fibrillation and increased biomarkers of myocardial injury. However, the review concedes that these findings lack rigorous scientific support. Much of the reviewed data are from rat studies and most of the detrimental outcomes are reversible over time.

Graph of Increased Coronary Plaque in Male Marathoners

Mayo Clinic Proceedings article shows increased coronary plaque in male marathoners.

An intriguing finding published in 2014, shows that male marathoners actually have more coronary plaque than non-runners and it is unclear if this persists after the cessation of training. In summary, Dr. O’Keefe, et al., posit, “Accumulating information suggests that some of the remodeling that occurs in endurance athletes may not be entirely benign,” and it can take several years for elite athletes’ cardiac measurements to return to normal.

There are also supported differences in negative health outcomes between men and women. In a 2014 Progress in Cardiovascular Diseases (PCD) review, authors O’Keefe, Lavie, and Guazzi report currently unpublished findings that these plaques are not seen in women marathoners. Furthermore, the incidence of race death in marathoners is 5-fold higher for men than women. These differences may be attributed to better pacing by woman then men (Kim, J.H., et al., The New England Journal of Medicine, 2012)

This difference in pacing appears to be how we can keep endurance running healthy. And here comes the Catch 22: tell a marathoner to push himself farther, faster, and longer; but don’t go too far or too fast for too long and see how that works out.

The Diagnosis

A February 2015 paper based on The Copenhagen City Heart Study in JACC and the 2014 PCD review, describe the U-curve of running. Based on this U-curve, the sweet spot to maximize health benefits is: 6-12 miles/week, 6-7 mile/hour pace (8.5-10 minute/mile), and 3 times/week for a total of 50-120 minutes/week. In addition, 30 minute runs are optimal while 60 minute sessions generate increased oxidant stress and vascular stiffness. However, the error bars are substantial enough in the PCD review to question the significance. Plus, if the data are largely self-report and gathered using different methods (Garmin watch vs Fitbit vs back calculated), there may be inaccuracy, especially over the small scales of time and pace.

Graphs of optimal running circumstances for maximizing health benefits

There is a U-shaped trend but the error is large and data may be self-reported (O’Keefe, J.H., ProgCD, 2014).

If runners know they should observe some limits to maximize health, are they likely to follow these guidelines? In a 2014 study in the Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy (JOSPT), Bruno Saragiotto finds that runners self-report difficulty limiting their training even though they believe it to be one of the two biggest contributors to injury (the other is stretching, which numerous studies have shown to have no impact on injuries). The belief in overtraining is true, excessive running can damage body structures and result in overuse injuries (Hreljac, A., 2005), but as Subject 49 in the JOSPT paper says, “…Running excites me when I start to run, when you are running you don’t want to stop, your body wants more, so you end up overloading your body and get injured… .” Well said, Subject 49. Running can be addictive and it usually takes more than the warning of negative outcomes to sway an addict.

The Prognosis

Running is a great way to stay fit mentally and physically and, no, running a marathon or two does not condemn you to an early grave. There are potential negative cardiovascular impacts of excessive running, but these require more rigorous and long-term research to verify. For now, if you stick to the sweet-spot of the running U-curve you will be running happily and healthily for years to come. Trail running improves life

Advertisements

Why I Love Contract Science Writing, an Evaluation

Science Writing for Everyone

As an engineering consultant, I knew I was busy, solving problems, slogging through tedious environmental regulations (CFR Title 40 still gives me the willies), and enduring round after excruciating round of report editing; but I never considered why I was doing these things or what skills I was gaining. I did not appreciate the value of my circumstances. Years later it become obvious that what I was really doing as a consultant was developing amazing technical writing skills; acquiring a keen attention detail; learning to manage projects, teams, and clients; learning how to sell products; and, this is the big one, learning how to take relentless critical feedback and integrate it without any sense of personal attack. If I had realized this at the time, how much more could I have grown? How many opportunities did I waste?

I like to think I learn from my mistakes, and since I prize the efficient use of time, it is now standard practice to reflect on any project and evaluate: 1) what am I learning, 2) what skills am I developing, and 3) how can I gain as much transferable experience as possible?

Over the last two years, I have taken on several technical writing contract projects and love them. Below are my reflections on the “why” and the general criteria they meet:

1) Exercise an existing skill: technical writing skill

Neglected skills atrophy the same as unused muscles, regardless of the number of years invested in developing them. I spent five years learning Italian and how much can I speak now?- nada..or is it niente? Contract writing for multiple companies provides excellent skill reinforcement since each project is different. It hinders recycling a formula from project to project and requires active thought and growth.

2) Expand an existing skill: scientific communication to a broad audience

Scientists talk a great deal about the importance of communicating science to the general population, but most of us never do. A poster or a talk at a general interest conference doesn’t count. The closest I had come was writing due diligence reports to business people with Oxbridge Biotech Roundtable (OBR).

This is not Science Writing

Tucker Martin, Worchester Polytechnic Institute

When I started writing service descriptions for Science Exchange (SE) I learned what it meant to write for anyone. Describing “science for the people” forced me to distill concepts to the basics and to ask for feedback from naïve audiences. It became clear that examples of when to use a service are most important and reinforced the idea that analogy is usually the best tool for disseminating knowledge to uninformed audiences.

3) Develop new skills: learn novel techniques and fill-in knowledge gaps

Writing service descriptions and especially grants for different companies requires learning about new fields and techniques outside the narrow focus of my research. It forces me to stay up to date on current science and technology trends. Contract writing can bring to light any gaps in knowledge, as well. I have had to fill-in plenty of holes in my areas of expertise.

4) Lead to additional opportunities: other contract projects

Learning the theory behind new fields helps me find opportunities to gain technical experience in areas outside my existing expertise like next-generation sequencing. It also provides conversational knowledge for conferences and networking events. Through engaging people in deeper conversations other opportunities arise that allow me to stay on that exciting slope of the learning curve and keep cycling through the list above.

Deer Mountain: the basis of my first writing contract

My first paid writing project in 2nd grade entitled “3 miles that became 6” tells the harrowing tale of my family’s hike on Deer Mountain. Critical acclaim has been slow in coming.

Perhaps these general criteria will provide something to mull over the next time you evaluate a project and consider stepping a little outside your comfort zone. Always keep asking, “what am I gaining and could I grow more?”

Connect with me on Maven

Civic hacking

                

I recently watched Catherine Bracy‘s TED Talk on Civic Hacking. It’s an amazing way to empower citizens and an easy way to get involved in your community. Even better, it appeals to all ages, but especially the more apolitical set under 50. Despite the name, civic hacking requires no coding ability, only a desire to creatively solve problems. Check out the Code for America Brigades to learn more and get involved. I can’t wait for their map to be completely covered with pins! National Day of Civic Hacking is only a couple months away!

Science writing tips from former Nature editors and OBR

               image

          Minard’s graphic of Napolean’s Russian Campaign. Purported to be near perfect. 

Why is a blog post on a scientific writing workshop so difficult to write? Perhaps it’s the vision of a reader slowly nodding with a slight smirk thinking, “I love the author’s ironic inclusion of mistakes in a post of pointers,” when in truth, I’m not that witty? Publicly posting writing of any kind, scientific or personal, makes the author vulnerable. Writing on writing tips only exposes the author more.

With that introduction I have already ignored several of the tips presented by Richard Gallagher and Natalie Dewitt to 50 graduate students and postdocs eager to improve their science writing skills Monday February 24th at the University of California, San Francisco. The event was hosted by Oxbridge Biotech Roundtable and moderated by Ben Cohn. Below are some of the tips from Gallagher and Dewitt, who are the founders of Accendo Editing and former editors at Nature.

               image

Know your audience

Employ the following advice always keeping your audience in mind.

Titles

Avoid clichés, colons, incorporation of acronyms into words, and inform.

In my first conference abstract of graduate school I broke two of the rules above with: “Forging a Genetic Tool: The Quest to Increase Homologous Recombination Efficiency in Toxoplasma gondii”. My graduate lab loved catchy titles. Fortunately, my “forging a genetic tool” isn’t overly cliché, returning few relevant Google results. On the other hand, Dewitt’s example of “mending broken hearts stem cells” returns over 90,000 results!

               image

Colons are a technical issue as they interfere with some search engines and importing titles with colons can result in weird changes to the title structure.

The incorporation of acronyms into words like “Grb-ing receptor activation by the tail” experiences a love/hate reaction from readers. Is a catchy title worth decreasing readership over or increasing criticism from irritated readers? 

Acronym incorporation can also be at the expense of informing your audience.  Titles like “Death by Numbers” and “An Open and Shut Case” provide no indication of an article’s content and may be overlooked.

Clarity

Use short words, short sentences, and short paragraphs. Graphics are important. Tell a story and don’t show off!

Anglo-Saxon language is the language of the people and the language of short words. It is concise and sharp. Anglo-Saxon dialect selects “use” over “utilize”, “by” over “via”, and “help” over “facilitate” as pointed out by Dewitt. Carl Zimmer’s “The Index of Banned Words (The Continually Updated Edition)” is helpful for eliminating superfluous language as well. Short sentences and short paragraphs will follow suit as you are mindful of clarity in your writing.

Well-crafted graphics can say more in a small space than words can in an equivalent space.

The Inverted Pyramid of News Writing is an example of such a graphic and it lays out a good method for telling a story in science writing. If your writing doesn’t flow and tell a clear story you will lose or confuse your readers.

                     image

If you stick to short words, sentences, and paragraphs you will avoid the showy vocabulary or sentence structure better suited for Victorian fiction. Another trap scientists writing about science fall into is the need to prove their expertise through excessive detail. Stick to only what is necessary for the audience. If this pains you, try adding links for additional reading to the end of an article.

Minimize bias

Include alternative viewpoints and quotes from external experts and minimize hype.

Often I lazily overlook the inclusion of alternative viewpoints and quotes from people not involved in the subject of an article. For instance, in my blog on contract research organizations (CROs) I did not include the drawbacks of CROs. In my article on Mundipharma I neglected to include quotes from people outside of the patent acquisition deal. Such inclusions would strengthen the articles.

Odds are you are not working for Fox News so avoid the impulse to tell us how kittens are unwittingly killing us. Verify the hype surrounding novel discoveries through quotes from outside sources before reporting it. Excessive hype will only decrease clarity and perceived competency.

Engagement

Gotta have soul.

Gallagher defines the objective of science writing as, “To communicate knowledge that has been gained through scientific investigation in an accurate, engaging, and instructive fashion.” Accurate and instructive are easy enough for a diligent, detailed, and informed scientist but engaging is an art and something with which I struggle. The advice from Gallagher on adding soul into your science writing and keeping it vibrant is to include the human aspect of science. Did a novel discovery come about because of a researcher’s personal experience?  Who will personally be affected by a new regulation and can you include a quote from them?

Finally, a “hook” to bring readers in, perhaps by drawing a parallel to something universal or emphasizing the broad impact of your subject, is helpful.  Be careful with metaphors, though. See Philip Ball’s Nature article “A metaphor too far”.

Social media

Blogs, Twitter, and social media matter.

If you aspire to be a science writer you need to show an active interest and have an accessible example of your work. A blog meets both of those needs.

An active Twitter feed is equally valuable for showing your interests to potential employers in any field. Carol Stephen’s post “Twitter by the Numbers” provides some good guidance on how to manage your following to followed ratio. I use Twitter as a professional tool and manage my following numbers by not following my Facebook friends unless they maintain an active scientific/professional presence on Twitter. I also keep my tweets inline with my resumé and focus on professional development or interests listed on LinkedIn. As an engineer, I love congruence and clarity so keeping everything in my network reflective of and supportive of each branch is important.

And finally The Hook:

Why should busy scientists care about science writing and invest the time in improving? An article by Andrew Balas in the Journal of American Medical Informatics Association identifies the lag between significant discoveries in the lab and adoption into routine patient care as 17 years on average. Much of the burden to accelerate adoption falls on the discoverers and their colleagues to spread the information rapidly to a broad audience. If all scientists put forth the effort to improve their scientific communication and invest time in using instantaneous tools like social media, how much faster could people’s lives be impacted? This is why scientists should care.