DeVany’s Top Ten Reasons Not to Run Marathons

marathon runner The Chicago Marathon was over this past weekend, which resulted in the typical dozens of hospitalizations of participants.

That reminds me to pass along health and nutrition expert Art DeVany’s top 10 reasons not to run marathons (here is a previous post on the risks of long-distance running). Art’s summary of each reason is below, but you will have to subscribe to Art’s insightful site on fitness, health, aging nuturion and exercise to read Art’s elaboration on each reason:

10. Marathon running damages the liver and gall bladder and alters biochemical markers adversely. HDL is lowered, LDL is increased, Red blood cell counts and white blood cell counts fall. The liver is damaged and gall bladder function is decreased. Testosterone decreases.

9. Marathon running causes acute and severe muscle damage. Repetitive injury causes infiltration of collagen (connective tissue) into muscle fibers.

8. Marathon running induces kidney disfunction (renal abnormalities).

7. Marathon running causes acute microthrombosis in the vascular system.

6. Marathon running elevates markers of cancer. S100beta is one of these markers. Tumor necrosis factor, TNF-alpha, is another.

5. Marathon running damages your brain. The damage resembles acute brain trauma. Marathon runners have elevated S100beta, a marker of brain damage and blood brain barrier dysfunction. There is S100beta again, a marker of cancer and of brain damage.

4. Marathons damage your heart. From Whyte, et al Med Sci Sports Exerc, 2001 May, 33 (5) 850-1, “Echocardiographic studies report cardiac dysfunction following ultra-endurance exercise in trained individuals. Ironman and half-Ironman competition resulted in reversible abnormalities in resting left ventricular diastolic and systolic function. Results suggest that myocardial damage may be, in part, responsible for cardiac dysfunction, although the mechanisms responsible for this cardiac damage remain to be fully elucidated.”

3. Endurance athletes have more spine degeneration.

The number two reason not to run marathons:

2. At least four particiants of the Boston Marathon have died of brain cancer in the past 10 years. Purely anecdotal, but consistent with the elevated S100beta counts and TKN-alpha measures. Perhaps also connected to the microthrombi of the endothelium found in marathoners.

And now ladies and gentlemen the number one reason not to run marathons:

1. The first marathon runner, Phidippides, collapsed and died at the finish of his race. [Jaworski, Curr Sports Med Rep. 1005 June; 4 (3), 137-43.]

Now there is a recommendation for a healthy activity. The original participant died in the event. But, this is not quite so unusual; many of the running and nutritional gurus of the past decade or two died rather young. Pritikin, Sheehy, Fixx, and Atkins, among many other originators of “healthy” practices died at comparatively young ages. Jack LaLanne, the only well-known guru to advocate body building, will outlive us all.

Golf on an October Texas Morning

It’s hard to beat the weather in Texas during Autumn when the oppressive heat of Summer gives way to delightfully cool mornings and warm days.

Here is a slideshow of photos (music by Alison Krauss and Robert Plant, Through the Morning, Through the Night) that I took during a recent early-morning round at the Tournament Course at The Woodlands, which is in great shape preparing to host the local Champions Tour tournament the weekend after next.

A very nice walk in the park indeed.

An Entertaining Form of Corruption

NCAA FOOTBALL: OCT 11 Arizona State at USCAs I’ve noted many times over the years, big-time college football is an entertaining form of corruption, but corruption nonetheless.

Several recent articles reminded me of this corruption and the almost pathological obsession of the mainstream media to avoid addressing it, particularly during the highly entertaining football season.

First, there was this Joe Draper/NY Times article on how the highly valuable Big Ten Network is changing the financial landscape of college sports.

Not once is it mentioned in the article that the people who are actually creating most of that value – i.e., the young athletes – are forced to compete under a system of highly-restricted compensation while some bastions of higher learning profit from the value that they create.

In their honest moments, how do the academics rationalize that sort of exploitation, particularly when much of it involves undereducated, young black men?

Meanwhile, this breathless Pete Thamel/NY Times article reports on how the regulator of this corruption – the NCAA – is really cracking down now on coaches who have the audacity of attempting to provide to the athletes a pittance of the compensation that the bastions of higher education are preventing them from receiving. Not once in the article is it mentioned that the system is exploiting these athletes for the benefit of the NCAA and its member institutions.

Finally, this William Winslade-Daniel Goldberg/Houston Chronicle op-ed thoughtfully points out the ethical issues that arise as a result of exposing young athletes to serious and often undisclosed risk of injury and loss of potential future compensation.

So, what is it about football that generates such cognitive dissonance when young professional athletes in other sports such as golf, tennis, and baseball are not subjected to such arbitrary restrictions in compensation?

Are we concerned that the sacred traditions of college football might change if the current system is altered to compensate the young athletes fairly for the risks that they take and the wealth they create? Are those traditions truly worth the perpetuation of such a parasitic system?

There is nothing inherently wrong with universities being involved in the promotion of professional minor league football if university leaders conclude that that such an investment is good for the promotion of the school and the academic environment.

But do so honestly. Allow the players who create wealth for the university to be paid directly. If they so desire, universities could establish farm team agreements with NFL teams and cut out the hypocritical incentives that are built into the current system.

Not only would such a system be fairer for the players who take substantial risk of injury in creating wealth for the universities, it would obviate the compromising of academic integrity that universities commonly endure under the current system.

So, why are the leaders of our institutions of higher learning not leading the way toward a fairer system?

Perhaps the problem is that they are really not leaders at all?

Patient expectations and Doctor ratings

medical_bag2 Regular readers of this blog know about my opposition to the now entrenched third party payor process of even routine health care costs in the U.S. health care finance system.

Removing the consumer from controlling the complex decisions that go into paying or attempting to avoid such costs has had far-reaching consequences, not only on the cost of health care, but also on the way in which consumers view their responsibility in regard to maintaining their own health.

I was reminded of those implications recently when I came across this Pauline Chen/NY Times article on the vagaries of third party payors compensating doctors based on patient performance, and this Happy Hospitalist post on the difficulty of telling a patient who is expecting a cure regardless of the cost that the doctor really doesn’t know what’s wrong with with the patient.

These items prompted a friend of mine – first-rate hospitalist and internist – to pass along his experience on the unrealistic expectations of many patients:

Here is an insight into what the practice of medicine has evolved into.

Because hospitals and other corporate organizations are so focused on "customer satisfaction" these days (with Press-Gainey satisfaction survey scores and the like), the opinions of persons like the one the Happy Hospitalist describes get far more purchase than they have in the past.

Often times, I see drug-seeking persons like this get all the testing and all the Dilaudid they want (bad medical practice on multiple levels) because a doctor may not want to set himself up to get "dinged" on a patient survey – some places tie physician bonuses to patient satisfaction scores – some docs even get fired for bad scores.

And, unfortunately, patients like this are not a rare occurrence.  I see at least one or two every week I work in the hospital. 

I had a patient tell me, "Screw you" last month when I suggested that she might have a bit more money for medicines if she were to stop smoking two packs of cigarettes per day. This is after I had admitted her for treatment of accelerated hypertension and uncontrolled diabetes, found her previously undiagnosed high cholesterol, and got those all under control with medications she could get through the WalMart $4 program. There was no "thank you", and certainly no payment to me or to the hospital for our expertise.

It’s really disappointing to see how frequently the patient-physician interaction has deteriorated into something like this.  I guess that other professions are subject to similar abuse, but I don’t see any other examples as severe as what I am seeing in medicine.

I’ve always thought that the best approach is to do what’s right for the patient, even if it is not necessarily what the patient wants.  In this current climate, this has at times put me at odds with hospital administration.

What do you think Walt [my late father] would do if faced with this deterioration of patient-physician interaction?

I think my father’s reaction would be the following:

1. When you remove from the patient the responsibility to pay – or at least contributing to pay — for their health care, patients tend not only to become more irresponsible regarding how they spend money for their health care, but also less interested in understanding how to avoid those costs.

2. Doctors share a big part of the blame for the foregoing problem because they encouraged (and previously got rich by) over-billing of third party payors who insulated the consumer from the cost of health care. Now those chickens are coming home to roost.

I continue to believe that the solution to these problems is not by adding complexity to the health care finance system. Rather, take away insulation of routine health care costs and require consumers to pay those costs, allow insurers to provide true insurance for catastrophic illness or injury and use government as a reinsurer of true health insurance and an insurer of last resort for folks who cannot afford health care or private insurance. Allow such a system to develop over a generation or two and we might bring some semblance of consumer education and price stability through market forces back to the health care finance system.

But I’m not counting on it.

The difficulty of being right

Conventional Wisdom2 This Kathryn Schulz/The Wrong Stuff blog post provides an insightful interview with clinical researcher Barry Marshall, the 2005 Nobel Prize winner who, along with colleague Robin Warren, proved that up to 90 percent of peptic ulcers are caused by a bacterium and not by stress as medical “wisdom” had long held.

The entire interview is interesting, but the most fascinating part is where Dr. Marshall explains the difficulty of attempting to persuade the scientific establishment to abandon the conventional wisdom about ulcers even when he could provide clinical evidence that the conventional wisdom was wrong. As with much of the progress in medical research over the past 50 years, Marshall’s breakthrough in changing the conventional wisdom emanated from Houston:

When and how did you start to convince people?

Part of it had to do with David Graham, who was chief of medicine at [Baylor College of Medicine], in [Houston] Texas, and a thought leader in gastroenterology. Graham started off as a real skeptic but quickly turned around. To his credit, Graham never said that I was wrong. He said, "I don’t know, and I’m going to find out." And a couple of years later, he said, "I’ve checked it out and it looks pretty good, it looks like it could be true."

And then in 1993 or ’94, the NIH had a consensus conference, and Tachi Yamada summed it up. Yamada is currently the head of [the Global Health Program of] the Gates Foundation; he’s a very, very smart guy, and he said, "Looks like it’s proven: Bacteria cause ulcers, and everybody needs to start treating ulcers with antibiotics."

It was just like night and day after that. The whole thing just went ballistic.

So, why do we cling to conventional wisdom even in the face of compelling evidence to the contrary? Is embracing the truth not as important as being comfortable with the beliefs – regardless of whether they are right — of what we want to be the truth or what those we live with believe is true? 

Pepsi Cindy

In our ongoing series of innovative commercials, Cindy Crawford reminds us of how good those old Pepsi commercials were.