“Athletes” is a pretty broad term. If you use it to include the NFL players, for instance, you get some grim longevity numbers–say 55 years or so of life expectancy. Beating up your body is not necessarily sound health policy. I realize you are not putting forward the “Not For Long” players as your case study here, but any time you include really vigorous exercise you have to include the effects of wear and tear on joints and soft tissue, not to mention the wear and tear of bicycle accidents…
I certainly should not have used “vigorous” without specifiying that I mean the real exercise fanatics who train for hours a day at high output–not the guy that exercises 30 mins a day to 80% capacity.
You do get significant benefit from a “brisk daily walk”; perhaps even more benefit if you are willing to run 30 minutes a day 5 days a week.
Franco and others noted that this and other studies show that people do not have to be exercise fanatics to reap the benefits. “What we’re talking about is small changes,” said James Hill of the University of Colorado in Denver. “We’re telling people to get out and walk more. Fifteen, 20 or 30 minutes of walking each day is probably enough.” http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/11/15/MNG29FOAJP1.DTL
But stepping up to hours of vigorous activity a day? I need that cite from you if you are claiming longevity for it.
Well trained athletes are a group already selected out for some degree of “health” so the trick is to prove their training causes their good health versus their genes enabling their training. If you were in poor health would you be able to exercise several hours a day?
Certainly having Mr. Schmoe step up to marathons and the like may be counterproductive: http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/114/22/2325
The problem with studying exercise and its role in health and longevity is the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy that creeps in because people with assorted types of crummy health don’t exercise. There is a notion out there that if you took two random groups at any age and prescribed (and could enforce) exercise for one and couches for the other that there would be a significant benefit which is more or less linearly related to the quantity of exercise. This is quite a different thing than what has been shown, which is that folks who exercise regularly are healthier and live longer than those who don’t. I’d expect to see less heart disease in marathoners (Mr Fixx excepted) than in non-marathoners because people with heart disease are less likely to be able to run marathons. That is not proof that running marathons diminishes heart disease. It may or it may not.
Anecdotally, and I am ignorant of whether anyone has looked at it, I am very surprised by the relatively paucity of older runners in marathons. Running has been so popular for so long, that if it’s that good for you, where are the 70 and above runners in a typical race? Fewer than 50 guys over 70 in last year’s Chicago marathon?