It’s that time a year again when so many of us pledge to lose weight, get fit and generally improve our health. Advice about dieting and exercise abounds. Here on EBL, we’ve written about the evidence on diet and exercise many times before. But there is always something new to learn. Last month, the British Medical Journal published two new studies on the long term health of Olympic athletes that sheds some light on fitness for the rest of us.
The first study examined more than 15,000 Olympic medalists from nine countries who competed in the Summer or Winter Olympics since 1896, when the modern Olympics began. The study compared the athletes to similar groups of people in the general population to determine which group of people lived longer. The study found that medalists lived an average of 2.8 years longer than their peers in the general population. But the interesting part came when the researchers divided the Olympians into groups by sport.
Olympians in endurance sports – such as running, cycling and rowing – and technique-based sports – such as golf, table tennis and even croquet – has the longest lifespans – about 13 percent more of them were alive 30 years after the Olympics compared with the general population. On the other hand, Olympians in power sports – such as weight-lifting and discus – has shorter lifespans, with only 5 percent more living longer than their counterparts.
The second study examined nearly 10,000 Olympians —participants as well as medalists — to compare the lifespans of athletes in sports with low, moderate or high cardiovascular intensity. The study found that athletes in more strenuous sports had no longer lifespans than athletes in less strenuous sports. It did find that those who competed in contact sports or sports with frequent crashes – think rugby, bobsledding and boxing – had shorter lifespans compared to other Olympians.
There are a few take-home messages from these studies that you can apply to your own New Year’s resolution:
- Power exercises such as weight-lifting don’t appear to be as beneficial as cardiovascular exercise.
- The intensity of cardiovascular exercise doesn’t seem to matter. Walking is as good for you as running.
- Sports that involve heavy contact or crashes are not as beneficial.
Happy New Year, and good luck with your own resolution!
All interesting comments – thanks for the discussion. I did find one review that showed resistance training is beneficial in helping stroke patients regain function, so clearly there is a place for it in our exercise regimes. http://cre.sagepub.com/content/18/1/27.short
Agree with Sophia. Things get pretty wonky when you take them to an extreme, no matter what they are. I’m not sure trying to draw conclusions about the general public based on data from olympians would be very wise. Most people aren’t going to train that hard no matter how much their doctor encourages them. It’s a fun little tidbit, but nothing more.
A tangential bit of data may be helpful here. A 2012 study of several hundred middle aged Americans with adult onset diabetes comparing usual activity vs structured aerobic exercise vs aerobic exercise+resistance training (ie weight lifting), found better 1-2 year outcomes for blood sugar control and cholesterol with the aerobic+resistance training group. The study was not powered nor of long enough duration to look at the outcome of mortality. Very interesting finding that should be considered “preliminary” that weight lifting may add to aerobic exercise for diabetes control.
The conclusion regarding lifting weights may be misleading for the general population. While “power sports” like weight lifting may not correlate with living LONGER, incorporating reasonable weight training into a routine may help the average person live BETTER (fewer falls/broken hips, less of the ubiquitous “back problem,” more mobility, etc.).