Holy carp, no one in this thread has a VO2 max under 50? That’s like 95th percentile for 50+ year olds.
For most, time spent running/exercising is also well into the 95th percentile. No coincidence, of course.
I suspect I exercise in that range as well (90+ minutes daily), though it isn’t high intensity cardiovascular training.
I need to get with the program, but running is too unkind on the joints imo. Always tricky threading the needle between athletic performance and injury with age.
I’m curious what you think of some of the studies that have pushed back on the “running is bad for the joints” idea. For example:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27333572/
Those studies are methodologically problematic, reflected in their conflicting results.
Example showing more arthritis with higher volume running
Ideally, I’d like to see a prospective comparison between runners and people regularly participating in lower impact exercise, followed over decades, with long term outcomes including cardiovascular, bone, and joint disease, as well as overall mortality. I’m not sure such a study exists, so I rely upon anecdotal experience and “common sense” - not my favorite way to formulate opinions.
I don’t have problems in my leg joints, but have degenerative disc disease, with occasional sciatica. So I maintain a healthy weight, strengthen core musculature, and avoid unnecessary vertical forces on my spinal column. This includes jumping and running.
Don’t get me wrong, I really enjoy it, and ran a sub-19 5K as a 40 year old. But I think I can derive similar benefits from brisk walking, incorporating hills to ramp up HR, with less wear-and-tear as I age. For me, this strategy seems like the best of both worlds, though I’m open to evidence suggesting otherwise. Certainly, these lofty vO2 maxes are one argument that running offers more bang for the cardiovascular buck.
But what is the best decision for overall health? I’ve never been injured walking, nor strained/sprained any joint or muscle. I seldom suffer aches and pains. And my VO2 max is still pretty good, as are other health metrics, even if I can’t qualify for the 10K FBG HR/vO2 max/age triple crown.
Just like determining the best diet, I look at how long-lived populations behave. How often are people able to maintain running into their 60s/70s, and beyond? What benefits are derived from mid-long distance running while younger, versus taking the slow and steady, low impact approach?