Running Slows Aging

Run for your life! And, uh, for your life

By Jason Daley Posted 08.12.2008 at 2:42 pm 4 Comments

Run, Run, Run Moving fast could slow the aging process. Sarah Seiff

A recent study by Stanford researchers has confirmed your worst fears—that dorky neighbor in the short-shorts who zips by every morning at 6 o’clock in the morning will likely outlive you, and will be healthier in the long run.

James Fries and a team from the Stanford University School of Medicine began tracking 538 runners over the age of 50 in 1984. Participants have answered a detailed questionnaire about their injuries, quality of life, and running habits for each of the last nineteen years. Lo and behold, the runners, now in their 70s and 80s, had only a 15 percent death rate compared to 34 percent for non-runners. Even more, the oldsters in sneakers, who average 76 minutes a week on the blacktop, staved off the onset of major disabilities 16 years longer than non-runners, and had lower instances of cancer, infections, and other diseases.

And that age-old excuse for not getting off your butt; that running will destroy your knees or lead to other injuries? Blown out of the water. “Running straight ahead without pain is not harmful,” says Fries, who, in a separate paper did not find an increase in joint problems, knee replacements, or osteoarthritis in his subjects. But don’t worry, you’ve still got one excuse left lying on the couch—you’d be too embarrassed if Grandpa lapped you.

Previous Article: Small Ways to Fix a Big Problem

Next Article: That Amazing Devil Gravity

Want to learn more about breakthroughs in electronics, medicine, nanotech, and more?
Subscribe to Popular Science and enter to win $5,000!

4 Comments

link to this comment

peaboy

08/12/08 at 3:10 pm

Isn't that obvious, I mean I remember that cartoon from when I was kid where you put one twin in a space ship and send them into space and because they are going really fast they dont' age as much as their sibling.

Running is just like that only less dramatic. ;-)

link to this comment

Arionhawk

08/12/08 at 4:35 pm

So they tracked 538 runners over the course of 24 years, but they don't say how many non runners they tracked, and they don't say how many other common or uncommon factors the people have, only that they were 'similar'. Studies like this don't really prove anything. Being active prolonging disability is only common sense, since it keeps the muscles active and in shape rather than the atrophying as it does if you don't use the muscles. You don't necessarily have to be a runner to get these benefits, just active.

link to this comment

antic

08/12/08 at 8:21 pm

Arionhawk,

Just because this article doesn't mention in how many non-runners were studied or how the runners and non-runners were 'similar' does not mean that the original research paper omits such data. For all I know, the data might not be there, but until I read the actual paper, I am not going to jump to conclusions about the usefulness of the research. However, the article above does say that original research lasted 19 years, not your stated 24, suggesting that the researchers took the past five years to analyze the data and write the paper. So unless the researchers were really lazy, they probably had mounds of relevant information to filter through. So please do not let the overly brief summary, and attention grabbing headline provided by PopSci callous your objective opinions regarding (possibly) quality research.

link to this comment