Занятия бегом приводят к снижению риска смерти.

Согласно метаанализу, опубликованному в British Journal of Sports Medicine, даже незначительные по времени занятия бегом ведут к снижению риска смерти. В анализ были включены данные более 230 000 взрослых, которые занимались бегом.

11% участников исследования умерли в течение 5–35 лет наблюдения. После поправок на множественные факторы у бегунов риск смертности был на 27% ниже, чем у тех, кто не занимался бегом. В субанализах существенное снижение риска смертности было отмечено от сердечно-сосудистых и онкологических заболеваний. Даже занятия менее 50 минут в неделю вели к снижению смертности от всех причин. При этом скорость бега не влияла на конечный результат.

Источник: https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2019/09/25/bjsports-2018-100493

Is running associated with a lower risk of all-cause, cardiovascular and cancer mortality, and is the more the better? A systematic review and meta-analysis


Zeljko Pedisic et al

Objective To investigate the association of running participation and the dose of running with the risk of all-cause, cardiovascular and cancer mortality.

Design Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Data sources Journal articles, conference papers and doctoral theses indexed in Academic Search Ultimate, CINAHL, Health Source: Nursing/Academic Edition, MasterFILE Complete, Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations, Open Access Theses and Dissertations, PsycINFO, PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, SPORTDiscus and Web of Science.

Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Prospective cohort studies on the association between running or jogging participation and the risk of all-cause, cardiovascular and/or cancer mortality in a non-clinical population of adults were included.

Results Fourteen studies from six prospective cohorts with a pooled sample of 232 149 participants were included. In total, 25 951 deaths were recorded during 5.5–35 year follow-ups. Our meta-analysis showed that running participation is associated with 27%, 30% and 23% lower risk of all-cause (pooled adjusted hazard ratio (HR)=0.73; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.68 to 0.79), cardiovascular (HR=0.70; 95% CI 0.49 to 0.98) and cancer (HR=0.77; 95% CI 0.68 to 0.87) mortality, respectively, compared with no running. A meta-regression analysis showed no significant dose–response trends for weekly frequency, weekly duration, pace and the total volume of running.

Conclusion Increased rates of participation in running, regardless of its dose, would probably lead to substantial improvements in population health and longevity. Any amount of running, even just once a week, is better than no running, but higher doses of running may not necessarily be associated with greater mortality benefits.


Global and national public health authorities recommend that adults take part in 150 min of moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA) each week.1–5 The epidemiological literature strongly supports the beneficial associations of the total amount of MVPA with health outcomes.6–10 Several systematic reviews and meta-analyses have summarised the evidence for the association between MVPA and the risk of disease-specific and all-cause mortality.11–16 For example, one meta-analysis found that insufficient MVPA (defined as not meeting the current World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines for MVPA1) is associated with a 28% higher risk of all-cause mortality, compared with sufficient MVPA.15 Considering the high levels of physical inactivity globally, Lee and colleagues estimated that more than 5 million premature deaths a year would be prevented if physically inactive people became sufficiently active.15 Considerable interest has also been shown in the effects of different types of physical activity (eg, walking, cycling, running, swimming) on health and risk of premature mortality.17–24 In other words, for a given amount of MVPA, does the type of physical activity matter?

Running is among the most popular types of physical activity. It has been estimated that each month around 3.7 million (8.5%) English adults take part in running as a sport or recreational activity.25 Other countries, such as Australia26 and the USA,27 also have high participation rates. The 2017 Physical Activity Council’s survey ranked running in the top 10 preferred activities in which inactive 25–44-year-old US adults wished to take part.28 Given its popularity, running has great potential for improving population health. The Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) has acknowledged this potential by partnering with the parkrun UK initiative, to promote the uptake of running and walking among general practitioners and their patients.29

In a systematic review, Oja et al17 concluded that the evidence for health benefits is scarce for participation in all sports except for running and football. The authors concluded that there is (i) moderate evidence for the associations between running and improved aerobic fitness, cardiovascular function and running performance; (ii) limited evidence for associations of running with improvements in metabolic fitness, adiposity status and postural balance; and (iii) inconclusive evidence for the associations of running with cardiac adaptation, muscular strength and disease-specific and all-cause mortality.17 Oja et al17 identified only one study on running participation and the risk of mortality. A subsequent, comprehensive narrative review summarised the evidence for the association of running and a range of health outcomes, including major cardiometabolic outcomes, bone and respiratory health, disability and disease-specific and all-cause mortality.22 The strength of the association between running participation and the risk of all-cause and disease-specific mortality varied across different studies.22 To date, no meta-analysis has synthesised evidence on the association between running participation and the risk of mortality.

To enable evidence-based prescribing of running as a health-enhancing physical activity, it is crucial to identify its optimal dose. The 'dose' of running is usually defined by its frequency (eg, two times a week), overall duration in a given period (eg, 40 min/week), pace (eg, 10 km/h) and the total volume (eg, expressed as the product of the overall weekly duration of running and the metabolic equivalent (MET) of running at a given pace; 800 MET-min/week).30 31 It might be expected that higher running doses would lead to better health outcomes, such as improved physical and metabolic fitness.32 However, contrary to this assumption, Schnohr et al31 suggested there may be a U-shaped relationship between the dose of running and the risk of all-cause mortality. Compared with ‘sedentary’ non-runners, those who ran <2.5 hours a week, those who ran less than four times a week and those who ran at a slow or average pace had significantly lower risks of all-cause mortality.31 No statistically significant adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) were found for those who ran ≥2.5 hours a week, those who ran four or more times a week and those who ran at a fast pace.31 The U-shaped relationship may be explained by possible pathological changes in cardiovascular tissues induced by extreme doses of endurance sports over a long term—for example, the development of patchy myocardial fibrosis, creating a substrate for heart arrhythmias.33 However, a relatively small number of participants in the study of Schnohr et al31 were classified as “strenuous” runners and only a few deaths were registered in this group, limiting the statistical power of the analysis. The finding has sparked much discussion among researchers.22 30 34–40 To date, the available evidence on the dose–response relationship between running and the risk of mortality has not been synthesised in a meta-analysis.

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was, therefore, to synthesise available evidence on the association of running participation and the dose of running with the risk of all-cause, cardiovascular and cancer mortality.


Другие новости по специальности