> I'm not sure whose post was the original-- Richard
> or Wally.

If memory serves, it was something (cancer and
endurance athletes) that Todd mentioned.

> But, the
> idea is NOT a new one.  That is, the notion that
> excessive aerobic
> exercise is associated with cancer has been around
> for a long time in the
> popular running literature.

I was not aware of it. That's why the notion surprised
me.

> Because
> the running boom has only been around for 20 or so
> years, I would assume
> that how the medical establishment is going to call
> this (whether there is
> or isn't a causal link) is still out.

Another possibility: What foods have most endurance
athletes been force fed? When my marathoner friends
"carbo load" on pasta, cereal, bagels and what-not,
all grain based, it makes me wonder.

> And according to
> gerontologists such as Roy
> Walford, exercise increases the production of
> cell-damaging "free
> radicals" . . . and anything over the equivalent of
> 15 miles per week of
> running is probably beyond the body's ability to
> keep up.

I would not argue that point. My understanding is that
ANY exercise more intense than, let's say gardening,
causes increased oxidation of cells. But, somehow it
seems that the triatlete, because of the variety of
events, is probably putting less overall stress on the
body than your average marathoner.

>  Intuitively, too,
>  it would seem that most of our ancestors' exercise
> would have consisted
> of goodly amounts of walking and light/modertate
> lifting, with occasional
> amounts of jogging, sprinting, and heavy lifting.  I
> hunt and fish and
> camp... and this is my exercise profile while in the
> field, and I'm sure
> it's typical.

Agreed. And along those lines is how I've designed my
personal exercise regimen.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com