Back failure from running?

[KW]

I was a pretty intense runner when I was younger. At least, I thought I was.
From the age of 20 thru 26, I ran 12 to 16 miles per day, nearly every day. I
might take a day where I only ran 6 or 8 miles because I didn't feel good or
the weather was particularly nasty. I did it just for fitness and to keep my
weight where I wanted. I also enjoyed it. Finally my hips were hurting too
much and I completely gave it up. I rarely ran after that. Thru the years, I
have kept the weight off through diet.

Now I'm 37 and recently had a disk break apart, extrude out from between my
vertebrae and go into my spinal cord and nerves causing terrible leg pain,
surgery, the works. I had some back pain for years, which my doctor had told
me he thought it was just muscular, so I didn't do much about it. The final
blow was when I bent over for a newspaper. My doctor says some people just
sneeze or cough and it's gone. Anyway, no history in my family of back
problems. He was telling me how the worst thing on your disks is running. All
of the weight of your upper body is carried in compression by your disks.
Your muscles don't push upward to resist the force - all of it goes through
your spine. Running is the worst because it causes an impact, and that impact
force can actually be several times the weight of your upper body, just
hammering your disks. Wearing good shoes with cushy soles helps reduce the
impact, but it's still there. I'm wondering if my disk was destroyed in all
those days of running. Anyone ever hear of any studies done on the rate of
back failure from people who are into long distance running?

KW

[Doug Freese]

"KW" <KW@stny.rr.com> wrote in message
news:475a6b95$0$8888$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> he was telling me how the worst thing on your disks is running. All
> of the weight of your upper body is carried in compression by your
> disks.
> Your muscles don't push upward to resist the force - all of it goes
> through
> your spine. Running is the worst because it causes an impact, and
> that impact
> force can actually be several times the weight of your upper body,
> just
> hammering your disks. Wearing good shoes with cushy soles helps
> reduce the
> impact, but it's still there. I'm wondering if my disk was destroyed
> in all
> those days of running. Anyone ever hear of any studies done on the
> rate of
> back failure from people who are into long distance running?

I don't think there is any data to show that running is a cause of back
problems any more than female ovaries fall out. Any physical exercise,
running, swimming, dancing have their spate of associated problems. For
all you know you may have had some misalignment or other problem from
birth and running exacerbated the condition. Your 12-15 miles a
day(80-100 miles) for 6 years is a lot of miles even in your 20's - one
may say too many.

Most injuries are caused by doing too much, too soon and trying to
persevere through those early signs to slow down. So yes, running takes
it toll but I don't think it takes a perfectly good back and turns it to
mush any more than knees. Everything in moderation and it one does push
mileage, intensity or both for any extended period with some rest
breaks(weeks not days or hours) - call the doctor now in case there is
a waiting line.

-Doug

[Frank Boettcher]

On 08 Dec 2007 10:01:57 GMT, KW@stny.rr.com (KW) wrote:

>I was a pretty intense runner when I was younger. At least, I thought I was.
>From the age of 20 thru 26, I ran 12 to 16 miles per day, nearly every day. I
>might take a day where I only ran 6 or 8 miles because I didn't feel good or
>the weather was particularly nasty. I did it just for fitness and to keep my
>weight where I wanted. I also enjoyed it. Finally my hips were hurting too
>much and I completely gave it up. I rarely ran after that. Thru the years, I
>have kept the weight off through diet.
>
>Now I'm 37 and recently had a disk break apart, extrude out from between my
>vertebrae and go into my spinal cord and nerves causing terrible leg pain,
>surgery, the works. I had some back pain for years, which my doctor had told
>me he thought it was just muscular, so I didn't do much about it. The final
>blow was when I bent over for a newspaper. My doctor says some people just
>sneeze or cough and it's gone. Anyway, no history in my family of back
>problems. He was telling me how the worst thing on your disks is running. All
>of the weight of your upper body is carried in compression by your disks.
>Your muscles don't push upward to resist the force - all of it goes through
>your spine. Running is the worst because it causes an impact, and that impact
>force can actually be several times the weight of your upper body, just
>hammering your disks. Wearing good shoes with cushy soles helps reduce the
>impact, but it's still there. I'm wondering if my disk was destroyed in all
>those days of running. Anyone ever hear of any studies done on the rate of
>back failure from people who are into long distance running?
>
>KW


I had my first episode of a protruding disk in my early twenties, long
before I was a runner. A number of periodic attacks after that. I
started running in my mid forties and have been doing so consistently
for fifteen years. The regular episodes of disk protrusion have all
but vanished, in fact, haven't had one in years. My back only bothers
me if forced to sit for long periods of time (computer work, car
trips, plane trips, etc.) and then only mildly.

I suspect the improvement comes from better overall conditioning,
weight control, and adherence to core work that keeps abdominal
muscles strong.

An anecdotal sample of one.

Frank