Muscle Density Linked to Survival in Metastatic RCC

Texas_wedge said:

Lifestyle

I'm sure you stand in no need of confirmation from me that you're doing the right thing!

However, I'll tweak that just a little.  I've enjoyed running marathons but I've enjoyed competitive weightlifting even more and I know the latter is the superior way of gaining and maintaining muscle density.  A deepening health crisis has blown me off course (including the golf course) lately but I must renew dialogue with a local here in eastern Scotland who is a molecular physiologist and an ultra-marathoner.  He's published an excellent short book on High Intensity Training and the last time we spoke he was getting ready for the Devil of the Highlands race.   It's a hilly 43 mile footrace and he tells me the longest training runs he ever does are about 7 miles!!!

So long gone are the 200 weekly mileages of Dave Bedford (who I regard as the saviour of GB athletics).  Compared with Ovett, Coe stressed quality over quantity with much lower training mileages and plenty of weights work but even that now seems antiquated and physiologically naive!

I'm around 3 years behind you as a stage 4 case and runner but I hope to soon get back to a little running (but a lot of rowing) and there is an improving chance that I might emulate you in making 5 years as a still active RCC case.

That's more like it...

I knew the smart money was on you!!!

MDCinSC said:

What Gary Said!!

In spades!  No sucker bets for me!

I wanna

go home and get back to my exercise and running. I've got a tee time tuesday. But that may be pushing it.

jhsu said:

Marathon

My running is introversion, it is not about competition nor challenging of anything. People who meditate regularly know what I mean, I do my meditation and running at the same time. Oh, as for the muscle density and bone density, those are just the side effects.

Marathon

Jon, I have the same relationship with running and meditation as you do. 

However, I'm keen to ensure that we're not at cross-purposes here, with the study you've quoted.  I construe it as another confirmation that the more muscle you carry the better, even if it's at the cost of carrying a bit more body fat in addition.   You have pointed up the difference between density and volume - are you focusing on the fact that most ultra-distance athletes carry less fat but also less muscle than average?

You probably have a better muscle:fat ratio than most people do and you'll almost certainly have higher quality muscle.  It's important to have good muscle density. 

Nonetheless, I don't think the message is that muscle size isn't important, only quality - in fact, the greater your muscle mass the better (leaving aside questions of aesthetics) and in health and longevity terms there is a minimum figure, below which your prospects are less good.

Incidentally, if you're like me, you'll run weight on.  When I stop training I invariably lose weight and can't wait to put it back on again.  In fact, I'm getting worried that on Votrient I lost a lot of weight, regained some, but have lately shed it again.  When I started the drug I was carrying very little surplus and I now face the prospect of going back onto Votrient weighing 20 lbs less than I did before starting it first time!