Outrunning the grim reaper: longevity of the first 200 sub-4 min mile male runners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine the impact of running a sub-4 min mile on longevity. It was hypothesised that there would be an increase in longevity for runners who successfully completed a sub-4 min mile compared with the general population. METHODS: As part of this retrospective cohort study, the Sub-4 Alphabetic Register was used to extract the first 200 athletes to run a sub-4 min mile. Each runner's date of birth, date of their first successful mile attempt, current age (if alive) or age at death was compared with the United Nations Life Tables to determine the difference in each runner's current age or age at death with their country of origin-specific life expectancy. RESULTS: Of the first 200 sub-4 min mile runners (100% male), 60 were dead (30%) and 140 were still alive. Sub-4 min mile runners lived an average of 4.7 years beyond their predicted life expectancy (95% CI 4.7 to 4.8). When accounting for the decade of completion (1950s, 1960s or 1970s), the longevity benefits were 9.2 years (n=22; 95% CI 8.3 to 10.1), 5.5 years (n=88; 95% CI 5.3 to 5.7) and 2.9 years (n=90; 95% CI 2.7 to 3.1), respectively. CONCLUSION: Sub-4 min mile runners have increased longevity compared with the general population, thereby challenging the notion that extreme endurance exercise may be detrimental to longevity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".