Forums >General Running>The Exercise Equivalent of a Cheeseburger?
I've always found it interesting that running studies frequently talk about volume in terms of MPW. I would run my allotted 30 weekly miles in a bit over 210 minutes, where as a good many runners would take over 300. I expect the health impact (positive or negative) to be more driven by duration of activity, than the distance the runner covers. But, by measuring and reporting based on MPW the important number (time) can easily vary by 50%.
I'd say the difference could be 2:1 if you consider that some people are running big hills and in snow. (I usually take about 2x as long to finish a race as the winner.) But the slower runners may be closer to hiking intensity, and no one has ever said that hiking is bad for you. (ok, someone can take that as a challenge to find an article saying that hiking is bad).
I'm still not sure what they mean by "extreme" since nothing in their article is really extreme. If many people I know do it, then it must be "average", not extreme.
I have to say that was one of the worst articles I have read. Very little statistics and no control group information until the end which looked like wasn't related to this study at all. Sure there are 3-4 iron man runners who had some weird heart issues but think about the 200million couch potatoes dying of ______ ( fill in the blank). They mentioned A-fib heart condition. It is funny because my uncle got A-fib because he was 150 pounds overweight.... I would rather get something wrong with me from trying to be healthy. Thumbs down on this article!
Yes, the WSJ article was more of a typical popular press poor summary. However, the primary papers that the article alludes to are interesting.
I'd love to read the publications but the WSJ author does not include proper source data which gives me the impression that the WSJ article is not credible.
I have no doubt that in running, like with anything else, there is a point of diminishing returns and there are levels at which the negative effects outweigh the positives. That doesn't seem very earth shattering or controversial to me. If I ran primarily for the health benefits, I doubt I'd race marathons.
Still, the net-net, I'm sure, is the average marathoner is much healthier and will live longer than the average person.
Runners run
I absolutely did start running because I believed that it was good for me.
It is, as long as you don't run by the Metra tracks.
Me too. I wanted to be less fat. However, I do not run races, especially marathons or ultras, for my health.
"When a person trains once, nothing happens. When a person forces himself to do a thing a hundred or a thousand times, then he certainly has developed in more ways than physical. Is it raining? That doesn't matter. Am I tired? That doesn't matter, either. Then willpower will be no problem." Emil Zatopek
Village people
I have no doubt that in running, like with anything else, there is a point of diminishing returns and there are levels at which the negative effects outweigh the positives. That doesn't seem very earth shattering or controversial to me. If I ran primarily for the health benefits, I doubt I'd race marathons. Still, the net-net, I'm sure, is the average marathoner is much healthier and will live longer than the average person.
^this.
It's been the same drumbeat for a while.
however, instead of simply dismissing it with the attitude of "I don't believe it", I think we should look at the evidence as a whole. On the other hand, we shouldn't believe everything just because it's been printed/published.
Dream Maker
I started running to lose weight.
I fell in love with it and kept running even though that didn't work out to well for me. I am just a fat runner.
But those 6 years? If I have to run less, screw them. Take 15 years if they want.
I don't run for health. I run because it keeps me sane.
Plus, there's a very good chance it increases the lifespan of the people around me for me to be able to run as I please.
Agreed. The author of the article does not do a good job of sourcing.
In terms of some of the current lit on the topic, here's a few quick searches (The O'Keefe article is the one that tends to get a lot of attention): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?linkname=pubmed_pubmed&from_uid=22677079
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?linkname=pubmed_pubmed&from_uid=22160404
Disclaimer: These brief lists are in no way comprehensive searches (or even particularly good searches) and do not fairly represent the scope of the literature. There are plenty of other articles which demonstrate the positive effects of running as well. There are also lots of articles that describe various biomarker changes and physiological responses to endurance running, but several conclude that their significance is currently unknown.
But those 6 years? If I have to run less, screw them. Take 15 years if they want. I don't run for health. I run because it keeps me sane. Plus, there's a very good chance it increases the lifespan of the people around me for me to be able to run as I please.
+1!!!!!
Sulphur Springs 50km-- Ancaster, ON-- May 28, 2022
Tally in the Valley 12 hours-- Dundas, ON -- July 30, 2022 (Support SickKids Toronto)
Stokely Creek-- 56km-- Sault Ste. Marie, ON-- Sept. 24, 2022
Faster Than Your Couch!
Now that's weird. I started running because it was fun. Never thought about any "health benefits" (ok, maybe I at age 10 I was too young to understand). And nobody can tell me I have to run in such a way that, according to statistics, I stay healthy doing it. Fun keeps me healthy, and a happy and good quality life definitely beat the number of (possibly unhappy) years alone.
Run for fun.
Now that's weird. I started running because it was fun. Never thought about any "health benefits"
Bully for you.
My favorite running stride is my last one of the day.
Honest question: if you don't enjoy it, why do it?
There are plenty of other ways to be active. I'm not being facetious. I honestly am curious.
Bully for you. My favorite running stride is my last one of the day.
(ok, someone can take that as a challenge to find an article saying that hiking is bad).
A picture is worth a thousand words.