Forums >General Running>There is no need to run far or fast, to stay healthy
According to the study, a recent study published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine even a short amount of running daily is associated with a lower risk of death from any cause.
Researchers found that there is no need to run far or fast, just a small dose of running on a regular basis is enough. They said there would be significant improvements in health and longevity if more and more people took up running.
So if you just want to stay healthy don not stress on Miles or Pace just follow your daily routine.
Are we there, yet?
That's fine if all I'm interested in is basic health and longevity, but those aren't the reasons I began running and still aren't the reasons I continue to run. And I also wonder just what they mean by healthy. I doubt that they mean physically fit.
2024 Races:
03/09 - Livingston Oval Ultra 6-Hour, 22.88 miles
05/11 - D3 50K 05/25 - What the Duck 12-Hour
06/17 - 6 Days in the Dome 12-Hour.
Problem Child
I think plenty of people do exactly what this article says. They don’t stress about how fast or how far. They just run time or a specific path. The problem is when they’re running that too hard because they don’t care about running easy. Running is exercise and exercise is supposed to be hard so you have to run hard for it to count. I had a friend who only ran 2 miles on the treadmill. He ran them around a 7:00/mi pace. I told him he should slow down because I don’t even run that hard outside of training for a race. He kept running his two miles and I doubt he has slowed down at all. My uncle runs 5 miles a day. Same thing. Crazy hard pace plus uphills. Why? He wants that hard gut wrenching feeling that comes from running that hard.
I might be in the minority of people who think those signed up for a forum about running want to do more than just run casually to extend their life. Facebook groups would be where I’d expect a lot of casual “let’s go run for health” focused people because it is easier to find a group. I’d think people here want to challenge themselves to do better.
Many of us aren't sure what the hell point you are trying to make and no matter how we guess, it always seems to be something else. Which usually means a person is doing it on purpose.
VDOT 53.37
5k18:xx | Marathon 2:55:22
MoBramExam
Translation: People who are physically active to any degree will lower their risk of early death.
Depending on the study, a "runner" may have been defined as someone who ran a little as once a week, and in some cases, once a month. Would be willing to bet that almost anyone who engages in some form of regular physical activity (exercise) will have cause or occasion to "run" within those definitions.
Once again, lots of time, effort, and money spent to suggest to folks to get off the couch...oh, and since you need to "run", you will need to buy some shoes???
not bad for mile 25
Correlation <> causation. This is an article about a meta study of studies or possibly "studies", and even this article says that "cause cannot be established." It could mean that people who have a higher risk of death have a lower likelihood of being or becoming runners.
We see article after article like this.
I'm not saying this to discourage anyone from getting up and exercising. Just saying that one shouldn't assume that this is even feasible for a lot of people.
did read an article that suggested training for the 5k was healthier for one than say the marathon...
basically including speed work, sprinting, mixing the running more had greater health benefits than just going further longer slower all the time.
I have seen some info lately about sprinting being great to keep muscle mass etc...
I do like the idea of training all the systems, slow, fast, long short, etc...
Personally believe if all you do is sprint only or only HIIT, you're probably missing out on some other health benefits/zones of fitness.
To each their own.
300m- 37 sec.
Overweight per CDC BMI
I ran casually just for fitness for all my late 20's and never tracked my pace or cared about how many miles I put in per week. Because I was only running for health and to say I was at least doing something for cardio, it was so easy to slack off and not stick with it when life got busy. Over 5 years of this, I gained 40 lbs and couldn't even run 1 mile without being gassed and quitting.
Once I started running to train for 5k's and improve my 5k times, that is when I became committed to running. After two years, I went from a 5k pace of 9:20 to half marathon pace of 7:39 and I have lost 30 lbs. Running for time/distance improvements gave my running a purpose and I can definitely say I am a lot more healthy now than I was 3 years ago. I have a new hobby, have met many new friends from training groups, and I now have my wife getting into running too.
Casual running a couple times per week is better than no cardio at all but running to make time/distance improvements is going to pay off so much more.
Memphis / 38 male
5k - 20:39 / 10k - 43:48 / Half - 1:34:47 / Full - 3:38:10
Okay.
So, they would have us believe, if we dedicate a certain amount of time to running, however slow or long, we will extend our lives.
Well, all I can say is that if that's the case, the amount of life extended better exceed the cumulative amount of time we put into running or (and this is the important part), we've been cheated.
Ripped off.
Over paid.
I'm not buying it. I'm hedging my bet and instead, torquing up the speed and intensity. 'Run fast and die young'. Besides, it's a lot more fun.
Anyone joining me?
Is the running a Z variable? Maybe the kind of people who run are doing other things that are extending their lives. Maybe it's a combination of things, or even a limiting of other things because time is taken up by exercise.
Correlation is not causation.
And it's not news that after a small amount, further or faster running has no additional health benefit. Jog 3 miles 3x a week and you get the same health benefit as running 100+ miles a week.
Trying to improve running performance is a very different thing.
60-64 age group - University of Oregon alumni - Irreverent and Annoying
This article completely ignores the possibility of being hit by a car or killed by a bear on a run. It might also ignore having any kind of medical emergency while out on a run away from any help. A high school kid was killed by a bear in Alaska about 2 years ago doing a 5K. Had he not been running he would be alive today.
an amazing likeness
New user. No log. First ever post. Includes a link to a site which, literally, has "click" as part of the url. Glad folk are all over engage the OP in a discussion.
Acceptable at a dance, invaluable in a shipwreck.
Oops.
good catch milktruck, but the sentiment of the title (judge the book by the cover) warrants discussion and shared anecdotes. At least they are not claiming that Navy Seals get fit by not running far or fast, using a "not far, not fast" training method they designed in conjunction with DARPA.
Mmmm Bop
A new user/no log OP started a thread with a link. So what? Sometimes that can actually lead to a good discussion.
5k - 17:53 (4/19) 10k - 37:53 (11/18) Half - 1:23:18 (4/19) Full - 2:50:43 (4/19)
I've never really cared about it, but it is even a little bit likely that i am compromising my health to some extent by running as hard and as often as I do. We aren't all doing this for the same reasons so the information is no revelation to me.