Author: Sorting Last Post on Top Message:
UNIDENT Posts: 33,498
3/23/13 2:46 P

"Nowhere have I claimed that my reason for not running was science-based."


ZENANDNOW: "But this article is all the more reason that I will never be running,..."

You're right. It's not necessary for you to run. But this article does not say that.

ZENANDNOW SparkPoints: (38,175)
Fitness Minutes: (2,138)
Posts: 2,943
3/23/13 2:25 P

UNIDENT: Nowhere have I claimed that my reason for not running was science-based. I am just not into running for any reason; it is not necessary for me to run, in any way, shape, or fashion. emoticon

UNIDENT Posts: 33,498
3/23/13 2:21 P

I haven't read the study, but I did read the rebuttal link posted.

The site requested data from the original large scale study this study's authors referenced in determining that more than an hour loses benefits, and found that the original study found no upper limit. While there's a diminishing return, there is no upper limit on health benefits from running and no maximum time you should run after which it becomes more harmful than beneficial.

Of course there are studies that say one thing and studies that say the opposite thing, and we do need to be careful what we believe.

But I believe the balance of the evidence here is in a poor study and faked data to claim over-exercise is harmful where that result is NOT what was found by the original large-scale study they reference.

Besides, ZENANDNOW you say you will "never be running, unles being chased". Even this study doesn't say running is bad for you. It says running is good for you and provides health benefits, up to an hour a day.

If you want to "not run" because you don't like running, then don't run. There's nobody telling you that you must run. But at least be honest about why you don't want to run. There is no evidence that running is actually SO bad for you that you should not ANY running at all. None. Nada. Zip.

By all means exercise to your own preference. But don't say science backs you up. It doesn't.

RENATARUNS SparkPoints: (3,758)
Fitness Minutes: (2,155)
Posts: 1,176
3/23/13 12:12 P

And people who hate it will always find some reason not to do it at all, even an article which purports to find substantial benefits for doing it in moderation.

I haven't actually read the study, but whether it's the fault of the scientists or the fault of the person who reported it here, the conclusion stated makes no sense on several levels. Marathoners are supposed to do better with health outcomes than the average couch potato, yet people who run more than 20-25 miles a week are supposed to do the same -- well, "marathoners" and "people who run more than 20-25 miles per week" tend to be one and the same people. So something's wrong right there.

Secondarily, most decent runners who do "intense exercise" for at least an hour a day cover six or more miles in that time ... 6x7 = 42 miles per week, 36 if you take a day off. So the recommendation is also inconsistent with the purported conclusion. Don't ask me exactly what, but it only further erodes my non-existent confidence in population "science" no matter what it claims to prove.

The vast majority of running injuries, btw, are caused by poor running form and worse-than-useless running shoes. If form were actually taught (number one thing don't land on your heels), and if shoes were pared down a bit so that people who don't actually have a problem with overpronation and the like could allow their feet to move freely and the muscles in their feet and lower legs to get strong, few people would be injured by running.

/ rants over

ZENANDNOW SparkPoints: (38,175)
Fitness Minutes: (2,138)
Posts: 2,943
3/23/13 11:40 A

Um...there is always gonna be someone who disagrees with any article on anything. The moral of the story is: the articles are a guideline, which varies with every individual.

But this article is all the more reason that I will never be running, unless being chased by something bigger and meaner than I. emoticon

P.S. runners are naturally going to be biased against anything that endangers their running activities.

Edited by: ZENANDNOW at: 3/23/2013 (11:41)
ZORBS13 SparkPoints: (101,759)
Fitness Minutes: (102,583)
Posts: 13,159
3/23/13 11:21 A

LILLIPUTIANNA Posts: 1,038
3/23/13 10:35 A

I have seen similar studies. There's also some pretty serious damage that can be done to their bones, from the constant impact while running. A friend of mine was training for the Olympics and blew out both her knees because she ran so much. She's not been able to run since.

Everything in moderation! Excessive running is excessive!

ZENANDNOW SparkPoints: (38,175)
Fitness Minutes: (2,138)
Posts: 2,943
3/23/13 12:15 A

Recent finding: Marathon runners who were followed over three decades had a 19% lower rate of death than non-runners--but those who ran more than 20 to 25 miles each week ended up with the same risk as the couch potatoes in the study. Self defense: Exercise vigorously for no more than one hour a day.

* Source: James O'Keefe, MD, head of preventive cardiology at Mid America Heart Institute at Saint Luke's Health System, Kansas City, MO, quoted at Today.com

** Article taken from Bottom Line/Personal newsletter, Volume 34, Number 7, April 1, 2013.

Page: 1 of (1)  




Other Fitness and Exercise Topics:

Topics: Last Post:
30 day shred 10/4/2013 10:52:55 PM
Exercise while on vacation??? 8/2/2013 12:48:18 PM
How many calories should I eat a day? 10/6/2013 8:51:09 AM
Fitness Tracker Question 10/7/2013 1:38:59 PM
Still trying to return from illness 8/9/2013 8:30:12 AM

Diet Resources: elliptical fitness trainer | fitness elliptical trainer | the best elliptical trainer