We are pleased to announce that on March 4, 2025, an updated Rich Text Editor will be introduced in the MyFitnessPal Community. To learn more about the upcoming changes, please click here. We look forward to sharing this new feature with you!
long distance = shorter life?
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/3372b/3372bff825da9fe594de640913647e9278332ab8" alt="KeithAngilly"
KeithAngilly
Posts: 575 Member
Replies
-
A scary study headline with no causality. I'll take my chances.0
-
"But the reasons why remain unclear."
Solid study.0 -
Same old, same old. O'Keefe is writing his lunch ticket on this research. See here for the reasons why it's not very convincing:
http://sciencebasedrunning.com/2013/05/omg-were-all-gonna-dieeleventy/
http://www.runnersworld.com/health/too-much-running-myth-rises-again
Money quote:
What this means is that they used statistical methods to effectively “equalize” everyone’s weight, blood pressure, cholesterol, and so on. But this is absurd when you think about it. Why do we think running is good for health? In part because it plays a role in reducing weight, blood pressure, cholesterol, and so on.... They’re effectively saying, “If we ignore the known health benefits of greater amounts of aerobic exercise, then greater amounts of aerobic exercise don’t have any health benefits.”0 -
Oh no! I will have run 3 marathons in 6 months...each after I turned age 60. I guess the "sudden stop at the end," like objects seen in certain mirrors, "is closer than it appears."0
-
I really didn't get the point of the article. Correlation doesn't equal causation. That being said, my own plan is to get a BQ and run in Boston, do one Ironman and then focus on shorter distance tri's (Oly and sprints).0
This discussion has been closed.