Running is baaaaaaaad for you...
Supadoopafly
Posts: 248 Member
Replies
-
:noway:0
-
If you have my knees it is. Not that it would kill me but it hurts a lot0
-
Correlation =/= causation.
It also didn't say running was bad, it said recent research suggests there may a point of diminishing returns with running. It was suggesting high milage of running may carry more of a risk factor.
The explanation I was given by a medical doctor friend of this study is that for high milage runners, there may be a point where the benefits end, and there may be a little bit more of a risk factor, however, they are still healthier and live longer than those who don't at all. So running a lot of miles is still better than not running at all even if there is a direct relationship (which there isn't) between more miles and shorter life expectancy (I couldn't find the numbers in the study but he suggested it was a small difference between the average runners and the high mileage runners - we aren't talking years of difference).
ETA - haha, I was typing as Helwiththis posted too.0 -
Did you actually read the article because it doesn't say running is bad for you!
You seem to have skipped the parts...However, the research showed that people who do a lot of running, and those who do none, both have shorter lifespans.
Dr James O’Keefe, who reviewed the research, believes the findings could be caused by ‘wear and tear’ on the bodies of people who do a lot of running.
He advises people to aim for about two and a half hours of slow to moderate paced running a week.
That actually sounds like hell to me but each to their own!!0 -
Full marathon getting crossed off my "bucket list" in a couple weeks. I read the article. I can only say I've never felt better. Right now I'm averaging 39 miles a week. Of course, after my marathon, that number will go down. However, I still plan on getting a 10 mile run in, once a week.0
-
Did you actually read the article because it doesn't say running is bad for you!
You seem to have skipped the parts...However, the research showed that people who do a lot of running, and those who do none, both have shorter lifespans.
Dr James O’Keefe, who reviewed the research, believes the findings could be caused by ‘wear and tear’ on the bodies of people who do a lot of running.
He advises people to aim for about two and a half hours of slow to moderate paced running a week.
That actually sounds like hell to me but each to their own!!
It doesn't say all in one shot. I run for 30 min. 4 days a week which equals 2 hours/week.
And I also didn't see any where that said it was bad for you.0 -
So is reading the daily mail...0
-
So is reading the daily mail...
Reading the Mail is way worse.
And my knees suck. Hence I don't run. That and I can't think of anything more boring. Hmm wait... maybe... Nope. I can't.0 -
First, this is a preliminary study. It has not been peer reviewed. Second what the study points out is subjects who do not exercise and subjects with high-mileage running practices both appear to have shorter lifespans. But moderate mileage runners show improved health benefits.
"The researchers behind the newest study on the issue say people who get either no exercise or high-mileage runners both tend to have shorter lifespans than moderate runners. But the reasons why remain unclear, they added, "
http://consumer.healthday.com/fitness-information-14/misc-health-news-265/too-much-running-linked-to-shorter-lifespan-studies-find-686310.html
Moderation is always key0 -
So is reading the daily mail...
I love the Daily Mail!!!!!! It's my 'go to' online newspaper. So entertaining (not in a good way) .. especially the reader comments.
I'd NEVER date someone who admitted to actually buying it though! Then again, I'm not sure anyone who prescribed to the beliefs/ethos of the Daily Mail would want to date me! :drinker: :bigsmile:0 -
I'm fuzzy on the whole good/bad thing0
-
daaaailymail..............HAHAHAHAHAHA0
-
Isn't the Daily Mail sold right next to the National Inquirer??0
-
The truth of the matter is... we substantially improve our overall morbidity and mortality rates by exercising more, not less. Short of running head first into a bus, NOT exercising is the fastest way to an early death. That's what people really need to fear most - early death from being *too* damn sedentary.
So maybe we don't all need to strive to become ultra-endurance runners... I'm not really seeing an ultra-running epidemic erupting any time soon, so crisis averted.0 -
The Daily Fail. Enough said. :yawn:0
-
My philosophy is that it is good to be BAD!!! And this justifies it!!0
-
:grumble:0
-
It's certainly bad for me. I don't understand how anyone enjoys this miserable form of exercise.0
-
Correlation =/= causation. Bad article, bad science, waste of time.
+10 -
Seems to me that people are missing the fact that being a high mileage ultra runner is incredibly hard on the body and a far cry from you average Joe/Jane going out on some fitness runs a few times per week...c'mon people, read the whole thing and put it into context...it's not that hard, reading comprehension skills +1.0
-
so is sitting on your *kitten*0
-
Seems to me that people are missing the fact that being a high mileage ultra runner is incredibly hard on the body and a far cry from you average Joe/Jane going out on some fitness runs a few times per week...c'mon people, read the whole thing and put it into context...it's not that hard, reading comprehension skills +1.
Are you talking about people in this thread? Because several of us did do that. I didn't see anything about ultra runner but high milage was mentioned (and I mentioned it in my post).0 -
Links to the daily mail make the baby Jesus cry!0
-
Did you actually read the article because it doesn't say running is bad for you!
You seem to have skipped the parts...However, the research showed that people who do a lot of running, and those who do none, both have shorter lifespans.
Dr James O’Keefe, who reviewed the research, believes the findings could be caused by ‘wear and tear’ on the bodies of people who do a lot of running.
He advises people to aim for about two and a half hours of slow to moderate paced running a week.
That actually sounds like hell to me but each to their own!!
The article may not but the web address does.0 -
It is better to run than not to run!!!!!!!!0
-
Everything is 'bad' for you these days.
*eyeroll*0 -
Seems to me that people are missing the fact that being a high mileage ultra runner is incredibly hard on the body and a far cry from you average Joe/Jane going out on some fitness runs a few times per week...c'mon people, read the whole thing and put it into context...it's not that hard, reading comprehension skills +1.
Thanks for the weak attempt to insult people's intelligence on this thread. That was so very considerate. And works wonders when trying to convey your point to the group...
We did read it. We did comprehend it. We also "get" that the vast majority of the running population (99.99...) isn't high mileage, so the article is just more of the same old Daily Mail reactionary click-bait. Those runners that are high mileage are likely aware of the risks they assume in doing so. For the rest of us, this doesn't apply, so... Keep calm and run on!0 -
How do you come to the conclusion that running is bad for you (the title of this thread) from the quote:Did you actually read the article because it doesn't say running is bad for you!
You seem to have skipped the parts...However, the research showed that people who do a lot of running, and those who do none, both have shorter lifespans.
Dr James O’Keefe, who reviewed the research, believes the findings could be caused by ‘wear and tear’ on the bodies of people who do a lot of running.
He advises people to aim for about two and a half hours of slow to moderate paced running a week.
That actually sounds like hell to me but each to their own!!
The article may not but the web address does.
"The researchers behind the newest study on the issue say people who get either no exercise or high-mileage runners both tend to have shorter lifespans than moderate runners."
Surely the sensible conclusion from this preliminary study would be that moderate running is good for you?0 -
personally i think doing anything over and over and over for years and years will undoubtedly lead to joint issues, even if its zero to low impact.
just ask any career swimmer how thier shoulders are.
lol not everyone will suffer but it does raise the risk factor.
Not demonizing running, but i think its better for ones health and fitness to diversify0 -
personally i think doing anything over and over and over for years and years will undoubtedly lead to joint issues, even if its zero to low impact.
just ask any career swimmer how thier shoulders are.
lol not everyone will suffer but it does raise the risk factor.
Not demonizing running, but i think its better for ones health and fitness to diversify
I don't disagree with your whole point, however, there has been a quite extensive study between runners/non-runners and joint issues. It found the rate of joint issues were the same across the board. And there has been some evidence to suggest that running helps maintain cartilage in joints.
Again, not complete proof but food for thought.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 419 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions