Running is baaaaaaaad for you...
Options
Replies
-
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 -
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!
yeah...well, there seems to be a lot of posters here who think this would apply to general recreational runners and from their posts it would appear that they don't understand...which was the point I was making and the posters I was referring to.
Now...go un-bunch those panties and carry on...
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).
There are a number of posters in this thread who seem to think this would apply to them...those are the posters I was referring to. Sorry....didn't mean to get you and Miss Motion all riled up here....good lord when did this place get so damned serious?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).
There are a number of posters in this thread who seem to think this would apply to them...those are the posters I was referring to. Sorry....didn't mean to get you and Miss Motion all riled up here....good lord when did this place get so damned serious?
I'm anything but riled up. :laugh:
Confused, maybe (ok frequently). Riled up, no. :drinker:
And a little amused at the irony (is that the right word?)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 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.
it could also be that those with a certain genetics are going to get knee issues regardless, and when they run they will be much worse. while other with certain genetics will be just fine.
or Nike funded the study0 -
The thing that is super frustrating about stuff like this is that people who DON'T get any exercise use it as justification for their sedentary lifestyles. Meanwhile, people who are out running ultra-marathons and might actually be damaging their bodies a bit from the extremes they're training at will just shrug it off as a risk they're willing to take for something that is a passionate lifestyle for them.
Regardless, I'm betting that getting a huge amount of exercise is still better for most people than getting none at all. But where's the study comparing lifespans of the entirely sedentary with ultra runners?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).
There are a number of posters in this thread who seem to think this would apply to them...those are the posters I was referring to. Sorry....didn't mean to get you and Miss Motion all riled up here....good lord when did this place get so damned serious?
I'm anything but riled up. :laugh:
Confused, maybe (ok frequently). Riled up, no. :drinker:
And a little amused at the irony (is that the right word?)
Not riled up here either. I just don't see the misunderstanding you are referring to... Some folks have pointed out the whole causation/correlation fallacy, and few have concurred with the article. Next, we have a little sarcasm, a little Daily Mail "love", some tired old knee jokes, and the obligatory "running's for sucks" comments.... As far as I see it, everybody gets a gold star for reading comprehension today. Except Wolfman. He gets a time out for the lame panty joke.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!!
Agree, boooorrrrinnnnggg0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 395 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 959 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions