11–20 of 151 posts
The usual rule is "if a headline asks a question the answer is no." This is not a yes or no question, thus I believe the answer is unequivocally "yes."
Look at a male Olympian long distance runner's physique. Is that what you want to look like? You probably won't get there, but is that a worthwhile goal? Whereas a short or mid distance runner looks more normal and healthy. This tells me that I probably want to run shorter distances. In fact, I never run more than a mile, but do it quickly.
I have experienced some of the described symptoms (irregular heartbeat and etc), but wouldn't have done much differently. Honestly, this article basically boils down to 'do what your body can handle'.
People are different. Bodies are different. Some people can handle 120 miles per week. Some people struggle to run one. Running is obviously good for your health, just don't over do it. And stretch and foam roll, that's as important as anything.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Jesus Christ. The problem is not saturated fats and dietary cholesterol. I see you're new here
.
Look at a male Olympian long distance runner's physique. Is that what you want to look like? You probably won't get there, but is that a worthwhile goal? Whereas a short or mid distance runner looks more normal and healthy. This tells me that I probably want to run shorter distances. In fact, I never run more than a mile, but do it quickly.
Consider, for example, a swim meet. If you look at the competitors in prelims, you'll see a variety of body types. By the semifinals, you'll see a smaller variety, and by the finals, you'll likely see a field of competitors with similar builds. Most look at that and assume a build like that of those in the finals is the result of an intense swimming regiment, when actually it's that body type that enabled swimming success. The entire field of competitors may have put in similar levels of effort, but the physiological advantages genetically granted to the better swimmers is what resulted in their relative success.
So to sum up, running is way way better than doing nothing. More than 40 miles a week may have not only diminishing returns, but negative consequences.
I'd guess most people here don't realize what a crazy time commitment running 40 miles a week actually is. Even if you can pull off 6 minute miles (4 hours/week), there's still a need for rest after the run, more sleep, more food, replacing shoes and clothes as they wear out. The extra time adds up.