Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Is Running Good or Bad for Your Health?

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 151 posts

Re: Is Running Good or Bad for Your Health?

#41

Post by chucksmash »

nbschulze wrote: post #22
elchief wrote: post #10

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.

This is pretty far off. I'm 6'4" and weighed 165 when I ran cross country competitively. I didn't look like the type of runner you're describing, neither did 90% of my teammates. Running more than a mile at a time won't turn you into a stick thin marathoner. Olympians are hardly what people should be comparing themselves to if they're looking to get into running.

6'4" and 165lbs (193cm/74.8kg) seems quite thin though - I don't think you are necessarily providing the counterexample you think you are here? Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point. Internet BMI calculator says that would make you "underweight" and put you in the 7th percentile for your height and weight (as in, 93% of people as tall as you weigh more than you).

Re: Is Running Good or Bad for Your Health?

#42

Post by helloworld »

doggoneit wrote: post #13
elchief wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jesus Christ. The problem is not saturated fats and dietary cholesterol. I see you're new here

.

Saturated fats are not associated with all cause mortality, CVD, CHD, ischemic stroke, or type 2 diabetes.... [1]

The current available evidence found no significant difference in all-cause mortality or CHD mortality, resulting from the dietary fat interventions. [2]

[1] Intake of saturated and trans unsaturated fatty acids and risk of all cause mortality, cardiovascular disease, and type 2 diabetes: systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. BMJ. 2015 Aug 11;351:h3978. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h3978. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26268692

[2] Evidence from randomised controlled trials does not support current dietary fat guidelines: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Open Heart. 2016 Aug 8;3(2):e000409. doi: 10.1136/openhrt-2016-000409. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27547428

Re: Is Running Good or Bad for Your Health?

#43

Post by Retra »

pcunite wrote: post #5

Something that I've tried to live by is to be "moderate" in most things.

Something I've tried to live by is to not say useless and vague things.

For example, you just implied you are not "moderate" in some things. So what are those things? Why did you choose to not be moderate in them? How is that better than not being moderate in running? And what is "moderate"?

You've spoken a platitude.

Re: Is Running Good or Bad for Your Health?

#46

Post by gozur88 »

elchief wrote: post #23
trentnix wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not at all how it works. One doesn't get that body type from running long distances, one runs long distances well because they are predisposed to that body type. 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 l…

Distance running has no effect on ones weight...are you really saying that? Exercise can change your physique dramatically. I've been a state-level bicycle racer (170 lb and skinny), master swimmer (195 lb brick shithouse), triathlete, road runner for decades. Different distances lead to leaner or stockier builds.

It doesn't have any effect on your bone structure. Competitive long distance runners are built like chickens.

Re: Is Running Good or Bad for Your Health?

#48

Post by superuser2 »

samayshamdasani wrote: post #4

I'm a cross-country runner averaging 30+ miles a week. I don't see any harm. It's had a great impact on me. I feel healthier and more fit. Some articles just don't make sense.

This isn't quite the article's subject, but...

For a very rough wedge, suppose there were some other activity which didn't have all the positive perceptions around running, which created painful and debilitating injuries requiring medical attention as a matter of course, whose participants could all expect to require specialized medical equipment to go about their lives for a period of weeks to months, several times in their careers in that activity. Imagine there were a whole cottage industry of doctors specialized in patching these people back up and sending them on their way to go get injured again, driving up insurance premiums for the rest of us in the process. Imagine that this activity, and this industry, primarily targeted children and adolescents.

We'd go apeshit. There would be immense moral panic.

A cross country runner at my high school was newly on crutches every other week, sometimes for the third time, and no one batted an eye. Orthopedic surgeons make their careers on relationships with the families of athletic teenagers, and no one bats an eye.

Coming from a background where painful, traumatic injuries are not just something that happens to everyone on a regular basis, statements like "I don't see any harm" are insane.

(Yes, I know it is possible to exercise in ways that mitigate this risk, and I do so. Still, if you really think about it, it's kind of crazy how much we tolerate sports injury).

Re: Is Running Good or Bad for Your Health?

#49

Post by nbschulze »

chucksmash wrote: post #41
nbschulze wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is pretty far off. I'm 6'4" and weighed 165 when I ran cross country competitively. I didn't look like the type of runner you're describing, neither did 90% of my teammates. Running more than a mile at a time won't turn you into a stick thin marathoner. Olympians are hardly what people should be comparing themselves to if they're looking to get into running.

6'4" and 165lbs (193cm/74.8kg) seems quite thin though - I don't think you are necessarily providing the counterexample you think you are here? Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point. Internet BMI calculator says that would make you "underweight" and put you in the 7th percentile for your height and weight (as in, 93% of people as tall as you weigh more than you).

I'm not saying I wasn't thin. I definitely was. However, you wouldn't have been able to pick me out from a crowd as a 'cross country runner'. And to be competitive at that level, you can't be carrying around any extra weight. While BMI can be a helpful tool, it's pretty flawed. It doesn't take into account muscle/fat ratio. I really don't have much body fat, but am now only 5 pounds away from being 'overweight' accordingly to BMI.

Really, my point was that running 15-20 miles a week won't give you the body of a Kenyan Olympian. Running can be incredibly rewarding, I was simply trying to state that if I had to run 90 miles a week to be barely underweight, 15 miles a week shouldn't scare anyone off if they're just trying to be healthier.

Re: Is Running Good or Bad for Your Health?

#50

Post by eatbitseveryday »

DiabloD3 wrote: post #2

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."

> Is Running Good or Bad for Your Health?

> "yes"

I find it enjoyable when people respond with answers that don't match the question. Often I find they provide an answer that would match if the question were cut short, e.g.

> Is Running Good?

> "yes"

Post reply on HN