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

61–70 of 151 posts

Re: Is Running Good or Bad for Your Health?

#61

Post by Taek »

mgarfias wrote: post #56
nbschulze wrote: post #15

I ran 80-90 miles per week while in college and continued running 20-30 per week for a couple of years after until my knee stopped cooperating (I'm really looking forward to knee surgery in October). 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 differen…

Running was clearly bad for my health: at 17 I f’d up both of mine. “Oh its just shin splints, run through it.” Yeah, until I couldn’t run through the pain any more. Quit running track, bloated up like Pacheco’s pig. Found out later that I wore grooves through the cartiledge and into my bones. Also, discovered that if I ran on my toes instead of heel strikes I can run now without pain. Its juts ingrained to hate it n…

Seems like you discovered it already, but shin splints, knee problems, back problems, etc. are usually based in either bad shoes or bad form. There are also strengthening exercises you can do for each to make you less susceptible to them.

Often times the body's limitations are caused by problems that can be fixed or worked around, allowing you to push yourself farther and harder without hurting your health.

Re: Is Running Good or Bad for Your Health?

#62

Post by bjterry »

jmde wrote: post #17

The article frames the question as a sort of strawman in some ways. Rather than ask "is running good or bad for you?" you could ask "is an alternative form of exercise, that has fewer damaging side effects, better?" For example, would you be just as well off walking, skiing, or biking? My understanding is the answer to that is even less clear.

I don't know about that. From a pure physical health perspective (i.e. discounting convenience, cost and supposed mental health benefits), there are a bunch of exercises that are strictly superior to running. They provide all of the cardio benefits of running, but without the prevalence of joint injury when you crank up the time investment. Some good examples are swimming, biking, or using a rowing machine.

I'm a big believer in the idea that motivation trumps all other considerations when it comes to exercise though, so you should run if you like running.

Re: Is Running Good or Bad for Your Health?

#64

Post by chongli »

nbschulze wrote: post #59
paulcole wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Olympics aren't a great test for this. Look at top marathon runners size over time. http://www.runnersworld.com/sweat-science/the-incredible-shr...

That kinda says what I'm saying, top marathoners/distance runners are of average height (around 5'7").

Average height for Japan, maybe, but not really anywhere in the Western world. Average height in the Netherlands is over 6 feet, for example.

Re: Is Running Good or Bad for Your Health?

#65

Post by runamok »

jfoutz wrote: post #20

> [Lee concludes his data] "don't support that more is worse. But more may not be better." [Williams concludes] 40 miles a week [...] were 26 percent less likely to develop coronary heart disease than those running just 13 miles per week. 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 do…

If you measure how much time you spend watching TV or surfing the web it puts it in perspective... I used to run about 40 miles a week a few months ago. Usually ended up being between 5 and 6 hours a week. The long run is usually on the weekend when I'd imagine most people can find a few hours to spare. I am sadly injured right now and biking or inline skating instead. Now THAT takes some time and is so much less efficient time wise in maintaining my weight. I rode 22 miles in 1:20 and only burned 900 calories or so. Normally it would take me 1 hour to burn that running.

Re: Is Running Good or Bad for Your Health?

#66

Post by [deleted] »

jpmattia wrote: post #39
jfoutz wrote: post #20

> [Lee concludes his data] "don't support that more is worse. But more may not be better." [Williams concludes] 40 miles a week [...] were 26 percent less likely to develop coronary heart disease than those running just 13 miles per week. 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 do…

> what a crazy time commitment running 40 miles a week actually is. Absolutely. 52 yo here, averaging about 15 miles/week running + 4-7 miles/week hiking. It takes major dedication just to work that amount in, I have no idea how I'd spin up to do 40 mi/week. And as far as I'm concerned: The cardio benefit is pretty minuscule compared to what it does for the head.

[deleted]

Re: Is Running Good or Bad for Your Health?

#67

Post by eyelidlessness »

brownbat wrote: post #63
loeg wrote: post #52

Tl;dr > The health benefits of running short or long distances are so overwhelmingly positive that they swamp potential dangers.

An addendum to Bettridge's law: When headlines can't be answered "no," the most boring possible answer is correct.

Another addendum, because I've seen it done too often not to mention:

If you're aware of Bettridge's law and craft your headline to take advantage of it, you're a total shitbag and you're not fooling anyone.

Re: Is Running Good or Bad for Your Health?

#68

Post by nicobn »

Taek wrote: post #61
mgarfias wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Running was clearly bad for my health: at 17 I f’d up both of mine. “Oh its just shin splints, run through it.” Yeah, until I couldn’t run through the pain any more. Quit running track, bloated up like Pacheco’s pig. Found out later that I wore grooves through the cartiledge and into my bones. Also, discovered that if I ran on my toes instead of heel strikes I can run now without pain. Its juts ingrained to hate it n…

Seems like you discovered it already, but shin splints, knee problems, back problems, etc. are usually based in either bad shoes or bad form. There are also strengthening exercises you can do for each to make you less susceptible to them. Often times the body's limitations are caused by problems that can be fixed or worked around, allowing you to push yourself farther and harder without hurting your health.

Genuinely curious here. Can you point me to some of these strengthening exercises ?

Re: Is Running Good or Bad for Your Health?

#69

Post by eyelidlessness »

eatbitseveryday wrote: post #50
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"

Responding in the affirmative or the negative to an "or" question is often a glib shrug.
Post reply on HN