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

Running as a Thinking Person’s Sport

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–148 of 148 posts

Re: Running as a Thinking Person’s Sport

#141

Post by hueving »

notacoward wrote: post #119
hueving wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't call 150 calories of beer heavy drinking. A pint of something like Guinness is a little over 200 calories. "SAMHSA defines heavy drinking as drinking 5 or more drinks on the same occasion" So you're right that heavy drinking of beer could be undone with running, but it's going to take a 10-11 mile run every day.

Why can't you just admit you were wrong? You said no amount without specifying how much eating/drinking you were talking about. That's a pretty absolute statement, refuted by the facts others have provided.

I said "drinking a lot", someone refuting with evidence of running of a single light beer hardly refutes anything.

There is little to gain by behaving like a smug asshole in comments. What could you possibly expect as a response to your comment that would make for good conversation.

Re: Running as a Thinking Person’s Sport

#142

Post by hueving »

notacoward wrote: post #116
hueving wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

VO2max has nothing to do with joints. Your post is all over the place.

No, my post is not all over the place. You're just not very good at reading. Effect on joints was the OP's point 1. Effect on fitness was point 3. Must I address those points in separate replies, even though they were made in one? That's absurd. Also, they're not completely unrelated and I've even drawn the lines between them. Talk of running's negatives should be balanced by consideration of its positives. Even if r…

>You're just not very good at reading.

Now this is what this site is about.

Unless you are intentionally trolling, I recommend you remove personal attacks from your discourse if you want to engage in any kind of intelligent conversation.

Re: Running as a Thinking Person’s Sport

#143

Post by [deleted] »

monkmartinez wrote: post #58
hueving wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It takes hours of running to offset a couple of beers worth of calories. If you're eating unhealthy and drinking a lot, there is no amount of running to undo it.

This is not true. "A study done by researchers at Syracuse found that men burned about 105 kilocalories/mile on average running a mile in 9 minutes and 30 seconds, and about 52 calories when walking the same mile in 19 minutes." [1] [1] http://running.competitor.com/2015/03/training/many-calories...

[deleted]

Re: Running as a Thinking Person’s Sport

#144

Post by dspillett »

CJefferson wrote: post #138
dspillett wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like the back problems sometimes associated with rowing, a lot of knee issues from running are due mainly to bad form. If you over-stride, particularly down-hill (and going "too fast" down hill instead of managing your pace/stride is a recipe for over-striding) the knees will be too straight during impact and so experience excessive impact force (and therefor potential damage) that would otherwise be absorbed by musc…

While form is important, it doesn't fix fundamental joint problems unfortunately. I was checked fairly carefully by a couple of NHS physios, who both agreed it was joint problems, not bad form.

No, once you have a significant joint problem (from running or anything else) running is never going to help and will probably make things worse. Cycling possibly too, depending on the problem.

Swimming is probably the thing to go for in such circumstances. While some problems make that difficult too, it doesn't have the impact or strain (depending on stroke) of other options.

Re: Running as a Thinking Person’s Sport

#145

Post by rdmsr »

auxym wrote: post #108
rdmsr wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure what is meant by that commenter, but weight loss and strength gains are common goals which running isn't the most efficient at achieving. Obviously, it still impacts these and, obviously, those aren't goals for everyone. Running is great at improving cardiovascular output (honestly not sure how it compares to biking and swimming), but that isn't all of fitness.

According to this [1], running is much more efficient at improving cardiovascular endurance than biking, in terms of time spent training for a particular gain. Particularly trail running. [1] https://www.amazon.com/Training-New-Alpinism-Climber-Athlete... (ps. As someone who is sort of a weekend outdoors entusiast, without being any kind of a competitive climber or particularly interested in training, I thought it wa…

It's a solid book, although I don't recall the bit that you're citing. I didn't read it that thoroughly. Started it and realized that I'd rather work towards 5.13 than the summit of Everest/Denali/whatever.

Re: Running as a Thinking Person’s Sport

#146

Post by notacoward »

hueving wrote: post #142
notacoward wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, my post is not all over the place. You're just not very good at reading. Effect on joints was the OP's point 1. Effect on fitness was point 3. Must I address those points in separate replies, even though they were made in one? That's absurd. Also, they're not completely unrelated and I've even drawn the lines between them. Talk of running's negatives should be balanced by consideration of its positives. Even if r…

>You're just not very good at reading. Now this is what this site is about. Unless you are intentionally trolling, I recommend you remove personal attacks from your discourse if you want to engage in any kind of intelligent conversation.

So a one-line comment that's nothing but cherry-picking/diversion is OK, but calling you on it - and also continuing the actual discussion with facts and stuff - is a mortal sin? Look at all the responses in this thread. It's pretty clear that I did a pretty good job spurring an intelligent conversation, and you didn't, so I contend that your criteria/priorities are way out of whack.

Re: Running as a Thinking Person’s Sport

#147

Post by notacoward »

hueving wrote: post #141
notacoward wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why can't you just admit you were wrong? You said no amount without specifying how much eating/drinking you were talking about. That's a pretty absolute statement, refuted by the facts others have provided.

I said "drinking a lot", someone refuting with evidence of running of a single light beer hardly refutes anything. There is little to gain by behaving like a smug asshole in comments. What could you possibly expect as a response to your comment that would make for good conversation.

Maybe you should ask yourself that question more often. Saying things that are untrue without even an attempt to back them up, and then being abusive to anyone who calls you on it, is kind of "smug asshole" behavior itself and not conducive to good conversation.

Re: Running as a Thinking Person’s Sport

#148

Post by notacoward »

samirillian wrote: post #14
eutectic wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are plenty of compelling arguments against excessive running: 1) It is destructive to your joints and tendons. Injury rates are very high among runners. 2) It is stressful, resulting in chronically elevated cortisol levels. 3) It is time consuming and boring (of course this is subjective), and very inefficient at improving fitness.

Pretty sure there have been studies positively correlating running a certain amount with dying younger. I can't imagine sucking in city pollution can be that healthy either. Anecdotally, it helps my anxiety.

I'll try to clarify. According to the studies I've seen, mortality is decreased for all runners compared to non-runners. However, the greatest benefit was for people who ran a moderate amount. People who ran a lot regressed somewhat vs. the moderate runners, but still not to the level of the non-running population.

There are also some serious methodological questions about the studies involved. The best analysis I've seen is here:

http://www.runnersworld.com/sweat-science/will-running-too-m...

So no, there's no solid evidence that any amount of running is harmful. Maybe if someone did a study in a place where pollution was extra bad (e.g. Beijing) they would find such an effect, but I'm not aware of any such efforts.

Post reply on HN