31–40 of 151 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
there's a lot of recent (& to many:) convincing arguments that saturated fats have been demonized w/o cause, for social dynamics reasons. arguably "good calories, bad calories" was the book that started this modern reexamining of nutritional orthodoxy, but see also many other recent articles and studies.
.
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.
interesting comment. i wonder though -- how much of this is cause vs effect (e.g., people with bodies naturally suited to shorter vs longer distances), and how much of "do i want to look like that" is your particular, perhaps arbitrary cultural associations of "this is good"?
it's good - as long as your leg joints do not tell you the opposite nd it's too bad when they do :(
I switched from "heel strike" to "ball of foot strike" when running. (Just tilt the front of your foot down.) It took a couple weeks to adjust. After a couple months, my chronic knee pain faded away, to be replaced by chronic pain in the knuckles of my big toes. Doing the ball strike puts an immediately noticeably less of an impact load on your knees/hips.
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.
So, the question of "is an alternative form of exercise, that has fewer damaging side effects, better?" is an important one to ask, and better would need to have a definition around it. However, answering that question wasn't the goal of this article.
it's good - as long as your leg joints do not tell you the opposite nd it's too bad when they do :(
There was a study a few years ago (posted below) that actually found running is fairly good for your joints as the stress encourages your body to build and repair cartilage. If you are personally having joint issues and you want to continue to run I encourage you not to give up. Try different shoes, have your gait analyzed, even see a physical therapist who specializes in running. I obviously don't know if you are in…
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.
Biking is my personal go-to exercise but it's not without its risks from traffic, pollution, or in the winter, black ice. Still, it's otherwise nonproductive commute time being made very useful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The vast majority of the top runners in the Olympic and other world-class marathons are well under 6 feet tall , with most closer to 5 feet tall. Sprinters, on the other hand, are well over 6 feet. Are you suggesting distance running makes people shorter?
> [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…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The vast majority of the top runners in the Olympic and other world-class marathons are well under 6 feet tall , with most closer to 5 feet tall. Sprinters, on the other hand, are well over 6 feet. Are you suggesting distance running makes people shorter?