NY Times: 5-6 miles per week, not day, is the 'perfect' amount of running

sign me up wrote:

Q: How many weekly miles should I run to improve my health?

A: Surprisingly few, it seems. According to a new review of studies related to running and health, jogging for as few as five or six miles per week could substantially improve someone’s health....

Over all, Dr. Lavie says, the best advice based on the latest science is that for most of us, “running for 20 to 30 minutes, or about a mile-and-a-half to three miles, twice per week would appear to be perfect.”

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/11/27/ask-well-how-many-miles-a-week-should-i-run/?module=BlogPost-Title&version=Blog%20Main&contentCollection=Ask%20Well&action=Click&pgtype=Blogs&region=Body

Sounds like very sensible advice to people who want to improve their health.

Health and running fitness are not synonymous.

This whole "running dosage" line of research is such a bunch of garbage. Do the people who put out these studies really want people running a few miles a day to cut back to just a mile a day? Has anyone ever come up with a sample size that was large enough to make up for the fact that the number of runners get smaller and smaller the more miles they log? All these "studies" have shown is that it is substantially better to have some amount of physical activity rather than no physical activity. Beyond that, they are worthless.

The science behind that statement is actually state of the art.

The only thing I'd add is there's a huge difference for a trained runner v. sedentary individual.

For most Americans, five miles actual running would represent either a metabolic revelation or cataclysm. Go to a shopping mall and imagine each and every one of those people running 3 miles in one go. Devastating.

Full text of study is available here:

http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196%2815%2900621-7/fulltext

There's also a link to an 8 minute video of the lead author discussing their results.

I believe these are the lead author's race results, which are reasonably competent by middle-aged hobby jogger standards and would suggest that he's probably running more than a handful of miles per week:

http://www.athlinks.com/Result/Search#

!athlete/chip%20lavie

The key word is to improve health.....

Even in the Army you will not run more than 10 miles a week. Even that much is unnecessary but we still have an antiquated pt test.

ACSM Physical Activity Guidelines are 20-60 minutes 5 days per week and this includes resistance training and moderate activities. Running is a vigorous activity which is usually prescribed at 20 minutes per session. So....20 minutes of running 2-3 days per week plus 20-45 minutes of resistance training 2-3 days per week is a very healthy way to exercise.

Alan

No. You should run 10 hrs/week for the maximum health benefits

http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/early/2015/09/18/CIRCULATIONAHA.115.015853.abstract

Honestly, the people that care about this kind of stuff are the people that run 5-6 miles per week.

If 100 mpw takes 10 years off my life, so be it. There could be all the evidence in the world, and I would still run like my life depended on it. Have they studied how long an 100 mpw runner will live compared to a 100 mpw runner who gets injured, can't run anymore, and develops depression?

Sometimes the things that hurt us the most give us life.

Citizen Runner wrote:

Full text of study is available here:

http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196%2815%2900621-7/fulltext

There's also a link to an 8 minute video of the lead author discussing their results.

I believe these are the lead author's race results, which are reasonably competent by middle-aged hobby jogger standards and would suggest that he's probably running more than a handful of miles per week:

http://www.athlinks.com/Result/Search#

!athlete/chip%20lavie

Looking at the entire study, I think the point they are making is that people should not think that the benefits of running are only available to the fittest athletes. The health improvements from a very moderate amount of running are very significant. The study really does not make a hard conclusion on dosing. The NYT post is pretty bad.

I think the authors of the study are just trying to give doctors the ability to tell their patients that if they just do a little, they will get a lot in return and should not feel like they will not get any benefit if they do not run 40 mpw. I am sure doctors see lots of patients who are showing health issues from being sedentary and just want them to do something. This study will give them some ammunition to use with their patients to motivate them to get off the couch.

The study does not conclude that the health effects of high mileage/marathons, etc. are significant enough to merit a warning to athletes or even a recommendation for cutting back.

SonOfRitz wrote:

Honestly, the people that care about this kind of stuff are the people that run 5-6 miles per week.

If 100 mpw takes 10 years off my life, so be it. There could be all the evidence in the world, and I would still run like my life depended on it. Have they studied how long an 100 mpw runner will live compared to a 100 mpw runner who gets injured, can't run anymore, and develops depression?

Sometimes the things that hurt us the most give us life.

Yeah, but you could say that about cigarettes. Or 7 glasses of wine a night rather than one. Or pretty much anything that's bad for you. Running is not like that. It's good for you and makes you live longer. Like it for its benefits, don't get all fanatic about it whenever it's challenged by pretending you like the perceived fact that it hastens your demise.

The problem with 100mpw is that:

- it will make you eat a boatload of simple refined carbs

- it will raise your cortisol (stress hormone levels)

- it makes you ugly (google "runners face")

- it makes you SKINNY FAT (thin arms and legs but significant belly fat (the dangerous one)

- women will not respect you because lack of muscle

Same argument guy wrote:

Yeah, but you could say that about cigarettes. Or 7 glasses of wine a night rather than one. Or pretty much anything that's bad for you. Running is not like that. It's good for you and makes you live longer. Like it for its benefits, don't get all fanatic about it whenever it's challenged by pretending you like the perceived fact that it hastens your demise.

I get you. I wasn't trying to come off as a hardo. I didn't say I *like* that it hastens my demise, just that I *accept* the fact that it *might*. I'm talking about running here, no cigarettes or wine. I don't like running for its benefits, I like running because I like running. I prefer to be to the point in what I say, and sometimes that comes across wrong. Sorry.

That's about what I run. Sometimes not that much.

Here's my typical week. Walk/jog 20-30 minutes once or twice a week to warm up for 6-8 X 150 at 4:30 pace uphill. Walk/trot 10-20 minutes to cool down. I also walk 30-45 minutes on other days. Lift some weights 1-2 times a week, and do some yoga. Also go on a long hill a couple times a month: 2-3 hours.

That's about all you need to be healthy. I'm in the NYTimes camp on this. Clearly you need to train a lot to be an elite, but if you just want the best health, then less is better (and more is better than nothing).

100 mpw will also lower your testosterone and thyroid-- possibly permanently.

Kill your libido.

Fun fact: Dr. Lavie and Dr. James O'Keefe (who puts out the too much running will kill you articles over and over) are good buds. They've coauthored a lot of studies.

These two dudes have a vendetta.

The conclusion is worth noting. Note the risks of running marathons are relatively small and overall benefits are positive.

CONCLUSION

Substantial data indicate the marked benefits of

vigorous aerobic PA and CRF on subsequent

health. Substantial evidence indicates that

running, a common form of vigorous aerobic

PA, has numerous health benefits, with some

evidence indicating that benefits apparently

maximizing at quite low doses of running.

Although there may be some negative health consequences

of EET, such as prolonged running

(eg, marathons and triathlons), which are relatively

small, the overall benefits of running far

outweigh the risk for most individuals and are

associated with considerable protection against

chronic diseases and CVD and all-cause

mortality

I've gone extended periods running once or twice/week, doing lots of other sports, and other extended periods (like now) running 40-60+. Both are cool, but I do the extended training for the godlike feeling of freedom and mobility I can't get any other way, plus the mental benefits which help ground me. But I think for most, 7-15 would be optimal for health. Anything more is for other benefits.

sign me up wrote:

Over all, Dr. Lavie says, the best advice based on the latest science is that for most of us, “running for 20 to 30 minutes, or about a mile-and-a-half to three miles, twice per week would appear to be perfect.”

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/11/27/ask-well-how-many-miles-a-week-should-i-run/?module=BlogPost-Title&version=Blog%20Main&contentCollection=Ask%20Well&action=Click&pgtype=Blogs&region=Body

5-6 miles a week? Wow, I need to increase my mileage substantially to reach that level! I don't want to get injured, so I will do it gradually, adding 10-20 seconds per week each month. It will be tough, but I will give it my all. I am on my way to being an elite, world class runner (or world class jackass...).