Running: not as healthy as we all thought?

your dumb. running is healthy. you are probably fat, shut up! we all love running or we would share our stories and look for help here.

not so fast wrote:

Whatever Ken Cooper is, he's not an idiot. His original aerobics books were the beginning of the fitness movement in this country. I've heard it said he started the *running boom*. Having been there, I can tell you there was no running boom in the late 60's. People didn't really start getting out on the roads in any great numbers until the mid 70's. But he did get the ball rolling. He's also 76 and still running, which is more than most people can say, right?

His books are also chock full of misinformation

Instead of being a name caller, like so many here, why not write down what your problem with him is? What is some of the misinformation his books are chock full of?

marijuologist wrote:

not so fast wrote:

Whatever Ken Cooper is, he's not an idiot. His original aerobics books were the beginning of the fitness movement in this country. I've heard it said he started the *running boom*. Having been there, I can tell you there was no running boom in the late 60's. People didn't really start getting out on the roads in any great numbers until the mid 70's. But he did get the ball rolling. He's also 76 and still running, which is more than most people can say, right?

His books are also chock full of misinformation

1. marijualogist I hope you are making progress with your stated goal of consuming less weed

2. evidence of Cooper being a sensationlist please?

thank you, have a nice day.

We're waiting...

Yank wrote:

1. marijualogist I hope you are making progress with your stated goal of consuming less weed

2. evidence of Cooper being a sensationlist please?

thank you, have a nice day.

I don't have any of his books anymore but when I read them half a decade ago, I felt that he substantially exaggerated the health benefits of steady-state exercise ("Aerobics") and to a similar extent underestimated the health benefits of other types of activity (weight training, etc.). I don't think the fact that they came out 30-40 years ago is relevant. The books are full of poor quality information.

There is probably a grain of truth in what Art De Vany says. However, this is all blanked out by his polemical style, which is that of a cranky rant. If you want to say most people should not do endless junk miles, okay, I'll buy that. If you want to say high-mileage distance training throws off people's metabolism and makes them funny-looking and unhealthy, well that's possible but I want to see more examples. If you tell me that a lot of running makes people fat, because you see porkos on treadmills at the gym...here you've lost the plot entirely. You're not interested in making a serious case, you just want to tweak people's noses.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that several large studies in the last few years have refuted Dr. Cooper's claims regarding anti-oxidant supplements. They did not protect against heart disease and cancer and may have actually slightly increased the risk of some cancers. In the case of beta carotene consumption it is now felt by many that overconsumption of beta carotene in relation to alpha and gamma carotenes seems to promote tumor growth. Plant foods tend to be more properly balanced. He certainly brought aerobic exercise into the public eye. Cardiology is certainly an evolving science and Dr. Cooper may be a bit premature in presenting some ideas as fact

beerslug, I don't think De Vany says running makes people fat. Essentially, he says that dedicated endurance training has negative health consequences due to repetition and chronic stress on the body. Nevertheless, he readily admits runners are healthier than sedentary people, who often eat terribly and get no activity. De Vany advocates acute (i.e. intense) workouts over "chronic" or repetitive ones. Personally, I don't think I could ever voluntarily give up running, but I am considering toning down my mileage a bit and playing more soccer/football now that I am no longer racing.

Running is a pretty big physical stress on your body. Comparable in some senses to staying up too late, getting beat up, drinking too much, etc. Doing it to excess will put a stress on your body that natural repair cannot keep up with. This leads to eventual deterioration of health. This logic isn't too hard to follow, even if it is dubious.

The salient point, though, is that none of us give a shit.

which one is healthier: a guy who has a perfect and super healthy anti-inflammatory diet and who does basically no exercise at all or an average elite distance runner.

if I had to bet which one lives longer, my money would be on the couch potato.

I dont understand why there is any arguement with what hes written.

Can anyone seriously tell me that training for a marathon and then running one for 4 to 6 hrs is a good thing?

Can you tell me that running 100 miles week after week is healthy?

Of course they are bad for your body. Nothing done in extreme is good for you.

The average healthy person shouldnt be running all these miles. An aerobic run of 30 to 40 min is far healthier than training to break 40min in a 10k or 4hrs in a marathon.

All the rest of us are doing more miles for different reasons, and we occasionally pay the price.

It makes sense. Candidly, I used to think an increase in speed was also an improvement in health, fitness, and overall well-being. That sort of thinking is too linear.

Anyway, it's an interesting trade-off to think about for each of us.

QCK wrote:

It makes sense. Candidly, I used to think an increase in speed was also an improvement in health, fitness, and overall well-being. That sort of thinking is too linear.

Anyway, it's an interesting trade-off to think about for each of us.

I didn't train 2x a day 6 days a week plus a long run on Sunday to be healthy; I did it to be faster. Doing this I got substantially faster, but was always walking the line between performance and injury. I'm 40+ now and I'm perfectly happy running 30-40 minutes 5-6 a week. I'm arguably "healthier" now, but I can't crack 18:00 in a 5 k if my life depend on it. I also don't worry about injuries.

Exactly. Running 100+ mpw isn't about health. It's usually about competing or just running for the joy of running. I run a lot mostly because I enjoy the competition side, but also just because I like to run. If my goal was just to be healthy, the first change that I'd make to my training plan would be to cut my milage in half.

I feel best when I'm taking some down time between seasons and I'm just running 30 minutes or so a day. Right now I'm faster than I would be off of 30 minute runs, but I'm not healthier. I have less energy. I'm have nagging pains. I'm not complaining. It's definitely worth it. I'm not running my ass off to achieve perfect health and great longevity though.

FYI: Cooper's 'poor-quality' work was performed on thousands, reportedly, of USAF personnel in the 1960's.

As I recall it was ground-breaking.

well said - I think there are enough troubling recent events that show that running is no panacea, especially in the face of serious illness - so anyone who is doing it in the hope of a guarantee of health shouldn't kid themselves.

However, life is a giant crapshoot and I favor the odds on the running side, even if it is to excess. Also, everyone should have the opportunity to indulge in excess in their youth. If the byproduct is health and longevity, then well done! However, I've seen enough older runners that don't look much better than Earl Campbell does now to know that there will come a reckoning for most.

Finally regarding all the back and forth over Kenneth Cooper and those who peddle advice, people should realize that medicine is somewhere in the hinterlands between the social and natural sciences. I would compare it to chemistry in the days before Mendeleev. The human body is so complex and people are so varied - how could you possibly dispense advice like "take antioxidants if you run" and have it apply to everyone?

Medicine is a crapshoot of a different kind - we take calculated risks all the time. Vaccinations and other preventative medicine just involve trading one set of chances for another more favorable one. Someday, we or our descendants will read Cooper, Atkins, Pritikin with the amusement that we now have for 19th century medicine - female hysteria and health massages and all that.

aging is the real disease and there is no cure.

not a serious runner wrote:

if I had to bet which one lives longer, my money would be on the couch potato.

I use to believe this too, but I changed my mind. A sedentary lifestyle is as dangerous as anything.

My diet has always been great. I basically live on egg whites, organic produce, and olive oil. Back in 2005 I was totally inactive for months- no running, no cross trianing, nothing but sitting on my ass all day, and my health went to shit. Then when I started training again it was like a massive shock to my body