We jog to much, its killing us.

Doing things like running in excess is not exactly healthy.

I wouldn't have thought it'd be as little as 2.5 hours, though.

woz up wrote:

Doing things like running in excess is not exactly healthy.

I wouldn't have thought it'd be as little as 2.5 hours, though.

Doing things like sitting on your ass in excess is not exactly healthy either but that doesn't stop the majority of people from doing exactly that on a daily basis.

I think they should do a study on the risk associated with the length of time one sits on their ass all day.

like this: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-03/si-suy032612.php ?

Condomdrum wrote:

Doing things like sitting on your ass in excess is not exactly healthy either but that doesn't stop the majority of people from doing exactly that on a daily basis.

I think they should do a study on the risk associated with the length of time one sits on their ass all day.

What does that have to do with anything?

Try and stay relevant, yeah?

Well if you didn't intentionally omit that it was a response to the poster that said, running in excess wasn't exactly healthy, then it would make a lot more sense to a fukhead like yourself.

Please think before you attack.

You'll be a lot healthier if you take one off studies like this with a grain of salt. Other studies have found the opposite, with decreasing risk of death with more running.

So your telling me 110mpw isn't good for me?? Thanks for the heads up bro.

Its a no-brainer, that an excess of most things in life is unhealthy..food, drink, sun, work, gym, sex, running.

Running for health is very different than running for a sport in which you want to get faster. One is a healthy pass time, the other is probably not.

I have no doubt that people who train and slog thru 4-6 hr marathons are not doing something healthy. I also don't think training for a 2:30 marathon is a healthy pastime.

Like everything else in life, live it in the balance.

I have a tendency to NOT believe fox news articles, especially when they don't cite a source.

In similar studies I've read, findings have been that the returns on exercise diminish beyond 2.5 hours a week.

SomeWeirdSin wrote:

I have a tendency to NOT believe fox news articles, especially when they don't cite a source.

In similar studies I've read, findings have been that the returns on exercise diminish beyond 2.5 hours a week.

What do you mean you don't believe it just because it is on Fox? Most of the articles on Fox and other main stream media outlets are AP stories or stories reported by many other news organizations. This study was done by the Copenhagen City Heart Study as stated in the article. Furthermore, this news was reported by main streat media outlets like CBS and medical journals if that makes you feel better.

And its even effecting are spellings and punctuating!

You jog to Much? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Much,_Germany)

excess is by definition too much. The question is what is too much. Other studies say that the health benefits continue to increase up to and over 100 miles per week.

I'd rather run too much and live 70 years than jog 2.5 hours a week and live 90 years.

Thanks! That's very helpful

If this study below is the same one:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16575269

"Men with high physical activity survived 6.8 years longer [than those with low physical activity], and men with moderate physical activity 4.9 years longer than sedentary men. For women the figures were 6.4 and 5.5 years, respectively."

Then fox news GROSSLY misreported it. Those with high levels of physical activity live LONGER and are HEALTHIER than those with moderate levels of physical activity.

This isn't just a problem with Fox. Science news reporting is completely awful in every major news outlet, since the journalists have no background in science. What you read is usually just a rewritten AP story, which creates an article out of a few sentences in the abstract.

Two words, Fox News

psac runner 235 wrote:

The findings show that women who regularly jogged lived 5.6 years longer than women who didn't, and men who jogged lived 6.2 years longer than those who didn't. Jogging for one to 2.5 hours per week at a slow or average pace seemed to deliver the greatest benefit, said study researcher Peter Schnohr, chief cardiologist of the Copenhagen City Heart Study.

Further, the researchers found that people who jogged less than one hour, and those more than 2.5 hours a week were more likely to die over the course of the study than those who jogged for between one and 2.5 hours.

Read more:

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/05/04/jogging-regularly-can-add-years-to-your-life/?intcmp=obnetwork#ixzz1tyP5GvNN

That's not the study the article is referring to. In other news outlets, they state that the study is currently unpublished.

SomeWeirdSin wrote:

Thanks! That's very helpful

If this study below is the same one:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16575269

"Men with high physical activity survived 6.8 years longer [than those with low physical activity], and men with moderate physical activity 4.9 years longer than sedentary men. For women the figures were 6.4 and 5.5 years, respectively."

Then fox news GROSSLY misreported it. Those with high levels of physical activity live LONGER and are HEALTHIER than those with moderate levels of physical activity.

people that dont live (eat and drink) like americans live 20 more years and their quality of lives is 80% better.