Running may be the single most effective exercise to increase life expectancy, according to a new review and analysis of past research about exercise and premature death. The new study found that, compared to nonrunners, runners tended to live about three additional years, even if they run slowly or sporadically and smoke, drink or are overweight. No other form of exercise that researchers looked at showed comparable impacts on life span.
Every other post in the comments section states how "bad" and "terrible" running is on the knees. So much hate! 🙄
Running is "bad" and "terrible" on the knees? yeah, especially if you're not so much a runner as an eater who "runs" to stave off obesity. they also praised Ryan Hall's early competitive demise as a sign of "wisdom" and "courage" for the same pathetic reasons. there's a real wuss-pack mentality apparent in NYT reader comments on running. they totally swallowed the Semenya propaganda that shills like Padawer and Longman served up.
chilhowee wrote:
Running is "bad" and "terrible" on the knees? yeah, especially if you're not so much a runner as an eater who "runs" to stave off obesity. they also praised Ryan Hall's early competitive demise as a sign of "wisdom" and "courage" for the same pathetic reasons. there's a real wuss-pack mentality apparent in NYT reader comments on running. they totally swallowed the Semenya propaganda that shills like Padawer and Longman served up.
Swallowing all that nonsense is a lot harder on the knees than heel striking the occasional 'thon.
maybe I was a bit harsh, but not regarding the NYT's assault on fair sport for female athletes.
Good news: running adds 3 additional years to your life.
Bad news: over your lifetime, you will have spent those 3 years running.
The study is too general. If study were thorough, study would state WHY running is better than swimming &/or WHY running is better than cycling for overall health. Most people in the world can not swim 1650 yards without stopping. MDs, show me your study: 30 minutes swimming versus 30 minutes running.
Wait! The researchers are saying that exercise is good for your health? Who knew?
NY Times and WSJ are mostly pieces of shit
They also went ripshit a couple years ago about increases in mortality risk with too much running - which was false - because of the O'Keefe article. Guy's a fraud and should be in jail
Someone didn't read the article (yours was an easy smartass attempt, so I don't blame you for doing it). Net 2.8 years (although low 2.7's based on my calcs given their data).
McThree wrote:
Good news: running adds 3 additional years to your life.
Bad news: over your lifetime, you will have spent those 3 years running.
What then are the good newspapers if not the New York Times and the Washington Post? I agree that the WSJ is bad, at least since Murdoch bought it and ruined it.
How can you believe fake news from the failing New York Times. Running ruins your knees and ages you prematurely but the mainstream media keeps pushing it.
Well, running can easily ruin one's knees and cause one to age prematurely. There's no denying that.
yahrite wrote:
How can you believe fake news from the failing New York Times. Running ruins your knees and ages you prematurely but the mainstream media keeps pushing it.
"...We can try to understand
The New York Times' effect on man."
Barry G wrote:
"...We can try to understand
The New York Times' effect on man."
Whether your a brother or whether you're a mother
You're stayin' alive, stayin' alive
McThree wrote:
Good news: running adds 3 additional years to your life.
Bad news: over your lifetime, you will have spent those 3 years running.
I'd rather spend 3 years running than rotting in the ground being eaten by maggots.
my friend emailed me this article the other day with the subject line "you're going to live forever!" lol
I immediately knew that scientists probably meant like a year or two and probably meant for runners who do 9+min/mile jogs a few miles a week and probably vs people who sit on the couch 8 hours a day
training for racing doesn't increase life-expectancy, no extremes do, probably the opposite effect
I believe the article said that the longevity benefits max out at about four hours of running per week but that more running had no effect either way.
B*ll sh*t op... While that may make sense to someone who runs around in circles forever, people who don't do that don't think that way. You may as well say drinking booze is. 1 in 2000 run enough to really force their longevity forward. The rest are doing it for health reasons - sleep, sex, losing weight.
According to this:
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/765209
"Running up to 20 miles per week was associated with a significantly reduced risk of death, with the largest benefit observed in those who ran between 10 to 15 miles weekly (HR 0.73; 95% CI 0.60–0.89). For those who ran 20 to 25 miles and more than 25 miles per week, however, there was a nonsignificant 10% and 5% reduction in all-cause mortality. Similarly, the mortality benefit was observed in individuals who ran two to five days per week, but the benefit began turning in the other direction when subjects ran six or seven days per week. At six and seven days, the reduction in all-cause mortality was not statistically significant"
Obviously this study is by no means definitive, and correlation does not equal causation. But it's still interesting that running more correlated with fewer benefits.
Jakob Ingebrigtsen has a 1989 Ferrari 348 GTB and he's just put in paperwork to upgrade it
Is there a rule against attaching a helium balloon to yourself while running a road race?
Strava thinks the London Marathon times improved 12 minutes last year thanks to supershoes
How rare is it to run a sub 5 minute mile AND bench press 225?
Am I living in the twilight zone? The Boston Marathon weather was terrible!
Mark Coogan says that if you could only do 3 workouts as a 1500m runner you should do these
Move over Mark Coogan, Rojo and John Kellogg share their 3 favorite mile workouts