How fast do you have to be for your weekly mileage to be "worth it"?

My 5K pb is too slow compared to my mileage. I guess I'll have to become an alcoholic now. Thanks OP.

Let's see, I've been running since 1967 and maybe there have been a couple dozen days when She's told me to go for a run so I'd be in a better mood. It must be addiction because no one ever gets moody unless they aren't able to get the thing they're addicted to and gosh no one ever alleviates a crappy mood by doing something they enjoy.

Of course life is all about balance. But people like different things as part f their balance and in different amounts.

Coevett wrote:

formerbosox9yo wrote:

Ok, so you spend a little too much time running. According to the chart you should be taking some of that time running and using it to focus on family, career, or society as a whole, not just your running.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/12/well/move/an-hour-of-running-may-add-seven-hours-to-your-life.html

So for every hour a week run, you will get it back x 7. In other words, anyone who runs less than, say, 5 hours a week, has a moral duty to run more, so they can live longer and use those extra hours of life to focus on family, career, or society as a whole.

BTW, how many hours a week do you spend on this site? Is your post an example of you 'giving back to society'?

+1

another another giver of plus one wrote:

Coevett wrote:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/12/well/move/an-hour-of-running-may-add-seven-hours-to-your-life.html

So for every hour a week run, you will get it back x 7. In other words, anyone who runs less than, say, 5 hours a week, has a moral duty to run more, so they can live longer and use those extra hours of life to focus on family, career, or society as a whole.

BTW, how many hours a week do you spend on this site? Is your post an example of you 'giving back to society'?

+1

Please analyze the data. It further reinforces my chart.

The data indicates that the life extending benefits stop at 3 years extra life, no matter the amount of running. That equates to 3x365*24 = 26,280 hours. Since 1 hour of running adds 7 hours to life, once you hit 26,280/7 = 3,754 hours of running you no longer get life extending benefits. Over a 30 year running career, this is 125 hours a year of running, or 2.4 hours a week. Assuming 8 min miles, you no longer receive life lengthening benefits over 18 miles a week. Less for slower runners. I'd be fine adjusting the chart to capture more runners in the 18 miles a week slot, but don't see how this data affects the other categories. Right now it seems to reinforce the lower mileage includes a lot slower runners and the times really drop fast between 10-30 miles a week, which the chart shows.

Additionally, as noted in prior posts, the value of time is far less at old age than at a younger age, so its not a one for one trade off. I think due to the 3 year life lengthening max, and the value of time in old age, the chart as is still stands up well. Time spent not running at a younger age may be more valuable (especially if you have kids, are able to ehlp a lot of people) than and extra year of life for a lot of people.

Ed Whitlock training consisted of jogging around the graveyard for a few hours per day. Ended up living to age 86. Average Canadian lives to 82.

This thread is 4 years old. Do you endorse the times still?