Printable View
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandsty...ing-scientists
Although I'm experiencing some cognitive dissonance between the 2nd paragraph and the 3rd one from the end. I think it means to say that walking could be the same (or better), if you spend a lot more time doing it.
I think you're right.
The comparison is based on burning the same amount of calories. But you have to walk longer to burn as many calories as you do running. So the study still shows that running has greater benefits if compared to walking for the same period of time.
According to this article (http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-l...-will-you-burn), running burns roughly twice the calories of walking during the exercise, rising to roughly three times the calories of walking if you include the extra burn of calories in the 30 minutes after exercise. It isn't clear which of those figures is closest to the 'energy expended' as taken in your study, but clearly you'd need to spend at least twice the time walking to see comparable benefits.
Another thing to consider is how fast you're running. In the study in the Runner's World article I quoted, they got people to run 10:00 minute miles on treadmills. If you're running faster than 10 minute miles or if you're running them up and down hills, then you'll be burning more calories per hour and the difference between running and walking for any given amount of time will be even more profound.
This is just the sort of rubbish, incidentally that makes people angry about how science is reported in the press. Especially ironic to find in the Guardian given that Ben Goldacre, who writes (wrote?) for them is one of the most vocal advocates against it.
The text of the article is basically sound, but then the headline ("Brisk walk healthier than running – scientists") and photo comment ("Runners might be better off walking for health, researchers say.") are wildly misleading.
I agree re: the headline being unhelpful, but I think the science may be more to do with stresses. If you are running just to keep fit and reduce your chances of heart desease etc a walk may well be better as the stresses etc would be less. Calorie burning may not entirely be the issue. The problem is that the majority of people tend to run, initially to get/keep fit, but then become, to varying degrees, competitive. Wether thats with other people or just themselves.
I'm not so sure.. I don't think long distance running is that good for you..Quote:
Originally Posted by TheManWhoWouldRunFells
I think lower mileage, more mixed activity, more careful diet etc..
Long distance running is oxidative stress..
I work in ageing research, all the researchers who study centenarians laugh when I ask how many were runners.. 'very very few'..
We don't run for longevity, Ok we're all fit, certainly fitter than the average joe bloggs.. but if we wanted to be holistically healthier I think there are better ways than pure running, high mileage.. of course there are worse things..
Yes suspect you are right about the age bit Iain -
but then I run to enjoy my life now, to be healthy now to be able to eat and drink what I want now..
as to the calories burnt I guess running on a cold day across the fells will burn even more (so I'll have the cream egg and a pint tonight!)
Spot on with that Iain, I reckon. I see enough evidence around me and I have enough knowledge of my own body to sense that long distance running is not healthy in the long-term. It places the body under extraordinary stress over a long period of time.Quote:
Originally Posted by IainR
I wish and hope someone will do research on this particular subject with no pre-conceived bias and look at a) the effect of endurance training on long-term health and b) the effect of pushing too hard on a consistent basis.
I think that, as with many other things in life, the key is moderation. Exercise is excellent for us, the body was made to move. What I don't think it was made for was to be put through the mill on a regular basis. That sounds like a potential recipe for wearing it out more quickly.
I'd also be interested to see the long term effects of running on the body. I agree with all of the above that common sense and personal experience tends to suggest that moderation is a good idea. But there are a huge variety of variables there and you can definitely be biased by a few particular stories.
I'm not sure of the relevance of your centenarian anecdote, for example, Iain. Given that a relatively small proportion of the population are runners, you would expect only a small proportion of centenarians to be runners if running had no significant effect on long-term health. What's more, since the proportion of regular runners in the population was lower pre-1970s a centenarian is even less likely to have been a runner than a 40-something, say.
Another example is the stories of 40- and 50-year-old runners with arthritis. These tend to make you think twice about running, especially since you have a sort of 'sense' that arthritis is just the sort of thing that the long term strain running places on joints might cause. But of course, non-runners get arthritis too! And so the fact that a few runners develop arthritis proves nothing in itself. (Incidentally, I've read studies suggesting running is good for joint health...)
In any case, none of this has anything to do with the research that was picked up by the Guardian, and that I've seen in a number of other newspapers today. If you read the article, it says the runners / walkers were followed for a period of six years only. The results are in no way significant to the question of whether running over the course of your entire life will be good for you or not.
Fair enough.. its not an anecdote.. its science.. they look at the backgrounds of centenarians..
But read the science.. go to google scholar.. its far from anecdotal that running has negative effects on the body..
http://www.jacn.org/content/23/4/358.full
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...ltsPerPage=200
make me type in my VPN password why don't you ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by IainR
This one wasn't sure the affects were -ve:
Well-trained, healthy triathletes experience no adverse health risks regarding oxidative stress and DNA damage by participating in an ultra-endurance event
They only got the first word of the article wrong..
But I'm with you on this one ~ I don't intend to be training, and especially racing, as hard as I have for very many years.
i walk every day at least twice,at least 1 mile
i also run most days,
does that make me twice as fit.
or as my non running and walking friends say,twice as eccentric
I have vague recollections of a study looking at those Scandinavians who had taken part in a long distance XC skiing event - similar in effort to a marathon or more - they lived longer and had better health than the general population, and the benefit was not particularly related to finishing times. It may be of course that if you ski long distances you have also made other health benefitting life choices.Quote:
Originally Posted by IainR
Iain, I would have agreed with you - until I read THIS.Quote:
Originally Posted by IainR
As for the centenarians, surely they are so few, there will be hardly any of them who fall into ANY group whatever. And running for leisure and fitness was not normal behaviour among the general population when current centenarians were young. It was normal even for those who did run as young men to give it up when they left school or university, It was even rarer for women to run and keep on running - and most centenarians will be women. Checking the current Parkrun age grade records, there are few women 70+ runners, far more 65+ women runners, and virtually no 80+ men or women runners.