Jog slowly and not more than 2.5hrs a week or it will KILL YOU

Sorry I misread your post and in my mind substituted time for ability.
I think that it's worth watching anyway when you can.
As a personal viewpoint I love running myself and the reason that keeps getting me going out is the feeling that it gives you afterwards (more so than the fitness side and other benefits which is of course great). I do wonder though if this recent trend towards ultra-marathons and the training that goes with that (or maybe even high weekly mileage runners going for low normal marathon distance times) is healthy for one's body. The possible dangers may not be apparent due to a cumulative effect, so it's not something that can be easily proved or disproved.

annapr

There are tons of evidence of the benefits of any activity, vs. inactivity. With every activity, there will be extremes and there probably is a point beyond where it's beneficial, but I agree with all the critics here of this study. It's too easy for the lazy press to take a headline from a study like this, which then becomes accepted as fact.

For another view on the benefits of aerobic exercise (posted this earlier today on the DCM graduates thread):

David Linden, professor of neuroscience at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine (therefore a credible dude), was being interviewed about his book, "Touch" and was asked how he looks after his own brain:
"What I do to strengthen and protect my brain is physical exercise. The single best thing you can do for your cognitive function, particularly when you are in middle age (ahem!), is is to get out of your chair and move your body around. It is a much bigger effect than any of these brain training games or puzzles or things that people want to sell you… the benefits are enormous… reduces anxiety, prevents depression, it improves cognitive function... if there’s a single thing to do for your brain health, do 30 mins of aerobic exercise a day"

He wasn't saying only 30 mins, he was saying at least 30 mins...

ankers99

So if Im less active and I will live longer. Might live till 70 watching episodes of Dr Phil or die at 65 running the roads. I will have option No. 2 and die happy in shorts. In fact my new goal is to die at 60 by putting a better effort in

annapr

annapr wrote: »

There are tons of evidence of the benefits of any activity, vs. inactivity. With every activity, there will be extremes and there probably is a point beyond where it's beneficial, but I agree with all the critics here of this study. It's too easy for the lazy press to take a headline from a study like this, which then becomes accepted as fact.

For another view on the benefits of aerobic exercise (posted this earlier today on the DCM graduates thread):

David Linden, professor of neuroscience at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine (therefore a credible dude), was being interviewed about his book, "Touch" and was asked how he looks after his own brain:
"What I do to strengthen and protect my brain is physical exercise. The single best thing you can do for your cognitive function, particularly when you are in middle age (ahem!), is is to get out of your chair and move your body around. It is a much bigger effect than any of these brain training games or puzzles or things that people want to sell you… the benefits are enormous… reduces anxiety, prevents depression, it improves cognitive function... if there’s a single thing to do for your brain health, do 30 mins of aerobic exercise a day"

He wasn't saying only 30 mins, he was saying at least 30 mins...

nobody is disputing that exercise is good for you and that you most definitely should do it. there is a big difference between 30 minutes walking around and 30 minutes caning it at 6 minute mile pace and even then it's more about going over the hour mark or more at high intensity if you listen to the guy in that talk.

Krusty_Clown

glasso wrote: »

nobody is disputing that exercise is good for you and that you most definitely should do it. there is a big difference between 30 minutes walking around and 30 minutes caning it at 6 minute mile pace and even then it's more about going over the hour mark or more at high intensity if you listen to the guy in that talk.

What specifically are you trying to say? Are you suggesting that we should all back off on the pace, and keep it to 2.5 hours a week? Or are you just raising awareness of something that has already been discussed at length here before?

walshb

I tend to agree with the general point (for the general person) that intense and intentional pushing yourself day in day out on the roads is probably as harmful as it is beneficial. No real need for it. Moderate/comfortable pace and distance where the HR doesn't get too high, the recovery time is decent, and the muscles recover quickly is all the general population need.

Nothing worse seeing someone in agony and pushing and pushing at 6-7 minute mile pace. I feel like grabbing them and saying: "Look, you aren't able for it. Tone it down and relax a bit. You will benefit more. Drop the pace, enjoy the bloody run and you will likley benefit more."

I was on a treadmill yesterday and a woman beside was moaning with the intensity. She was traveling at about 9 minutes mile pace. Normal enough woman. She just kept going and going, forcing herself beyond anything comfortable. Ridiculous!

DubOnHoliday

walshb wrote: »

I was on a treadmill yesterday and a woman beside was moaning with the intensity. She was traveling at about 9 minutes mile pace. Normal enough woman. She just kept going and going, forcing herself beyond anything comfortable. Ridiculous!

Each to their own opinion but I would be applauding people pushing themselves out of their comfort zone.

Ososlo

walshb wrote: »

I tend to agree with the general point (for the general person) that intense and intentional pushing yourself day in day out on the roads is probably as harmful as it is beneficial. No real need for it. Moderate/comfortable pace and distance where the HR doesn't get too high, the recovery time is decent, and the muscles recover quickly is all the general population need.

Nothing worse seeing someone in agony and pushing and pushing at 6-7 minute mile pace. I feel like grabbing them and saying: "Look, you aren't able for it. Tone it down and relax a bit. You will benefit more. Drop the pace, enjoy the bloody run and you will likley benefit more."

I was on a treadmill yesterday and a woman beside was moaning with the intensity. She was traveling at about 9 minutes mile pace. Normal enough woman. She just kept going and going, forcing herself beyond anything comfortable. Ridiculous!

But if no one ever pushed their limits physically then we'd have no amazing athletes in any field! Everyone would just be casually doing their thing with no competition or challenge. What would be the point? Even the elites have to feel the pain. More so!
Nobody would have climbed Everest or discovered far off lands if we all stayed feeling comfortable all the time. Sounds kinda boring!!! Not a world I'd wanna live in. That 9 min mile woman could be the champion of tomorrow. ..

walshb

Ososlo wrote: »

But if no one ever pushed their limits physically then we'd have no amazing athletes in any field! Everyone would just be casually doing their thing with no competition or challenge. What would be the point? Even the elites have to feel the pain. More so!
Nobody would have climbed Everest or discovered far off lands if we all stayed feeling comfortable all the time. Sounds kinda boring!!! Not a world I'd wanna live in. That 9 min mile woman could be the champion of tomorrow. ..

I am not talking about fit and elite and talented runners. I am talking about the general population. Killing themselves running 6 and 7 and 8 and 9 and 10 min mile pace day in day out for what type of gain? That is what the article seems to be getting at.

menoscemo

walshb wrote: »

I am not talking about fit and elite and talented runners. I am talking about the general population. Killing themselves running 6 and 7 and 8 and 9 and 10 min mile pace day in day out for what type of gain? That is what the article seems to be getting at.

It's not good training to be running flat out day in and day out no matter how talented or fast you are.
I have never heard anyone around here recommending it around here....

Ososlo

walshb wrote: »

I am not talking about fit and elite and talented runners. I am talking about the general population. Killing themselves running 6 and 7 and 8 and 9 and 10 min mile pace day in day out for what type of gain? That is what the article seems to be getting at.

Read any of the logs around here and you'll see the types of gains which are manifold. And as meno said, no one is saying one should kill oneself day in day out. Terrible training!

annapr

walshb wrote: »

I am not talking about fit and elite and talented runners. I am talking about the general population. Killing themselves running 6 and 7 and 8 and 9 and 10 min mile pace day in day out for what type of gain? That is what the article seems to be getting at.

The general population are not running 6, 7 or 8 minute miles.

walshb

annapr wrote: »

The general population are not running 6, 7 or 8 minute miles.

Well, if they are not they should give it up. If you can't manage a 9 minute mile then do some other activity...

BTW, what pace do you think the general joe soap runner is running or training or jogging at? I would have thought 7-9 minutes mile pace fairly accurate.

walshb

DubOnHoliday wrote: »

Each to their own opinion but I would be applauding people pushing themselves out of their comfort zone.

No issue with out of one's comfort zone. It's quite a subjective term. For many covering say a mile in under 10 minutes would be out of their comfort zone. My point was over-doing the running. Going a step too far from little overall gain, and possibly no gain at all. Even a negative impact.

RoyMcC

walshb wrote: »

Well, if they are not they should give it up. If you can't manage a 9 minute mile then do some other activity...

BTW, what pace do you think the general joe soap runner is running or training or jogging at? I would have though 7-9 minutes mile pace fairly accurate.

Enjoying this thread but my jaw dropped open at this. Many hundreds of people are doing Fit4Life programmes and the like. I have 40+ people doing Couch to 5k at present. I assure you few are 9-minute miling but are slowly learning to enjoy being active and incorporating jogging into a healthier lifestyle.

What activity do you suggest these beginner runners do? I might learn something.

walshb

RoyMcC wrote: »

Enjoying this thread but my jaw dropped open at this. Many hundreds of people are doing Fit4Life programmes and the like. I have 40+ people doing Couch to 5k at present. I assure you few are 9-minute miling but are slowly learning to enjoy being active and incorporating jogging into a healthier lifestyle.

What activity do you suggest these beginner runners do? I might learn something.

I suppose 9 minutes for an OAP ain't too bad. It's all down to the individual. For the average healthy and reasonably in shape man then 9 minutes is poor. Is it running/jogging, or just pounding the pavement in slow motion? .

Beginner runners who are reasonably healthy and fit should break 9 minutes in no time.

RoyMcC

walshb wrote: »

I suppose 9 minutes for an OAP ain't too bad. It's all down to the individual. For the average healthy and reasonably in shape man then 9 minutes is poor. Is it running/jogging, or just pounding the pavement in slow motion? .

Beginner runners who are reasonably healthy and fit should break 9 minutes in no time.

Who's judging what pace is bad or good when it comes to recreational running? It doesn't matter a hoot, nor does it matter in the context of this thread - which is pushing beyond one's comfort zone.

Again, what should I advise these slower adult beginners to do instead to increase their activity levels if they're perceived as too slow for it?

walshb

RoyMcC wrote: »

Who's judging what pace is bad or good when it comes to recreational running? It doesn't matter a hoot, nor does it matter in the context of this thread - which is pushing beyond one's comfort zone.

Again, what should I advise these slower adult beginners to do instead to increase their activity levels if they're perceived as too slow for it?

You are talking about couch to 5 k. I would bet that many in this could barley get up the stairs without a sweat. I wouldn't be pushing running or jogging to this group. Not from the get go anyway. Walking probably best for them for a while.

Recreational running involves folks from all walks of life. I am focusing on the reasonably healthy and in shape ones. 9 minutes for this grouping should be a walk in the park.

Pace and form and body mechanics does matter a hoot when it comes to recreational running or jogging, no matter who the person.

RoyMcC

walshb wrote: »

You are talking about couch to 5 k. I would bet that many in this could barley get up the stairs without a sweat. I wouldn't be pushing running or jogging to this group. Not from the get go anyway. Walking probably best for them for a while.

Recreational running involves folks from all walks of life. I am focusing on the reasonably healthy and in shape ones. 9 minutes for this grouping should be a walk in the park.

Pace and form and body mechanics does matter a hoot when it comes to recreational running or jogging, no matter who the person.

Couch to 5k progresses from walking! Week 1 isn't trying to break nine minutes. Are you telling me that walk/jog - then progressing to running - is the preserve of the young, fit and healthy? I've been following this forum for years and no one has yet suggested that until now.

Running form matters at any level - pace is irrelevant until such time as one wishes to press on.

DubOnHoliday

walshb wrote: »

No issue with out of one's comfort zone. It's quite a subjective term. For many covering say a mile in under 10 minutes would be out of their comfort zone. My point was over-doing the running. Going a step too far from little overall gain, and possibly no gain at all. Even a negative impact.

But you saw this person for a few minutes and are in a position to say her workout could have a negative effect, you would need to know far more about the person and what other training they do during the week. It's like seeing somebody at the end of a 20 mile run and making an opinion on their form.

walshb

RoyMcC wrote: »

Couch to 5k progresses from walking! Week 1 isn't trying to break nine minutes. Are you telling me that walk/jog - then progressing to running - is the preserve of the young, fit and healthy? I've been following this forum for years and no one has yet suggested that until now.

Running form matters at any level - pace is irrelevant until such time as one wishes to press on.

I wasn't meaning to say that anyone should be able to run 9 minutes first time out.

"Beginner runners who are reasonably healthy and fit should break 9 minutes in no time." By no time I mean quite soon.

As to the bolded text. For the young/fit and healthy grouping then going from walking to running/jogging should happen very quickly, and yes, 9 minutes would be nothing to that grouping.

walshb

DubOnHoliday wrote: »

But you saw this person for a few minutes and are in a position to say her workout could have a negative effect, you would need to know far more about the person and what other training they do during the week. It's like seeing somebody at the end of a 20 mile run and making an opinion on their form.

I just happen to think that the article isn't all that far off the general mark.

Ososlo

walshb wrote: »

I wasn't meaning to say that anyone should be able to run 9 minutes first time out.

"Beginner runners who are reasonably healthy and fit should break 9 minutes in no time." By no time I mean quite soon.

As to the bolded text. For the young/fit and healthy grouping then going from walking to running/jogging should happen very quickly, and yes, 9 minutes would be nothing to that grouping.

When I started running/jogging/whatever, I was running at 12 min miles on C25k It took me 6 months to be able to run at 9 min pace. This is a lot longer than 'quite soon'. So by your reckoning should I not have bothered trying when it didn't happen 'quite soon'? Should I have given up? At what point should I have made the decision that running wasn't for me?
I really hope there aren't new runners reading this who are being influenced by what you say.

walshb

Ososlo wrote: »

When I started running/jogging/whatever, I was running at 12 min miles on C25k It took me 6 months to be able to run at 9 min pace. This is a lot longer than 'quite soon'. So by your reckoning should I not have bothered trying when it didn't happen 'quite soon'? Should I have given up? At what point should I have made the decision that running wasn't for me?
I really hope there aren't new runners reading this who are being influenced by what you say.

Starting out were you reasonably healthy and fit? Because if yes, then 12 mins would need explaining to me. Being female would mean you would be covering the distance in more time than the equivalent male. I was more thinking of the male population.

This stands for me: For the young/fit and healthy grouping then going from walking to running/jogging should happen very quickly, and yes, 9 minutes would be nothing to that grouping.

Ososlo

walshb wrote: »

Starting out were you reasonably healthy and fit? Because if yes, then 12 mins would need explaining to me. Being female would mean you would be covering the distance in more time than the equivalent male.

Felt healthy and fit but had been smoking way too much for years before starting running, and drinking too much too often also. But plenty of energy and walked quite a bit and not overweight and never sick.
Just slow.

DubOnHoliday

walshb wrote: »

This stands for me: For the young/fit and healthy grouping then going from walking to running/jogging should happen very quickly, and yes, 9 minutes would be nothing to that grouping.

You have now narrowed your post to saying fit people should do stuff faster, which is pretty straight forward. Your earlier posts were pretty ambiguous and hopefully don't put off people from trying to run from whatever base.

Hannibal Smith

If I listened to every person who told me running was bad for me I'd be like jabba the hutt right now. The only person I delight in seeing is my gp because he makes me feel like the 'A' student who finally got off her ass and sorted her bp out without medication.

barryoneill50

walshb wrote: »

Well, if they are not they should give it up. If you can't manage a 9 minute mile then do some other activity...



With respect WB, this is probably the most ridiculous thing I think I've read on this forum. I would imagine a high proportion of people reading this thread when they started out (me included) couldn't manage a 9 min mile. Should they have not bothered starting? Should anyone reading this thread now who can only manage a ten min mile just give up? I think not.....

Ososlo

barryoneill50 wrote: »

walshb wrote: »

Well, if they are not they should give it up. If you can't manage a 9 minute mile then do some other activity...



With respect WB, this is probably the most ridiculous thing I think I've read on this forum. I would imagine a high proportion of people reading this thread when they started out (me included) couldn't manage a 9 min mile. Should they have not bothered starting? Should anyone reading this thread now who can only manage a ten min mile just give up? I think not.....

That's the thing:( This stuff can be damaging to read. When you're a new runner you're battling with confidence issues on every run and often think to yourself that you shouldn't bother because you're so slow. Reading stuff like wb has posted can put a bit dent in the old confidence. People progress at different rates and just because someone can't run a 9 min mile today, or tomorrow or next month, doesn't mean they won't run a sub 6 min/mile some day.

Hannibal Smith

walshb wrote: »

You are talking about couch to 5 k. I would bet that many in this could barley get up the stairs without a sweat. I wouldn't be pushing running or jogging to this group. Not from the get go anyway. Walking probably best for them for a while.

Recreational running involves folks from all walks of life. I am focusing on the reasonably healthy and in shape ones. 9 minutes for this grouping should be a walk in the park.

Pace and form and body mechanics does matter a hoot when it comes to recreational running or jogging, no matter who the person.

Are you on the wind up?

op here, the thread title was a bit sensationalist yes, but sort of copied that from the articles floating around but I guess the main idea is to have an open mind on exercise, more specifically running. There is, well I think anyway, a conception that any amount of running is beneficial, no matter how excessive, and without any questioning if it is good or bad, and if you look on the running logs of many running forums a push towards big mileage or high intensity training, to some extent with people egging each other on, and that it's better to go harder to achieve that better time, with also a trend towards ultra distance running recently (it is a fairly recent phenomenon).

Netwerk Errer

glasso wrote: »

op here, the thread title was a bit sensationalist yes, but sort of copied that from the articles floating around but I guess the main idea is to have an open mind on exercise, more specifically running. There is, well I think anyway, a conception that any amount of running is beneficial, no matter how excessive, and without any questioning if it is good or bad, and if you look on the running logs of many running forums a push towards big mileage or high intensity training, to some extent with people egging each other on, and that it's better to go harder to achieve that better time, with also a trend towards ultra distance running recently (it is a fairly recent phenomenon).

Lucia, A.; Hoffman, M. D.; Krishnan, E., Health and Exercise-Related Medical Issues among 1,212 Ultramarathon Runners: Baseline Findings from the Ultrarunners Longitudinal TRAcking (ULTRA) Study. PLoS ONE 2014, 9 (1), e83867:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3885517/

Summary
How high mileage impacts a runners’ health

The Ultrarunners Longitudinal Tracking Study, or ULTRA for short, was designed in part to help answer the question: “Is running high mileage bad for you?”

To do this, the ULTRA study will follow 1,212 ultramarathoners for a very long time, probably until the end of their lives, to see how their exercise habits affect their health.

The study was undertaken only three years ago, so the biggest question marks—the effects of high-volume running on cardiovascular health and lifespan—remain unanswered. But, there is still a lot to be learned from the preliminary survey of the health history of the ultra runners in the study.

The average participant in the study was 36 years old, confirming that most ultramarathoners (and especially the faster ones) tend to be older than your typical 5k or 10k hotshot.

Ultramarathoners are also a pretty experienced bunch, as the majority of the subjects in the study had been running for at least seven years before they competed in their first ultramarathon.

Overall, ultra runners as a whole are a pretty healthy bunch.

The study’s participants only missed 2.2 days of work or school in the last year because of injury or illness, compared to 3.7 days among the general population.
And the ultramarathoners were confined to bed only one day out of the past year because of an injury or sickness versus 4.7 days among the general population.

The ultra-runners had a low, although not nonexistent, incidence of high blood pressure and irregular heartbeats, with about 7.5 percent of the runners reporting one of those problems.

Less than 1 percent had been diagnosed with heart disease or had a past stroke, and few had experienced cancer, with basal cell skin carcinoma being the most common malignancy, occurring in 1.6 percent of the runners.

Those percentages are generally lower than among age-matched American adults, especially considering that a majority of the ultra-runners were aged 40 or older.

Even when you control for the fact that ultramarathoners tend to be better-educated and more likely to hold office jobs, these trends still hold.

Even though 77% of the runners in this study suffered a running injury during the past year, they visited the doctor less often than non-runners. And among the doctor’s visits that the runners did incur, nearly two-thirds were only because of a running-related injury.

This is not to imply that the ultramarathoners in this study were perfectly healthy.

How healthy are ultramarathoners?

As you’d expect with any decently large cross-section of the population, a handful of the subjects in the ULTRA study were diabetic, asthmatic, HIV positive, cancer patients, living with cardiovascular disease, and so on.
A total of 28% of the runners took medication for some type of medical condition.

The incidence of virtually all medical conditions was lower in the ultramarathoners than in the population as a whole.

The only two exceptions to this were asthma and allergies or hay fever. Around 13% of the ultramarathoners had exercise-induced asthma, and 25% had allergies or hay fever.

Among the general population, these numbers are 8% and 7%, respectively.

Both asthma and allergies are known to be more prevalent in endurance athletes, probably because of their increased exposure to allergens and pollutants in the air. It shouldn’t be too surprising that ultramarathoners, who inhale large volumes of whatever is in the air where they run and compete, have a higher rate of these two conditions.

Conclusion

The running habits of the subjects in the ULTRA study appear to confer some remarkable health benefits, at least in the short term.

The group as a whole averaged 2,080 miles in the past calendar year—40 miles per week—which is pretty impressive for a group of over 1,200 runners.

These ultrarunners missed fewer days of work, needed less medical care, and had a lower incidence of pretty much every serious medical condition compared to the general population. Notably, however, allergies, hay fever, and asthma are bigger concerns for the ultramarathoning community.

We’ll have to wait a while to see whether this trend of good health continues for the runners in the ULTRA study.

Much more comprehensive study but in the early years. Tit for tat stuff anyway, when I die, I die. A bit morbid but it's more of a quality of life issue for me.

If we want to live our lives in fear of everything we do, we might as well seal ourselves up in a quarantine tent and never leave and that still gives no guarantees.


Have a read of this:

http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/01/02/two-dark-side-statistics-papers/

Chivito550

Walshb, dig up. UP.

walshb

Hannibal Smith wrote: »

Are you on the wind up?

Wind up because of what? 9 minutes mile being a given for a young and fit and reasonably healthy human?

walshb

DubOnHoliday wrote: »

You have now narrowed your post to saying fit people should do stuff faster, which is pretty straight forward. Your earlier posts were pretty ambiguous and hopefully don't put off people from trying to run from whatever base.

Sorry for the ambiguity. I realize that my posts presented this. I am not trying to put anyone off taking up running or jogging. I have been doing it for 30 years. I was just trying to debate and discuss the points in the article, and trying to convey parts that I agreed with.

The very first sentence: Running a few times a week at a moderate pace is the best way to improve health, say scientists, as they warn against overdoing it.

This seems quite right to me. Anyone who is young and reasonably fit and who is struggling hard to hit 9 minutes for a mile needs to think.

I said in my first post that 2-3 times per week for 2-3 miles at 7-9 minute mile pace seems right. At a pace that is somewhat comfortable. That's just my take on it.

Ososlo

walshb wrote: »

Sorry for the ambiguity. I realize that my posts presented this. I am not trying to put anyone off taking up running or jogging. I have been doing it for 30 years. I was just trying to debate and discuss the points in the article, and trying to convey parts that I agreed with.

Not sure if you're going to address my post but wondering if you think I should give up running because it took me 6 months to run 9 min mile?

walshb

Ososlo wrote: »

Not sure if you're going to address my post but wondering if you think I should give up running because it took me 6 months to run 9 min mile?

No, if you enjoy it and it isn't taking too much of a toll on your body I would keep doing it. I wouldn't advise anyone who is running to be pushing themselves to pain day in and day out. Like I said, fairly comfortable pace that allows the body and organs to recover quickly would be my best advice to the recreational runner/jogger. To those competing and entering races, well, that is a different scenario. They are trying to get PBs and trying to reach times and distances.

walshb

Ososlo wrote: »

Felt healthy and fit but had been smoking way too much for years before starting running, and drinking too much too often also. But plenty of energy and walked quite a bit and not overweight and never sick.
Just slow.

Well, this would explain to me a possible reason why 12 mins was your time to cover a mile.

Ososlo

walshb wrote: »

No, if you enjoy it and it isn't taking too much of a toll on your body I would keep doing it. I wouldn't advise anyone who is running to be pushing themselves to pain day in and day out. Like I said, fairly comfortable pace that allows the body and organs to recover quickly would be my best advice to the recreational runner/jogger. To those competing and entering races, well, that is a different scenario. They are trying to get PBs and trying to reach times and distances.

.but the majority of runners in races who are competing are recreational joggers if not all of them!!! Unless you mean the Olympics and Euros etc?

Ososlo

walshb wrote: »

Well, this would explain to me a possible reason why 12 mins was your time to cover a mile.

Not sure but possibly. My sister started running at the same time and she wasn't a smoker and she was even slower and younger. I know plenty of smoking runners who are way faster.
It doesn't help that's for sure.

annapr

walshb wrote: »

Well, if they are not they should give it up. If you can't manage a 9 minute mile then do some other activity...

Seriously? There goes the running boom... So with that logic, anybody who does over four hours in a marathon should give up running?

I doubt I'll ever get near a 7 min mile, maybe not even 8 min... but then I'm not young or male, so probably shouldn't be allowed to enter a race at all. Or even run by your logic.

I'm really glad that your view is not representative of this forum, where all sorts of runners are encouraged.

RayCun

those competing in races and pushing for PBs shouldn't be pushing themselves to the point of pain every day any more than recreational joggers (ignoring the enormous overlap between those two groups for the moment)

adrian522

walshb wrote: »

Well, if they are not they should give it up. If you can't manage a 9 minute mile then do some other activity...

9 mins is completely arbitrary. Very few people run that sort of time when they start running. It's in the nature of training that you improve over time.

It's crazy to suggest that if you can't hit this number there is something wrong. I'd say the majority of people on this site weren't running 9 min miles when they started running. Glad they don't all have your attitude. As a matter of interest what was your mile pace when you first started?

Ososlo

So to be clear: because I couldn't run a 9 min mile when I started I shouldn't ever push myself in training and just jog my races and not concern myself with a time or pb?

walshb

adrian522 wrote: »

9 mins is completely arbitrary. Very few people run that sort of time when they start running. It's in the nature of training that you improve over time.

It's crazy to suggest that if you can't hit this number there is something wrong. I'd say the majority of people on this site weren't running 9 min miles when they started running. Glad they don't all have your attitude. As a matter of interest what was your mile pace when you first started?

I meant, and I believe I cleared it up, that for a young and fit and reasonably healthy human 9 mins should be a given for a mile. If struggling to hit that then something is not right. I can walk a mile in about 14 mins 30.

I don't know my pace when I first started. Been training and running for 30 years. I hadn't run in quite some time a few years ago, and I did a mile in 5 mins 54. I think I had a thread on here about it. I thought it was 6 mins 8 or something but I got it wrong. It was 5 mins 54/55. I would consider myself a normal joe soap who is healthy and reasonably fit. Even saying above average fitness, I would still think that 9 minutes should be very easy for most people who are fit and young and healthy.

Anyway, it's going off topic I guess. The article isn't perfect, but it hits some right notes for me.

walshb

Ososlo wrote: »

So to be clear: because I couldn't run a 9 min mile when I started I shouldn't ever push myself in training and just jog my races and not concern myself with a time or pb?

No. You were not what I would call young and fit and healthy. A heavy smoker and drinker would preclude you from what I am talking about, when starting out. I wouldn't have betted on you hitting 9 mins in the first few weeks. Not saying that a heavy smoker and drinker couldn't be fit and healthy. People are affected in different ways. There are many people out there who drink and smoke regularly and who could bang out a 6 minute mile. I assume now that you have reduced considerably cigarettes and alcohol, and that you are healthier for it, relatively young. With the training added in over the past months and years then 9 minutes should be fairly standard for you.

Firedance

walshb wrote: »

No, if you enjoy it and it isn't taking too much of a toll on your body I would keep doing it. I wouldn't advise anyone who is running to be pushing themselves to pain day in and day out. Like I said, fairly comfortable pace that allows the body and organs to recover quickly would be my best advice to the recreational runner/jogger. To those competing and entering races, well, that is a different scenario. They are trying to get PBs and trying to reach times and distances.

Hi walshb, I'm new(ish) in these parts so not that familiar with you, I'm just wondering if you're a PT or coach? If I follow your advice in your other posts regarding 9 min miles perhaps I should be giving up as I don't regularly run 9 min miles, some of my runs are 9.30 and some days even 10 mm. I have on occasion run an 8mm though doing a hard training session so perhaps its ok for me to stay in...?

On the other hand my GP commenting on my ECG results last year tells me I have the heart of someone in their 20's (I'm in my 40's) and to keep doing what I'm doing. I think I'll go with his advice.

walshb

Firedance wrote: »

Hi walshb, I'm new(ish) in these parts so not that familiar with you, I'm just wondering if you're a PT or coach? If I follow your advice in your other posts regarding 9 min miles perhaps I should be giving up as I don't regularly run 9 min miles, some of my runs are 9.30 and some days even 10 mm. I have on occasion run an 8mm though doing a hard training session so perhaps its ok for me to stay in...?

On the other hand my GP commenting on my ECG results last year tells me I have the heart of someone in their 20's (I'm in my 40's) and to keep doing what I'm doing. I think I'll go with his advice.

You have run 8 minute pace. Plus you seem to have the make up. Your heart results are quite good.

Not a coach. You seem to choose not to run 9 mins mile at times. That's fine. The article is alluding to this, or close to this. I am saying that if you are young and fit and reasonably healthy and are struggling hard to hit 9 mins for a mile then that is not good. You don't seem to be in this category.

adrian522

walshb wrote: »

I meant, and I believe I cleared it up, that for a young and fit and reasonably healthy human 9 mins should be a given for a mile. If struggling to hit that then something is not right. I can walk a mile in about 14 mins 30.

I don't know my pace when I first started. Been training and running for 30 years. I hadn't run in quite some time a few years ago, and I did a mile in 5 mins 54. I think I had a thread on here about it. I thought it was 6 mins 8 or something but I got it wrong. It was 5 mins 54/55. I would consider myself a normal joe soap who is healthy and reasonably fit. Even saying above average fitness, I would still think that 9 minutes should be very easy for most people who are fit and young and healthy.

Anyway, it's going off topic I guess. The article isn't perfect, but it hits some right notes for me.

Well not for me, Last February I started back after taking the winter off from running (so this is someone who had been running and only a relatively short break.

My Mile times were about 10:10 m/m. Should I have just given up as you suggest? For someone who is a normal healthy person but is not a a runner and is starting running the advice should be to start slowly and build up, not to go all out and try to hit 9:00 m/m and give up if this is not possible.

You are right it is off topic, there is nothing like that in the article and it would be pretty silly if there was.

walshb

adrian522 wrote: »

, not to go all out and try to hit 9:00 m/m and give up if this is not possible.

You are right it is off topic, there is nothing like that in the article and it would be pretty silly if there was.

That is not what I said. I cleared it up in subsequent posts. I said that within a short time training then 9 minutes for the category of young and fit and reasonably healthy should be easy enough. If after training and you are struggling hard to hit 9 mins then maybe stop trying, and just concentrate on being comfortable. I didn't mean to imply completely STOP. Keep it at a pace that you can manage and that isn't stressing you too much.

BTW, the article mentions anything above 7mph, which is about 8 mins 45-50 pace, so not completely off topic.