3 ms·

Their findings were considerably more equivocal than you make out; certainly "actually not healthy to run more than around ~5K at a time" doesn't seem be someth

Their findings were considerably more equivocal than you make out; certainly "actually not healthy to run more than around ~5K at a time" doesn't seem be something that their study is even equipped to discuss. https://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(16)00068-9/fulltext https://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(16)... Things start to look rough for the highest quintile and especially the top 2 'tertiles of the top quintile' (I know, a weird subdivision here). But we're talking about 24 miles in a week and maybe 5+ sessions... pretty far removed from evidence that you shouldn't ever run more than 5K. I don't have a horse in this race but there's a lot of broscience drifting around this area with the general message being that any kind of slow distance training will turn you into a pencil-necked dweeb with bad health and a shocking hormone profile.

partiallypro 8y ago
Most 5K training programs have you running about ~18 miles a week. A full marathon is 26.2 miles in a DAY. That's quite a difference. If you ran every day with no rest days, for 24 miles a week (per your post)...that's almost a 5K a day. I never said that was a definitive number. Hence the "~." There are other studies that back up this idea. As for your last sentence...no one here said anything about that. No one even said it would cause "bad health" to run a full marathon. However, when you run long distances, it has tremendous effects on parts of your body that are prone to injury and strain. Women long distance runners even have fertility problems. The human body was not meant to run long distances as the person I was replying to suggested. It's not "healthy" when contrasted with lower distances. Running itself is good.