3 ms·
The question seems really poorly formed! Like there’s never going to be a binary answer to a question like that. The answer is always going to be “it depends” o
by padjo 1y ago
The question seems really poorly formed! Like there’s never going to be a binary answer to a question like that. The answer is always going to be “it depends” on for example the volume, your physical attributes, recovery, genetics, age etc
- mlrtime 1y agoFor people that like nuance and details yes. But the point is, most people don't want that, they want to be told what to do or make a binary decision: Good or bad. FWIW I tell people that running is bad for your knees, but relative to other exercises! If someone wants to only run, then go do it... better than nothing.
- padjo 1y agoMy take is: running is sometimes bad for your knees, but being sedentary is pretty much always bad for just about everything else.
- president_zippy 1y agoI'll give you the principled answer and the cop-out answer. Here's the principled answer: That was just the catchy title, similar to peer-reviewed literature reviews published on nih.gov: not necessarily the creme-de-la-creme, just good enough to pass peer review. I real question is whether concern for cartilage erosion is well-founded, and whether or not it outweighs the scientific consensus that running improves bone density of the tibia and fibula. Again, literature had strong evidence for the latter while the former was still a major controversy in kinesiology. I didn't even touch cardiovascular health, because to be fair we live in a world with bicycles and affordable YMCA lap pools. Here's the cop-out answer: It's a literature review- the very requirements are merely one step removed from those blog articles Harvard Medicine publishes for mass-consumption. I followed instructions, one of which was to adhere to a maximum of 2 1/2 pages, and I got a Northwestern 95 on the assignment.