7 ms·

If you're interested in the part about endurance adaptations for persistence hunts, this book is great: Born to Run: A Hidden Tribe, Superathletes, and the Gre

by timf 17y ago

If you're interested in the part about endurance adaptations for persistence hunts, this book is great: Born to Run: A Hidden Tribe, Superathletes, and the Greatest Race the World Has Never Seen http://www.amazon.com/Born-Run-Hidden-Superathletes-Greatest/dp/0307266303 http://www.amazon.com/Born-Run-Hidden-Superathletes-Greatest... (if you are not interested, I wager after starting the book you will be :-))

mrduncan 17y ago
I just started reading this yesterday after seeing the author do an interview on The Daily Show - it's extremely fascinating so far.
kingkongrevenge 17y ago
The assertion that people are built for steady long distance endurance is dubious considering the negative health consequences of endurance events. People are clearly built for brisk walking very long distances. Running is not so clear. Marathon runners and cyclists have a lot of problems. http://www.arthurdevany.com/2005/08/top_ten_reasons.html http://www.arthurdevany.com/2005/08/top_ten_reasons.html The human body is multi-purpose. Most animals can't climb trees as well as humans. That doesn't mean it's necessarily a great idea to climb lots of trees.
- timf 17y ago
  This position is the conventional wisdom the book tackles.
  - kingkongrevenge 17y ago
    Conventional wisdom is that long slow jogs are a good way to get healthier. The clinical evidence indicates most people would do better with some sub mile sprinting. Does the book address the physiological damage documented in my link?
- xiaoma 17y ago
  The largest studies on the subject show strong, dose-dependent benefits from endurance training, including running. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=733166 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=733166
  - kingkongrevenge 17y ago
    That doesn't even mention running or endurance training. It's about fit vs non-fit people, which isn't relevant. I'm talking about a fit person who runs a couple 60s 400s and goes home vs a fit person who heads out to run three miles. There are two points here. 1) There is a lot of evidence that marathon type running is BAD for you. Not running period, just heavy long distance running. 2) Strength training and sprints have better health benefits, with the added bonus they take a small fraction of the time of distance running.
    - xiaoma 17y ago
      Actually, multiple studies mentioned in the thread I linked to did examine daily runners. The 32,000 person study, in particular, divided participants up into quite a few different activity levels. At the higher end were daily runners. I can't link to the actual study, since it's behind a pay-wall. Here's a report on a study that monitored over 100,000 people: Paul Williams, Ph.D., author of the study, found that men who ran two or more marathons per year were 41 percent less likely to suffer from high blood pressure, 32 percent less likely to have high cholesterol, and 87 percent less likely to be diabetic than non-marathoners. Those who ran only one marathon every two to five years also had significantly lower risk for these conditions than non-marathoners. The benefits of running marathons were largely independent of total number of miles run per year by participants, indicating that isolated distance running bouts in preparation for marathons may have been effective in decreasing risk of disease. Even runners who didn't run marathons - those who included longer runs as part of their usual exercise routines - were less likely to have high blood pressure, diabetes, or high cholesterol. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/140104.php http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/140104.php Here's a different piece on how regular hour-long runs stimulate neurogenesis and memory improvements in middle aged humans: http://www.dana.org/news/brainwork/detail.aspx?id=7374 http://www.dana.org/news/brainwork/detail.aspx?id=7374 Distance running is one of the most beneficial things you can do for yourself. Racing marathons is also fine, with sufficient training.

by timf 17y ago

mrduncan 17y ago

I just started reading this yesterday after seeing the author do an interview on The Daily Show - it's extremely fascinating so far.

kingkongrevenge 17y ago

The assertion that people are built for steady long distance endurance is dubious considering the negative health consequences of endurance events. People are clearly built for brisk walking very long distances. Running is not so clear. Marathon runners and cyclists have a lot of problems. http://www.arthurdevany.com/2005/08/top_ten_reasons.html http://www.arthurdevany.com/2005/08/top_ten_reasons.html The human body is multi-purpose. Most animals can't climb trees as well as humans. That doesn't mean it's necessarily a great idea to climb lots of trees.

timf 17y ago
This position is the conventional wisdom the book tackles.
- kingkongrevenge 17y ago
  Conventional wisdom is that long slow jogs are a good way to get healthier. The clinical evidence indicates most people would do better with some sub mile sprinting. Does the book address the physiological damage documented in my link?
xiaoma 17y ago
The largest studies on the subject show strong, dose-dependent benefits from endurance training, including running. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=733166 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=733166
- kingkongrevenge 17y ago
  That doesn't even mention running or endurance training. It's about fit vs non-fit people, which isn't relevant. I'm talking about a fit person who runs a couple 60s 400s and goes home vs a fit person who heads out to run three miles. There are two points here. 1) There is a lot of evidence that marathon type running is BAD for you. Not running period, just heavy long distance running. 2) Strength training and sprints have better health benefits, with the added bonus they take a small fraction of the time of distance running.
  - xiaoma 17y ago
    Actually, multiple studies mentioned in the thread I linked to did examine daily runners. The 32,000 person study, in particular, divided participants up into quite a few different activity levels. At the higher end were daily runners. I can't link to the actual study, since it's behind a pay-wall. Here's a report on a study that monitored over 100,000 people: Paul Williams, Ph.D., author of the study, found that men who ran two or more marathons per year were 41 percent less likely to suffer from high blood pressure, 32 percent less likely to have high cholesterol, and 87 percent less likely to be diabetic than non-marathoners. Those who ran only one marathon every two to five years also had significantly lower risk for these conditions than non-marathoners. The benefits of running marathons were largely independent of total number of miles run per year by participants, indicating that isolated distance running bouts in preparation for marathons may have been effective in decreasing risk of disease. Even runners who didn't run marathons - those who included longer runs as part of their usual exercise routines - were less likely to have high blood pressure, diabetes, or high cholesterol. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/140104.php http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/140104.php Here's a different piece on how regular hour-long runs stimulate neurogenesis and memory improvements in middle aged humans: http://www.dana.org/news/brainwork/detail.aspx?id=7374 http://www.dana.org/news/brainwork/detail.aspx?id=7374 Distance running is one of the most beneficial things you can do for yourself. Racing marathons is also fine, with sufficient training.