Hacker News Reader

Comment by jfoutz | Hacker News Reader

> [Lee concludes his data] "don't support that more is worse. But more may not be better." [Williams concludes] 40 miles a week [...] were 26 percent less likely to develop coronary heart disease than those running just 13 miles per week.

So to sum up, running is way way better than doing nothing. More than 40 miles a week may have not only diminishing returns, but negative consequences.

I'd guess most people here don't realize what a crazy time commitment running 40 miles a week actually is. Even if you can pull off 6 minute miles (4 hours/week), there's still a need for rest after the run, more sleep, more food, replacing shoes and clothes as they wear out. The extra time adds up.

View on HN

> what a crazy time commitment running 40 miles a week actually is.

Absolutely.

52 yo here, averaging about 15 miles/week running + 4-7 miles/week hiking. It takes major dedication just to work that amount in, I have no idea how I'd spin up to do 40 mi/week.

And as far as I'm concerned: The cardio benefit is pretty minuscule compared to what it does for the head.

I'm 51, and I only run a little more than half that much. On the other hand, distance only affects the on-road time. When you factor in getting ready and cooling down and stretching and dealing with gear and everything else, I probably spend more than an hour a day on average.

Then again, it's something that just has to be done. Some form of exercise is necessary to stay healthy and sane. I need to sleep and bathe, I need to do housework and pay bills, I need to do all that other adult stuff . . . and I need to exercise. Any option will take time. Like every other obligatory thing, that means less time reading or surfing the web or playing video games or watching TV or whatever. Oh well. Life's like that.

> It takes major dedication just to work that amount in, I have no idea how I'd spin up to do 40 mi/week.

Slowly, and do a little every day. Or at least, that worked for me. I do 3-4 miles a day (longer on weekends) for 25-30 mi/week total. I've worked up to that from zero over 18-24 months.

If you measure how much time you spend watching TV or surfing the web it puts it in perspective... I used to run about 40 miles a week a few months ago. Usually ended up being between 5 and 6 hours a week. The long run is usually on the weekend when I'd imagine most people can find a few hours to spare. I am sadly injured right now and biking or inline skating instead. Now THAT takes some time and is so much less efficient time wise in maintaining my weight. I rode 22 miles in 1:20 and only burned 900 calories or so. Normally it would take me 1 hour to burn that running.

I agree wholeheartedly about TV or surfing the web.

Me personally, it takes about half an hour around every run, getting dressed, getting water, stretching before and after, showering and changing clothes. longer runs leave me lethargic for a while. A two hour run leaves me exhausted. A two hour run leaves me worthless for an hour or possibly three.

40 miles in 5 hours is amazing. My bare minimum around running time would be 15 minutes a run, and i can't run 10 6 minute miles 4 times a week. I could maybe do 4 10's@9:00. But if i put in the effort, that would come down.

40 miles at 5 hours/week is just phenomenal. You must have world class biomechanics. I can't imagine how fast you run. You are a stupendous badass. I hope you recover soon.

40 miles / 5 hours is 8 mph or a 7:30 pace (presumably "easy" for him/her). That's quick but not olympics level (they do more like 6:30 easy, I think).

(As a much slower runner, I can maintain 7:30 for a mile or two. Just not 40. :-))

I think those 40 miles were over multiple outings in a week, but let's compare with a 26 mile marathon:

A very good but not world-level time for the marathon is 2:20 or so for 26 miles. That's more like 5:30 per mile. World record pace is an even more insane 4:41.5 a mile (http://www.runnersworld.com/newswire/dennis-kimettos-maratho...). So yes, 6:30 should be easy, if you're at that level (must be, given that I could do 10k in 40 minutes, which is around that pace, when I was a lot younger, and I'm not a running talent)

Right, exactly.

Yeap, this was my average speed over all my weekly mileage. My long run would range from 7:00 to 7:30 pace and would top out at 13 to 15 miles. My easiest runs were about 8:00 and my fast pace (probably 6 or less miles per week) was from 6:10 to 6:30. I would say I did seem to run my overall mileage faster than people that would destroy me in races (which is probably why I'm injured).

The 7:30 pace had my heart rate at 145 on flat ground in cool weather at age 40 for a 13 mile run which from what I understand is the right pace.

Pulling 50 miles a week currently and plan on putting 10 more to that number.

I do it because my sanity needs it. Been through a very painful heartbreak after having the guts to fall in love again. Now back to square one again. But I want to get better and love again. and again.

Running is incredibly therapeutic, it's the perfect time to clear your head and get deep in thought. It's almost meditative in a way, I loved hitting the point just before I really started to push myself, where my body and mind seemed almost perfectly in-sync.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com