Hacker News Reader

Comment by twawaaay | Hacker News Reader

Personally, I think aren't many better return on investment activities than spending half an hour every day on a morning jog.

You can run more than that but I think half an hour steady state easy run each morning gives you 80% of results. If you love running (I do), knock yourself out. But that half an hour is enough to do wonders to your health over long periods of time with minimum chance for negative consequences. By easy run I mean one when nothing aches and you can converse easily throughout the run.

I think a lot of people go hard on it and overdo it and then get injured or stop it for other reasons. It is better to make those runs easy and enjoyable so that you can keep running daily forever.

I have also started 4/20 intermittent fasting 3 months ago and keto a month ago and I can tell you, I have never felt better. And this even when I do 10k run in the morning on an empty stomach after 18h of not eating anything.

View on HN

I agree with you, but there's one big "Oh, right..." in there.

Up until a year and a half ago, I had never enjoyed a jog in my life. I had done plenty of "jogging" during school years, as part of gym class, but nobody had ever explained to me difference between a pleasant jog and running until you drop.

I stopped exercising for many years. Then started powerlifting. A couple of years ago I decided that I should take a walk every day. Then that I should do at least 10.000 steps a day. A year and a half ago, I figured I could probably do a very light run. I enjoyed it. Then I started running at least every other day (during summer). Stoppped during winter. Picked it up again last spring. Now I'm again awaiting spring.

It took 41 years of my life before I realized what a light run was. I think most people don't run because they have never actually learned what a light run is. It's always flat out.

I highly recommend "80/20 Running: Run Stronger and Race Faster By Training Slower" by Matt Fitzgerald. Don't let the title put anyone off -- it's about performance, but most of the book is about the value of going SLOW.

Like you, I was never really a runner, although I did get into running when I met my current partner, who is a runner. I think what's complicated for most not-fit people is that they only have one running "speed'. I only had one running speed until I was almost 40. There was walking, and then there was running. Obviously there was also "sprinting" but we all recognize that's unsustainable. I think for most of us, "running" is what a runner would call a tempo run -- say 80% of your maximum heartrate, something you feel you can sustain more-or-less indefinitely, but that's hard.

When you're not-obese-but-out-of-shape, you might walk a mile in 15-17 minutes, and a run would be in the 10-12 minute range. It's hard to actually go any slower than that and still be running. And as you slowly get more fit, your runs get down to (say), a 9 minute mile, an 8 minute mile. But you never realize you can (and should!) scale back to that 10 or 12 minute mile. You'll be able to run every day instead of every few days. You'll get the health benefits without the injuries. And the side benefit is that, if you add speed work, you'll get faster more quickly than if you just ran at 'running speed' all the time.

The couch to 5k program listed mentions mixing walking and running -- this is a great alternative to a "slow run" for those who still only have 1 speed.

My "I can run forever" speed is more like 13 minute miles now, up from 14 minute miles. And it took me a long time to be able to motor for a 5k at a 14 minute/mile pace and not struggle mentally or physically at all. And I'm in the not-obese-but-out-of-shape category.

I think some of the ability to differentiate a light run from a hard run requires having a degree of baseline fitness. A lot of people who are not especially fit will find that they can run quickly for a minute or two, or very slowly for maybe ten minutes, but either way they find themselves completely winded and sore. Folks will read advice online about running at a pace where you can have a conversation, but find that there's literally no pace above a walk where this is possible for them.

I was interested in running for years, but found the walk breaks that the Couch to 5k program uses to deal with this issue to be tedious. I tried it a few times, but it didn't stick until years later after I'd started a gym habit and built a good base. When New Years came around, I was used to going to the gym before work every morning, and it was really disruptive when my gym was suddenly insanely packed with resolutioners, so I just put my stuff in a locker and tried going outside for a run. With the base I'd built in the gym, I found I could run quickly for a few minutes, but when running slowly I could go for 30+ minutes without a break instead of ten, and it finally stuck (that was 4 years ago).

Yep. This is the thing that I wish somebody told me when I first ventured to start running.

Light run is when I run with somebody else and I still can have a pleasant conversation.

I take phonecalls when I am running and I had situations where people were surprised when I told them I am running (they expected me to be panting probably).

IMO there is no need to run any harder than that if your goal is maximising your wellbeing (unless your wellbeing comes from winning races...)

The other option is run faster but intermittently.

It came as a surprise to me that many people are self-conscious about stopping to walk during running -- that's how I've always done it! I never thought anything of it because I have always been in shape as 100m / 200m sprinter... I'd encourage others to try this, because although I love running, I also could never really get into jogging.

A friend used to do ultramarathons. If we were out for a run and she didn't wish to run a hill, she would say, "ultra rules", and we would walk the hill. She covered 100 miles in less than 24 hours in one race I helped with, and she had not the least self-consciousness about walking.

> IMO there is no need to run any harder than that if your goal is maximising your wellbeing (unless your wellbeing comes from winning races...)

Interestingly the best (or second best) bike racer in the world, Tadej Pogačar, is very big into "zone 2" training, in which the idea is you optimize your aerobic engine by spending the majority of your training time in zone 2 and no faster.

While the zone 2 can be measured formerly with a lot of fancy equipment that monitors the gases you breath out and levels of lactic acid in your blood, the casual guideline for finding your zone 2 is a workout at the level where you can just barely hold a conversation while doing it. The casual definition of zone 1 is you can easily hold a conversation, zone 3 is you can say a few words but can't hold a conversation, and zone 4 is you are breathing so hard you can barely talk.

So basically, even if your wellbeing does come from winning races, zone 2 training might also be the best thing to do (at least for the majority of your workout times).

Two weeks ago I was heading to go for a run and my 8 year old declared he was coming with me (this was 630AM on a school day). We did 1.25 miles but the most interesting thing he said was that we weren’t running, we were just jogging. It was a slow 12’ pace… slower than I’d go solo but I didn’t want to wear him out.

Anyway, this bias you mention seems to be taught/ingrained at a young age!

Yes, this is exactly the pattern you see in the r/c25k subreddit. Lots of people hit a wall (usually around week 5 or 6, where you start running for longer stretches of time) because they’re running too fast. The most unintuitive part of this program is pacing yourself.

Personally I think (I don't do!) I'd rather go harder/faster/longer less often. Getting ready for and then showering etc. after such a brief activity every day is just annoying isn't it?

I shower every day anyway, so I don't count shower time as cost of running. I head out first thing in the morning immediately after I get up and then shower immediately after I come back. Which I think is a terrific way to start my day.

Does it take time? Yes, it does, but only if you look at it in this simplistic way. Even if I did not enjoy running itself, it makes the rest of the day feel better for me which I think makes up for the time "wasted".

I also use my runs to listen to news, audiobooks or podcasts. I am walking every day in the evening and I use that time to listen to audiobooks and also get some grocery, etc. -- trying to get as much from the time I spent on walks as possible.

If I don't listen to something I am trying to be productive by rethinking things that happened to me, preparing arguments for upcoming meetings, thinking through other problems that I have at the moment.

> I shower every day anyway, so I don't count shower time as cost of running.

So do I, and there's no way I could go out for a run before it - so the post-run one would be additional, that's why I count it as a cost.

If you shower every day you aren’t noticeably dirty in the morning and you will get sweaty either way so why not?

A combination of how I feel and how my hair looks beforehand. There's no way I'd go out first, for anything, wouldn't answer the door.

I guess it all depends on your climate or what you do for work.

I try to run every day. And I try to run hard every other day, but if I don't feel like running hard one day that's ok. On the hard runs all I do is run. I can't think, I just need to focus on maintaining my pace (when I notice that I'm putting together a coherent string of thoughts it's my cue to go faster).

But on my slow days I think. And it's wonderful. I don't know how many problems I've solved during my runs, but it's a lot. Something about getting outside and moving somehow unties knots in my thinking. And if I don't have a problem to solve I might review some recent stuff I've been studying. I might for example pretend I'm doing a presentation on the topic. Since I'm out there and can't write anything down I have to repeat everything in my head, and that repetition makes it stick. (Works if I'm preparing an actual presentation too!)

Because of this I usually try to go running after 1-2 hours of work. This way when I go running I usually have some material fresh in my mind. Working from home is obviously a big advantage.

I stopped running when I got my current job because there was so much work I wanted to do and didn't think I had the time. Huge mistake. I started running again in August and have been keeping it up since then, and my work has improved a lot.

This probably doesn't work for everyone, but it's an experience worth searching out!

You may be one of those types who enjoy interval training more than longer, steadier, more "laid back" efforts.

Apparently, if you match it to your fitness/ recovery levels (and goals if you have them), doing quality over quantity can be just as good as – and in some cases better than – doing more volume at less intensity.

I personally prefer cycling at a more laid back pace. But if I were back on some run-training regimen, I'd prefer less volume with more intensity workouts. Because I enjoy cycling, and kinda dread running.

But I heard mixing both, in terms of volume and quality, will have the most optimal results in terms of performance gains.

Maybe you know all this already, but just ya know, throwing it out there.

And showering after a workout feels sublime.

fyi https://www.ntnu.edu/cerg/advice

4 minutes run hard enough to push heart rate to 90%, 3 minutes recover, repeat 4 times; about 45 minutes, every other day if you're old and need the recovery.

https://www.ntnu.edu/cerg/advice

https://vimeo.com/75764170

The shower after a workout is extremely satisfying. Only takes a couple minutes in any case

> I think a lot of people go hard on it and overdo it and then get injured

This is the biggest risk.

Always remember that your bodies ability to adapt is quickest for breathing, slower for muscles and slowest for tendons/joints.

Once many people overcome breathing they go too hard when muscules develop and end up with achilles or knee issues.

I've found that simply incorporating a few miles of brisk walking into your routine with a moderately heavy backpack and good posture (no/minimal slouching or leaning forward) is reasonably effective exercise, particularly if it's at all hilly.

I think it works out similarly to low-intensity deadlifting and squatting, and becomes much easier if you also lift consistently.

As a bonus, it's also fun and relaxing.

I've since learned that there's actually a specific name for this kind of workout: rucking. It's apparently fairly popular with many benefits; people even buy specially designed packs and weights.

> I think a lot of people go hard on it and overdo it and then get injured or stop it for other reasons.

Yes, I think C25K and the "just run" sentiment in general is missing half a dozen asterisks about this aspect. Like "except don't run on concrete for the first year", or "except do this progression of exercises for feet and tendons for 3 months before you start doing continuous 2-3k", or just "hire a trainer to get you started".

I've never been overweight, been active as a kid, was in increasingly good physical shape throughout my 3 attempts to start running over the years and got injured for months every time. By the last attempt I was taking multi-hour walks as a habit, lifting weights 5 days a week, watching my sleep and diet. And heart rate monitor has shown that I straight up didn't have this magical "easy run" heart rate zone available - brisk walk was well below 120 bpm and even jogging in place got me over 130.

C25K is great for what it is, but I feel what it is is not enough to start running safely.

> even jogging in place got me over 130

The cardiac exercise research group in Norway have developed and tested an online maximum heart rate calculator.

https://www.ntnu.edu/cerg/hrmax

Check what that number is for you.

The interval training they recommend would be about 90% of maximum heart rate.

(For example, I'm in my early 60s and I'm supposed to push my heart rate into the range 150—165 bpm.)

Interval training is different, it's supposed to spike your heart rate for short(er) periods, so that makes sense. When people are talking about running easy or being able to have a conversation, they usually are talking about low to moderate intensity aerobic zone or "zone 2", which goes to 75-80% HRmax depending on who you're asking. Some would even explicitly recommend 120-130 bpm range.

Depends on our age and size and conditioning.

So "jogging in place got me over 130" may be just fine, or may not be.

> got injured for months every time

What did you injure? What did you do after thinking you were injured?

Plantar fasciitis, shin splints and some minor, I assume, tendon inflammation above ankle joint. PF was the worst - icing, stretching, rolling, exercises - nothing helped, only went away after switching from casual/dress shoes to sneakers for daily. Shin splints seemed to have went away in couple weeks with some massage and exercises, but came back after 1-2 runs on multiple attempts. Last injury coincided with me receiving an old elliptical from parents as a gift, so I didn't need to run for cardio anymore.

And now I'm a refugee and my running trails back home were in the zone russians dropped cluster munitions on. So it's not looking good for running going forward, lol.

Yeah the shoes we wear most of the day do matter a lot.

Don't recall having plantar fasciitis or shin splints; but spent a lot of time on steps doing many many single leg heel raises, to work around achilles tendon and calf muscle pain.

Exercise finds our weaknesses.

I think phrasing it as “30 minutes of light runnning” is a great way to explain it. A lot of people get turned off by “3 miles” or “5km” and it doesn’t account for slower paces.

A great way to start is to commit to 15 minutes of run/walk time 3-4x a week. When I decided to start, I did one long block where I’d run one way and walk back for 20 minutes. A few weeks later I’d run 7 minutes out (with occasional breaks at first) and 8 minutes back.

The goal is to feel good afterwards - not like crap. It’s better to do a workout at 80% of your capacity and want more than to go 105% and feel like butt. You want to develop a positive association in your brain so that you crave a run.

So number one piece of advice - go slow! If it helps, get a watch with a heart rate monitor and keep it below your 80% level. Worry about your times after the first 5k.

I think the problem with anything we do like weight loss strategies or healthy diet or exercise is adherence.

Long time ago, when I would start something I would try all the way. Loose all crappy food or not at all. The problem is that these would only last as long as my enthusiasm.

This is a disaster, because it means I just spent a bunch of effort on a project that brings no long term results.

So nowadays I always think how I can bring most results with as little resources (resources being my effort/focus) and then how I can get as much bang for the buck long term.

Running must be sustainable. That's why I run easy, every day. I could run every other day but there is something magical in building strong habits. In my case I no longer think about it -- I get up, I empty myself, I weigh myself, I head out the door for a run, I come back, take a shower, drink coffee. This is my morning routine and the only decision I make is what to put on based on the weather.

And it can't feel hard. And you need to have good shoes and clothes for any weather.

All nutrition advice in the world will not help if you will not stick to it. So I resolved to not start punishing myself by removing foods that I like, but rather I started by learning new foods that I can like but are also healthy. Over time, with more and more healthy foods I know I started pushing out the unhealthy ones.

This is my advice for lasting lifestyle changes.

Yes, the best exercise is whatever you will choose to do instead of sitting down.

Like body-weight and light 10lb dumb bell strength exercises while watching soccer on TV.

Run! Even an hour of running over the course of a week has proven benefits to morbidity and mortality.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4131752/

"Running, even 5-10 minutes per day and slow speeds <6 mph, is associated with markedly reduced risks of death from all causes and cardiovascular disease."

I think all those studies that say running even 5-10 minutes makes you almost invulnerable from death should be taken with caution.

One problem is that people who run regularly are just different from people who do not. People who will run will make a lot of other choices that are also better for their health, for various reasons like being probably more intelligent (to see the reason), having means (to be able to carve time each day to do it consistently) and also have the willpower to stick to something that will only have positive results sometime in the future. Running might be, at least to some extent, a result of people being in better health both mentally and physically and not the cause.

Don't get me wrong, I truly believe running is good for you and I see how I get worse when I can't run and then get better when I can. But I red a bunch of those studies and pretty much every one of those studies has some problems, and basically that is because it is neigh impossible to have long term randomised study on real people on a topic like running where it is basically impossible to point finger at people and get them to adhere to your prescribed lifestyle.

This is a classic example of correlation and causation. You're basically saying that running is correlated with a longer life, not causative of it. Causality is undergraduate level science and any paper of any quality will discuss causality and correlation in depth.

For example, in the study that we are discussing here, it says

> It is possible that healthy people may run more, which could lead to reverse causality. However, we found consistent mortality benefits in runners in both healthy and unhealthy individuals

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4131752/

You can read more if you want to understand more about how they handle these factors.

Some time ago I discovered a health issue with me and it prompted me to spend a lot of time trying to understand how proper nutrition should look like.

I discovered that almost everything I have been taught, told by doctors or red on the internet about proper nutrition is lies. And those likes usually have intelligently sounding papers behind them that are not worth the paper they are printed on. And then repeated ad nauseam by thousands of health "experts" that do not seem to be really concerned about validity of any of it other than their personal life goals.

Like the lies that you should eat breakfast to start your day or multiple meals or that fats are bad for your health or that you should limit intake of salt as much as possible. Or that you have to avoid foods that have cholesterol in them. Or that whole grain bread is healthier than the one made from white flour (it is not). Or that you need to eat fiber to have healthy gut flora or to avoid constipation (I have mercilessly removed all carbs of any kind from my diet for over a month and my gut flora is perfectly ok and there is no constipation).

You know, all that stuff that we have been bombarded with from childhood.

I know all about correlation and causation (actually, I studied theoretical math and have a lot of experience with statistics. I have even given a lecture on logic to first year students once when I was asked to do it by my prof).

Let's just say, there is a lot more ways to make improper than proper inferences from your study. And that saying you know about causation absolutely does not mean the person who did the study actually understands it and took it into account properly. And also that a lot of people start with an opinion or a vested interest to show a particular result and then are trying hard to prove what they already "know".

In the end the problem is that all those people who make those studies are forced to crank out results or perish in their field. Conducting a study very carefully and honestly costs many times more effort than just getting it to a point where somebody will take and publish it.

One of the things I've always wondered about, and I don't know if there is a good scientific answer for it (haven't looked deeply), is if you end up committing to running 5 to 10 minutes a day will you end up turning into the type of person you're describing eventually.

I guess my question is that is it likely a person would get the outsized health benefits because they commit to the minor health change which then causes them to commit to more later.

I noticed on myself that running long distances is also willpower training.

Being able to force myself to stick to something hard/painful causes me to also expand my ability to stick to other things.

And when I can't run (for example due to injury) it also affects my ability to stick to a lot of other things that should not be affected by my knee.

Another reason why I think running is so beneficial is because when you start it you see obvious, epic improvements in your performance.

I literally was doing runs I did not think possible just a month earlier.

It changes your perspective on what is and what is not possible.

And if this happens to you it may cause you to start investigating and making a lot of other health-related changes.

There's definitely a lot of psychological interplay with running and willpower/self discipline. I think I read somewhere that there are disproportionate number of professionals/PhDs/otherwise successful people who are into ultra running, in part because they have the resources and flexibility needed for the training, but also because the ability to delay gratification and work towards a long term goal is required in both venues.

On a more micro level, a good run can make the rest of life's challenges much less daunting...as I say to my wife: busy days seem a lot less overwhelming if you start them by dragging yourself out of a warm bed to run 8 miles in freezing rain.

Alan Turing was a serious marathon runner and came close to qualifying for the 1948 olympics. https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Extras/Turing_running/

Steve Magness has a great book on the topic called Do Hard Things. It’s a great read, but makes extra sense for folks who run of engage in hard endurance exercise.

Is this specific to running, or just any kind of daily strenuous exercise?

I never liked running or walking much, I think due to a kind of impatience where it feels like I'm going too slow. If someone relates to this you might love ebikes. A lot more fun and you can get as much exercise as you want to out into it. And you can ride them on the road where it might be dangerous or awkward to walk.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com