Optimal running miles?

Quoted message said:

Non-runner here but thinking of starting

I'm curious if there is an "optimum" mileage or amount
of running that gives you all the benefits of the
exercise but little risk of injury?

There's no single optimum. Higher mileage has a huge effect on fitness, and
increases injury risk.

However, there are many risk factors besides mileage. Your risks are lower
with high mileage and smart training practices than they are with low mileage
and stupid training.

Examples of smart training include distinguishing between training and racing,
running at an appropriate training pace (and not trying to set PRs on each
training run), and gradually building a good base.

Stupid training practices that are likely to cause injury include doing your
training runs too quickly, and rapidly increasing training load.

Quoted message said:

is it as low as 1-2 miles? More?

Much more. But you need to increase gradually over time. 50-100 miles a week is
not at all uncommon. Most runners are capable of reaching 50 miles a week, and
I generally wouldn't recommend attempting a marathon on lower mileage than
that (many do, hence the prevalence of very slow marathoners ... ). Some can do
much more, how much more varies greatly between individuals.

Cheers,
--
Elflord

Elflord said:

Quoted message said:

Non-runner here but thinking of starting

Quoted message said:

I'm curious if there is an "optimum" mileage or amount
of running that gives you all the benefits of the
exercise but little risk of injury?

There's no single optimum. Higher mileage has a huge effect on fitness, and
increases injury risk.

However, there are many risk factors besides mileage. Your risks are lower
with high mileage and smart training practices than they are with low mileage
and stupid training.

Examples of smart training include distinguishing between training and racing,
running at an appropriate training pace (and not trying to set PRs on each
training run), and gradually building a good base.

Stupid training practices that are likely to cause injury include doing your
training runs too quickly, and rapidly increasing training load.

Quoted message said:

is it as low as 1-2 miles? More?

Much more. But you need to increase gradually over time. 50-100 miles a week is
not at all uncommon. Most runners are capable of reaching 50 miles a week, and
I generally wouldn't recommend attempting a marathon on lower mileage than
that (many do, hence the prevalence of very slow marathoners ... ). Some can do
much more, how much more varies greatly between individuals.

Cheers,
--
Elflord

Hey everyone, ignore this dipstick. He recommended I buy these nikes
in private email because he didn't want everyone to know that he was
convesring with me, and I did. Now only a couple of weeks after buying
them, the cushioning is already breaking down, and in another 2 weeks
they'll be [censored]. Just like every other pair of nikes I ever owned. And
on top of it, I have been switching them out with my reeboks, so it's
not even daily use. These list in the $80 to $85 range, so if you
still insist nikes are ok, then tell me how much I have to spend to
get a decent pair of nikes?
As I've stated before, nikes are pieces of [censored], and you're crazy to
waste money on these cheap pieces of [censored].
Donovan, your advice is [censored], and you are a moron.

Quoted message said:

Non-runner here but thinking of starting

I'm curious if there is an "optimum" mileage or amount
of running that gives you all the benefits of the
exercise but little risk of injury?

[a] "All the benefits" is real tricky to define. For certain
definitions of "all the benefits" (e.g. using some arbitrary
physiological measurement(s)) you might find some studies or other
evidence which points to some range in mileage. But ask a bunch of
higher mileage runners if they'd get "all the benefits" of their
regimen on 10 or 20 or 30 miles per week and you'll get a lot of
emphatic denials along with a range of answers as to what they'd be
missing out on.

[b] If you're really a potential beginner, this is really not a useful
approach anyway. Trust me (and all the rest of us) - for quite a few
weeks and months, your body is gonna dictate a hard upper limit to how
much running you can do, and that limit will be well shy of what gives
you "all the benefits". A better mindset is, start running, gradually
do more and more (probably with the guidance of some book, plan, in-
person group, online group, mentor, or combination thereof) as you are
able and motivated, and find your own optimum.

The 1-2 miles you mention is certainly better than 0 miles. Walking a
half hour a day is better than being completely sedentary. Make that
walk brisker, longer, hillier, more frequent, and/or toss in segments
of jogging, and it's better yet - assuming it's not inappropriate for
the exerciser in question. If you keep adding more and harder each
week, IMO there's no sudden threshold you cross where it's obviously
"enough" or "optimal" or "most of the benefits"... but all the same,
you find your balance, roughly how much time and effort is worth it to
you in exchange for what you get out of it.

Quoted message said:

Non-runner here but thinking of starting

I'm curious if there is an "optimum" mileage or amount
of running that gives you all the benefits of the
exercise but little risk of injury?

is it as low as 1-2 miles? More?

For many of older runners 50 miles a week or so works well for some.

This strikes a balance that still allows one to train pretty well but
avoids the strain that 75+ miles or more can contribute to.

It depends on what your goals are. If you are just starting you need
to add in miles very slowly to avoid injury.

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Donovan, your advice is [censored], and you are a moron.

You, the queen of [censored] is telling someone else they are full of
[censored]? Talk about irony and stupidity all rolled into one unpolished
turd. They say the mind is a terrible thing to waste and you sure as
hell haven't used your gray mater in a long time.

Quoted message said:

[a] "All the benefits" is real tricky to define.

yeah I guess that's the hard part huh?

when studying calculus in college I just learned that
everything pretty much operates form a "curve"

That curve goes uphill.... levels off....and then goes
back downhill.....called the "slope of the curve"

well the "optimum point" was usually where the slope
was zero..... or the curve was just starting to
downhill that is

Just wondering where that "optimal" point is on the
exercise/running curve

<[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Non-runner here but thinking of starting

If you take to it, it's a pretty ideal exercise -- no sweaty health club
required, minimal equipment, and 30 minutes gives you a good workout.

Quoted message said:

I'm curious if there is an "optimum" mileage or amount
of running that gives you all the benefits of the
exercise but little risk of injury?

Most of the longitudinal studies (following people over long time periods)
rate that 30 minutes of brisk exercise a day confers big benefits. In older
women it even cuts the breast cancer rate in half.

I would guess (and you can look up lots of articles on this) that if you
were to build up to 30 minutes of easy running 3-4 days a week that you'd
get most or even more of the benefits that walking daily provides.

Quoted message said:

is it as low as 1-2 miles? More?

I'd say that running just a couple of miles a day, or 3-4 miles 3-4 times a
week would give you good bang for the buck.

Re injury, it's mostly a combination of starting out real slow, staying
within yourself, and taking a day or two off if a new ache or pain crops up
(until you learn how your body copes with various mini-injuries).

If you were to start out walking 30 minutes 4 x a week, and start with a jog
1, walk 3 minute rhythm, you'd gradually be able to run the whole thing
after a few weeks. Some folks can progress much faster, for instance, if
you play racquetball or singles tennis you're ahead of the game. The trick
is to go slow enough that it's enjoyable, or at least not unpleasant.

I started out running hard, near race effort, and kept giving it up because
it wasn't fun. Then I read a book that said "go easy", and the rest is
history.

Many people think they have to be uncomfortable to get good results -- not
true except for the serious racers, and they only hit that point 2-3 days a
week.

Many folks who reach this 30 minute or 3 mile running goal get bitten by the
race bug, and there are plenty of 5k and 10k races to choose from.

I run 70 miles a week, but I'm mainly in it because I enjoy running and
competing (and eating!). I think there are diminishing returns on overall
health after a certain point, my guess is that I'm well past that point :-)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

[a] "All the benefits" is real tricky to define.

yeah I guess that's the hard part huh?

when studying calculus in college I just learned that
everything pretty much operates form a "curve"

That curve goes uphill.... levels off....and then goes
back downhill.....called the "slope of the curve"

well the "optimum point" was usually where the slope
was zero..... or the curve was just starting to
downhill that is

Just wondering where that "optimal" point is on the
exercise/running curve

But what is that a curve of? "All the benefits" is a multivariate
situation, not univariate. Also, what do you do about things that
increase asymptotically and never really decrease.

Look up optimal rates of boron in a fertilizer (sorry, can't remember if
it's in general or specific species, and I think it was boron).

Dot

--
"I'm a great believer in luck, and I find the harder I work, the more I
have of it."
-Thomas Jefferson, third President of the United States

Elflord said:

There's no single optimum. Higher mileage has a huge effect on fitness, and
increases injury risk.

That statement you made, made me wonder if anyone has done anaylsis
like the do in economics classes in college. One line for the risk
factors and one line for the benefits. At some point they come
together and thats the optimum. Of course, it should be different for
each person...

John

In article <[email hidden]>,

D Stumpus said:

Many folks who reach this 30 minute or 3 mile running goal get bitten
by the race bug,

You talking about me again? Huh?

--
Crossing the starting line is 90%.
Crossing the finish line is the other 90%.

Doug Freese said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Donovan, your advice is [censored], and you are a moron.

You, the queen of [censored] is telling someone else they are full of
[censored]? Talk about irony and stupidity all rolled into one unpolished
turd. They say the mind is a terrible thing to waste and you sure as
hell haven't used your gray mater in a long time.

Oh, poor Doug-lass is [censored] because I called him Doug-lass.
Look stupid, When I talk shoes I am right on the money, and always
have been. I think my gray "mater" is good enough to spell "matter"
without looking like an idiot.

Michelle said:

You talking about me again? Huh?

Did he mention transsexuals?

"runsrealfast" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Elflord said:

There's no single optimum. Higher mileage has a huge effect on
fitness, and
increases injury risk.

That statement you made, made me wonder if anyone has done anaylsis
like the do in economics classes in college. One line for the risk
factors and one line for the benefits. At some point they come
together and thats the optimum. Of course, it should be different for
each person...

And why we are all experiments of one.

-DF

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

[a] "All the benefits" is real tricky to define.

yeah I guess that's the hard part huh?

when studying calculus in college I just learned that
everything pretty much operates form a "curve"

That curve goes uphill.... levels off....and then goes
back downhill.....called the "slope of the curve"

well the "optimum point" was usually where the slope
was zero..... or the curve was just starting to
downhill that is

Just wondering where that "optimal" point is on the
exercise/running curve

I think Dot poses an important question -- what "curve" ?

If you're talking general health and fitness "curve", the answer would be
substantially different to the running performance "curve". For the latter, I'd
stick to my answer of 50-100 miles a week, and add that you will need to build
up to this gradually over time. For the former, I'm not sure how evidence-based
the ACSM guidelines are, but they propose 3-5 times a week, 20-60 minutes per
session at "conversational" intensity.

Either way, it takes some time to reach the point of diminishing returns. Hard
biological limits are unlikely to be a factor in the first few years of training.

Cheers,
--
Elflord

Doug Freese said:

And why we are all experiments of one.

-DF

Those IV's in your arm tell me that applies to some more than others.
Hopefully you agreed to get neutered before they experimented on you,
because by looking at you I'm sure you shouldn't reproduce.

Quoted message said:

Non-runner here but thinking of starting

I'm curious if there is an "optimum" mileage or amount
of running that gives you all the benefits of the
exercise but little risk of injury?

is it as low as 1-2 miles? More?

I read an article several years ago that addressed that issue. In
summation the writer indicated that up to 40 miles per week, with long
runs no greater than a half marathon miles seemed to produce the
greatest health benefit with no health risks. More than that and
there is a risk of muscular-skeletor injuries and very long runs tend
to break down the immune system.

I have no idea if this is true and I know there are a lot of people
here that run longer distances. But I've tailored my program around
this theory. Haven't had a stress injury or even a cold for many
years. My only injuries have been from falls.

I am currently moving away from the limits, training for my first (and
maybe only) marathon. Trying to use a training plan that has the
shortest weekly and long run distances, but none the less, somewhat
more than what I had been doing.

Frank

Quoted message said:

Michelle said:

You talking about me again? Huh?

Did he mention transsexuals?

One of the pages I'm working on is a Rage-o-meter. It'll measure your
hostility toward women.

--
_________________
Alric Knebel

http://www.ironeyefortress.com/C-SPAN_loon.html
http://www.ironeyefortress.com

Quoted message said:

That statement you made, made me wonder if anyone has done anaylsis
like the do in economics classes in college. One line for the risk
factors and one line for the benefits. At some point they come
together and thats the optimum. Of course, it should be different for
each person...

agree

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Just wondering where that "optimal" point is on the
exercise/running curve

But what is that a curve of? "All the benefits" is a multivariate
situation, not univariate.

True

And as someone else said each one of us probably has
different optimum points

But I the vertical axis would be cardiac benefits....
and the horizontal one "injuries" or damage to joints,
overuse, etc