HN Books @HNBooksMonth

>Yet being the absurdly self-enthralled species we are, we crowd into arenas and stadiums to marvel at our pathetic physical abilities as if they were something special.

We do?

The larger point being made that we are "born to run" is a more interesting one, though not at all new. If you haven't read it, you should check out the book of the same name, which argues the same position (besides having an excellent story): http://www.amazon.com/Born-Run-Hidden-Superathletes-Greatest...

We win because we ran: http://www.amazon.com/Born-Run-Hidden-Superathletes-Greatest...

On a somewhat related note, if you haven't read it yet, "Born To Run" is a great read.

http://www.amazon.com/Born-Run-Hidden-Superathletes-Greatest...

I'm sure I've said it before, but if you're interested in running I really recommend checking out the book.

http://www.amazon.com/Born-Run-Hidden-Superathletes-Greatest...

⬐ oscardelben

I'm going to check it out. I have heard a lot about this book lately. Thanks for mentioning it

I really recommend that you check out the book Born to Run [1] which examines barefoot running and how we've evolved. It's been a while since I read it, but I believe it even includes a chapter about persistence hunting [2].

1. http://www.amazon.com/Born-Run-Hidden-Superathletes-Greatest...

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistence_hunting

The Tarahumara of Mexico have been getting a lot of play recently specifically because of a book called Born to Run, by Christopher McDougall (http://www.amazon.com/Born-Run-Hidden-Superathletes-Greatest...).

The Tarahumara people have been known in the elite runner/super athlete circles for a few decades yet but it seems that since the book came out everyone has been searching for their own experience with them. They are also somewhat responsible for the recent barefoot running phenomenon.

⬐ oliveoil

I think this was the original barefoot post on hacker news:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1170253/The-...

⬐ alnayyir

I was wondering what started this particular health fad.

Given that there's some legitimate cultural anecdote and biological history behind it, maybe it'll actually work.

⬐ nod

This article IS that book -- I just finished reading it. This article is ripped word-for-word from several sections of that book, with a little stitching together. It's an entertaining book, if a bit rambling.

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...

(if you are not interested, I wager after starting the book you will be :-))

⬐ kingkongrevenge

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

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.

⬐ xiaoma

The largest studies on the subject show strong, dose-dependent benefits from endurance training, including running.

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=733166

⬐ kingkongrevenge

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

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

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

Distance running is one of the most beneficial things you can do for yourself. Racing marathons is also fine, with sufficient training.

⬐ kingkongrevenge

This is all about runners vs non-exercisers. Again, the literature on strength training and sprint work indicates major benefits not gained from long distance running. I doubt there are any distance running health benefits compared to benefits from short distance running and/or walking.

Comparing non-exercisers to marathon runners is irrelevant. I repeat: marathons inflict measurable physiological damage. A fit person who got fit by means other than long distance running would not have this damage.

There is a much greater volume of clinical research oriented around treadmills and distance running in general because it is very easy to quantify and study. This does not by consequence recommend distance running.

⬐ xiaoma

> I doubt there are any distance running health benefits compared to benefits from short distance running and/or walking.

The 32,000 person study in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (1999) I mentioned above found that there are.

Can you refer me to any peer-reviewed research linking sprint training or weight training with equal or greater benefit in any of the health indicators that Paul Williams's found distance running improved? Or any research demonstrating that strength training induces neurogenesis?

If not, then please stop sharing what you personally "doubt" or "suspect" is the case. It's just not constructive.

⬐ None

None

⬐ kingkongrevenge

> found that there are.

I can't see that.

> equal or greater benefit in any of the health indicators

Insulin resistance, for sure.

> strength training induces neurogenesis

What google informs me about neurogenesis is that it's tied to VOmax training, which long distance running is not especially good for. Interval training, a la tabata intervals, is best for that.

I very much suspect the mental benefits from actual sports exceed running. The stimulation from tennis or basketball would surely do your mind more good than pounding pavement.

⬐ timf

This position is the conventional wisdom the book tackles.

⬐ kingkongrevenge

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?

⬐ mrduncan

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