Hot MedFax

Now THIS I find truly depressing. Did you know that you only have to run 1.5 to three miles two or three times a week to be healthy?  So why am I killing myself doing 3-5 miles a DAY every day? Granted, I'm proud of myself that in late middle age (late late?), I'm still able to do this.  Not that I run very fast.  In fact, some people have said, "I've seen you out walking."  As if. I'm a little faster than that.  (But not much.)  I can do two miles in about 22 minutes.  Don't ask about the longer runs. But Gretchen Reynolds wrote in the New York Times this week that all you need to stay healthy is that meager amount I mentioned in the beginning. She says the maximum benefits of running "occur at quite low doses," she says. I have to admit I was proud when an ER doctor (yes, another fall from running) asked if I had any heart problems because my pulse was so slow.  (Me and Lance Armstrong!  We have the same beats per minute of our he...

Here I was, killing myself to run a 10-minute mile, and now, new research is saying the slower you jog , the longer you live. We've all been taken in by the idea that the more intense exercise is, the better it is for us.  But this new study, according to The New York Times, has found that "slow runners come out ahead." Gretchen Reynolds writes that the ideal amount of running for someone who wants to live a long and healthy life is less than most of us might expect, according to this study, which also suggests that people can overdo strenuous exercise and potentially shorten their lives.  So, what's the deal? There is increasing consensus among physicians and exercise scientists that people should exercise intensely at least sometimes, she points out. Past studies have found , for instance, that walkers who move at a brisk pace tend to live longer than those who stroll, even if they cover about the same distance. A similar study with cyclists came up w...

It's the greatest news I've heard in a while. Jogging keeps you young. But then I read the article through and sure enough, it was a bit of a come-on.  Turns out that  those who run at least 30 minutes, three times a week were less likely to experience age-related physical decline in " walking efficiency" than those who simply walked. Big deal. Though, I suppose, when I'm 80, that will mean a lot.   “What we found is that older adults who regularly participate in high aerobic activities—running in particular—have what we call a lower metabolic cost of walking than older, sedentary adults. In fact, their metabolic cost of walking is similar to young adults in their 20s,” said Justus Ortega, a Kinesiology Professor at Humboldt State and director of HSU’s Biomechanics Lab.  Now that, I'll buy. But here's the kicker. Decline in walking ability is a key predictor of morbidity in older adults. I've been jogging for over 30 years, most...

At one time, I could do it. Run a 10-minute mile that is.  (Once, in a 5K, I even ran an eight-minute mile!). But today my best is about 11 or 12 minutes, unless I'm running at the gym. Which is bad news, because, according to Gretchen Reynolds at The New York Times, " B ones should be jarred, for their own good. Past experiments have definitively established that subjecting bones to abrupt stress prompts them to add mass or at least reduces their loss of mass as people age." What hasn't been known is just how much force is required.  And the really bad news is that, it's a lot. (I can't help thinking about the resident who told me, when I broke my wrist in December, "If you were younger, you wouldn't have broken it.") Reynolds reports that  research showed that running a 10-minute mile or jumping up onto and down from a box at least 15 inches high was needed to produce forces great enough to rebuild bone. "The significance of these...