t-and-f: running bad for you? (was street)

From: Geoff Pietsch ... But let me URGE those of you who run real miles: Run on dirt, grass - ANYTHING BUT PAVEMENT! Asphalt is still very hard. I ran on pavement for roughly 45 years (age 14-58), the last 36 of them in Miami where there is little besides pavement. I thought I would run

Re: t-and-f: running bad for you? (was street)

Maybe, but they aren't as likely to be life threatening Bruce Goodchild Boston. I've long thought that it might be well possible to make a case that more people have incurred more longlasting health problems from running than from taking steroids. Flame away! gh

Re: t-and-f: running bad for you? (was street)

I've long thought that it might be well possible to make a case that more people have incurred more longlasting health problems from running than from taking steroids. Flame away! I'm sure gh is right. But at the risk of generating even more flames, I'll say that other than elite athletes

Re: t-and-f: running bad for you? (was street)

Garry says: I've long thought that it might be well possible to make a case that more people have incurred more longlasting health problems from running than from taking steroids. Maybe so. But the health problems caused by running are mostly mechanical, while those caused by steroids are

Re: t-and-f: running bad for you? (was street)

--- ghill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've long thought that it might be well possible to make a case that more people have incurred more longlasting health problems from running than from taking steroids. Flame away! I would agree with folks about the damage to the joints that can occur from

Re: t-and-f: running bad for you? (was street)

Kurt Bray wrote: Garry says: I've long thought that it might be well possible to make a case that more people have incurred more longlasting health problems from running than from taking steroids. Maybe so. But the health problems caused by running are mostly mechanical, while those

Re: t-and-f: running bad for you? (was street)

From: Wayne T. Armbrust [EMAIL PROTECTED] Organization: Computomarx™ Reply-To: Wayne T. Armbrust [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 13:56:55 -0500 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: running bad for you? (was street) Or the services of an undertaker after you suddenly

Re: t-and-f: running bad for you? (was street)

ghill wrote: Or the services of an undertaker after you suddenly drop dead from a previously undiagnosed heart problem. This could be right up there with the shortest books in history: list of track people on whose death certificate the coroner wrote steroids. Got any documentation

Re: t-and-f: running bad for you? (was street)

From: Keith Whitman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Keith Whitman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 11:08:36 -0700 (PDT) To: Track Net [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: running bad for you? (was street) .. Our Primary Care Physician is 80 years old and still runs nearly

Re: t-and-f: running bad for you? (was street)

Maybe you're right although I doubt it but IMHO, those manipulations will make you more productive so you can get even more out of what ever ride lies before you even if that is hoisting a lot of 12 ouncers. No forget IMHO. That is a self-evident truth. Regards, Martin ghill wrote: If you got

Re: t-and-f: running bad for you? (was street)

While I agree that most research on diet and exercise increasing longevity is questionable at best, I have seen one interesting fact about longevity pop up in several good pieces of research. That fact is that the factor which correlates highest with living past 100 years old is people who