[mr_luc]

Bloops -- changed to "a few".

At a leisurely 10 minutes per mile, that's 1.3.. hours of running. Well, overeating by a thousand calories is a lot.

But even assuming you burned 0 other calories, still, the argument holds.

You can, indeed, get thin by exercise.

If one stubbornly insisted on ONLY getting thin by running, and steadfastly refused to take responsibility for what went into one's piehole, STILL -- it would be possible, if perhaps impractical, depending on just how irresponsible one's eating habits were and how much free time they had to exercise.

But plenty of people get up early enough, for instance, to run for an hour. So it's not only doable, but EMINENTLY doable.

[abecedarius]

Your argument assumes invariant appetite and metabolism. Weight regulation is complex; see Gary Taubes's book _Good Calories, Bad Calories_ or this article: http://sethroberts.net/about/whatmakesfoodfattening.pdf

[dkarl]

Running an hour a day is a dicey proposition because of the possibility of injury. I would say it's impossible for the vast majority of people who are overweight, no matter how carefully they worked up to it. You'd have to be skinny, have excellent form, and not have any unfixable pre-existing injuries or weaknesses.

[kscaldef]

running an hour at a 10 minute mile (6 mph) is unlikely to lead to injury.

[dkarl]

Over forty miles per week with no rest days == too much for most people, way too much if you're overweight. Sure, some people do a lot more, but there are always exceptions. Every running trail and running club is disproportionately populated by people who have better resistance to injury. Steady running is one of the most challenging things you can do to your joints. (I find doing fartlek over a given distance a lot easier to recover from than steady running.) Running slowly isn't necessarily better, since a lot of injuries are caused by the up-and-down impact, and there's a limit to the extent you can reduce the up-and-down.

The obvious solution is cross-training, but there aren't many things you can do by yourself that burn calories as well as running.

[dasil003]

Let's not forget the role that Nike has played in this by popularizing the running shoe based on perpetuating the notion that padded soles reduce injury when in fact the effect is the exact opposite.

[kscaldef]

Okay, so first, I'm certainly not saying every sedentary person should hop up and run for an hour tomorrow. I'm saying you can get there in a month or two of reasonable effort.

And, if you'd prefer, get on a bike for an hour instead. It's lower impact, and you'll burn at least as many calories as running.

[dkarl]

Okay, so first, I'm certainly not saying every sedentary person should hop up and run for an hour tomorrow. I'm saying you can get there in a month or two of reasonable effort.

I'm not an expert, but I read what they say. This is way, way out of line with what any experienced running trainer would tell a beginner. Not even a beginner who was, say, an extremely fit swimmer. Definitely not a sedentary beginner. You have to give your connective tissue time to adapt to the peculiar stresses of running. (Plus, beginners are going to have crappy form and inflict more punishment on themselves than necessary.) By the numbers most people use, it would be very aggressive, but possibly reasonable for some people, to ramp up to 42 miles per week in one month from a base of ~29 miles per week or in two months from a base of ~20 miles per week. And that's pretty aggressive. Trying to get to 42 miles per week in two months from a sedentary state would leave basically everybody injured except genetic freaks or people with a previous adaptation to high-mileage running.

If you're starting from a sedentary state with no weight problem or existing injuries, you might start with eight miles per week and ramp up to 42 miles per week over nine months. That's a 10% increase in mileage every other week, and it assumes you don't screw up and get hurt, which many beginners do.

And, if you'd prefer, get on a bike for an hour instead. It's lower impact, and you'll burn at least as many calories as running.

That might be more reasonable (if you can find someplace nearby where you can ride in a fast, sustained way without blowing through stoplights or terrorizing pedestrians.) I don't have personal experience with ramping up bike training (I just ride to work once in a while) but from what I hear it doesn't require as much care as running.

[xiaoma]

Nearly every high school cross-country runner goes from zero to five days a week of running instantly. I built up to over 62 miles and six days of training a week in the first season and I know plenty of others who have done the same. Not only that, but I did the same thing again 15 years later and 60 pounds heavier.

The human body really is designed to run. Most injuries are due to pushing to go too fast. If you keep your heart rate at about 60-70% of max, you'd be surprised how quickly you can ramp up mileage without hurting yourself. The key is to never push yourself so hard that you feel like you couldn't do a workout the next day.

Cycling works almost as well from a cardio-vascular standpoint, too. It's not weight-bearing, though, so it won't help improve your bone density or strengthen your joints like running will. You could probably compensate by doing a bit of weight training. In the end, it comes down to getting off your butt and moving.

[Retric]

"aren't many things you can do by yourself that burn calories as well as running."

All activity's at your aerobic limit burn the same number of calories. You can run, dance, row, weigh lift, or just bail hay, and you will encounter the same limit. It's basically a question of how much oxygen you can absorb though the lungs and dump into your blood stream.

[billroberts]

That's true, but you have to work pretty hard on a bike to get your pulse rate as high as you do by running. (I've done a fair bit of cycling and running over the years). For an inexperienced cyclist, tired leg muscles tend to limit the effort before their heart and lungs do. And it's always tempting to take a rest on the downhills. So I reckon in most cases, you burn significantly fewer calories per hour cycling than you do running. On the other hand most people are capable of cycling for say two hours (if they have time) whereas it takes a lot of training to be able to run for two hours.

[dasil003]

It's also a question of motivation. I'm sure I burn more calories mountain biking given the fact that several times I've gotten to the top of a hill and then puked. I've never pushed myself that hard running.

[bootload]

"... running an hour at a 10 minute mile (6 mph) is unlikely to lead to injury. ..."

Over short distances maybe, but longer distances? Your modern western person isn't even setting enough time to do 20 minutes of exercise per day let alone moving a 10 minute mile. To move this speed for periods of time requires serious effort. As for injury well it depends how far, how long. I know, I've been doing 10Km on a regular basis for 770Km this year across a cross-country course and I'll tell you now, moving at the speed you suggest will cause damage unless you're conditioned, fit and motivated.

[nico]

You can ride a bike instead of running.

[redcap]

Or go for a swim. In fact I'd suggest either of those over pounding your feet against the concrete.

[anamax]

> So it's not only doable, but EMINENTLY doable.

I'll bite - how many hours/week do you run?