LOUNGE all new asksnapzu ideasforsnapzu newtribes interesting pics videos funny technology science technews gaming health history worldnews business web research entertainment food living internet socialmedia mobile space sports photography nature animals movies culture travel television finance music celebrities gadgets environment usa crime politics law money justice psychology security cars wtf art google books lifetips bigbrother women apple kids recipes whoa military privacy education facebook medicine computing wildlife design war drugs middleeast diet toplists economy fail violence humor africa microsoft parenting dogs canada neuroscience architecture religion advertising infographics sex journalism disaster software aviation relationships energy booze life japan ukraine newmovies nsa cannabis name Name of the tribe humanrights nasa cute weather gifs discoveries cops futurism football earth dataviz pets guns entrepreneurship fitness android extremeweather fashion insects india northamerica
+5 8 3
Published 3 years ago with 2 Comments
Additional Contributions:

Join the Discussion

  • Auto Tier
  • All
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Post Comment
  • VerteDinde
    +4

    Okay, running tribe-rs, you can call me out on this - in fact, please do! - but I get extremely skeptical of articles like this one that trash distance running without going into detail about what the study was actually measuring. It reminds me of this article: http://www.thinkingnutrition.com.au/broccoli-is-bad-for-you/ I've got no doubt that there are certain health and injury risks associated with being an endurance athlete, but equating a hardcore adventure race to a couch potato seems like a bit much.

    Having said that, I obviously have a strong bias toward running hard and long distances, so I'm hardly an expert. Does anybody have an anecdotal stories or other studies that support this?

Here are some other snaps you may like...