Running is a simple and efficient way to train: all you need is just a pair of good sneakers. It has been shown that running can reduce the risk of developing heart and liver diseases while controlling weight and blood pressure.
A recent study, published in the magazine ‘Progress in Cardiovascular Diseases’ last month, has revealed that people who tend to run are 3 years longer than those who do not practice this type of sport.
Scientific researchers, who have previously conducted research on the benefits of running health, decided to explore whether other forms of exercise.
Such as walking or riding a bicycle, provide the same benefits or whether runners have any special advantages.
They discovered that these forms of exercise have some relevance to life expectancy, but not at the same level as running.
From the studies conducted, experts found that one hour of running a day can be translated into 7 hours added to a man’s life.
Experts recommend that everybody make 4 hours of running a week.
Runners tend to pursue a healthy lifestyle, are not users of tobacco, drink alcohol moderately, etc.
But is running any better than other forms of exercise?
It certainly scores a point for convenience, and it’s uniquely vigorous compared to most other common forms of exercise.
The researchers ran an interesting analysis where they compared running to all other forms of physical activity, by dividing their sample into four groups:
- Inactive non-runners, who failed to get the minimum recommended amount of physical activity each week (which, in the units they used, was 500 MET-min/week, which corresponds roughly to 75 minutes of vigorous exercise).
- Inactive runners, who reported running but whose other forms of physical activity didn’t hit 500 MET-min/week.
- Active non-runners, who hit 500 MET-min/week of physical activity but didn’t do any running.
- Active runners, who ran and also hit 500 MET-min/week of other activities.