Minimum Effective Dose is a thing…

Good lord…Dunning and Kruger were really onto something. I get your point. I have understood your point since your first post.

1) You keep conflating the dose that has any measurable health benefit with the optimal dose.

2) If I bring up a study that says health benefits keep increasing up to as much as 10hrs of running, it is not a valid criticism to say “surely a more modest mileage done consistently is better for health”.

3) Twice now you have gone with some version of “Let me think…who has more credibility? You? Or someone with decades of experience and empirical data”. But, I am not in an argument with Dr Cooper or Dr O’Keefe, I’m in an argument with you. I’d say that neither of us has much credibility given that we are just posters on a running forum. I brought up research that argues against the opinion of Cooper and O’Keefe.

See my previous post. The science is fairly well established that you will continue to benefit from up to 300 minutes per week, and there is no evidence that 300 minutes per week is associated with injuries. Dr. Kenneth Cooper‘s work is dated, badly, so it’s not worth addressing.

Lol do you know who you are talking to my friend?? I'm Khamis the King of RF and EMF! Are you seriously telling an RF and EMF expert that RFs and EMFs cause longer lives and lowers all cause mortality if they exercise?

You didn't even ask me for any caveats? I would offer you that men and women who live in white zones devoid or very few of RFs and EMFs like in the bushlands are engaged in natural exercise (exercise done unconsciously) due to the demands of rural life and living that has nothing to do with fake and conscious high-performance exercise created by vain and corrupt modern world and their institutions! I call that wholesome exercise! So a differentiation needs to be made between the wholesome exercise and the unwholesome one. Unwholesome exercise are those you find modern men and women doing right now in cities----they work a 9 to 5 job or whatever and try to fit in a quick 1hr or 2hr exercise or sporty regime before or after work! Countless stories abound of men and women all over the world who get lung or breast cancers and the like despite being engaged in all sorts of high and low intensity exercises of the unwholesome or 'modern sort. Just 1 enough to debunk the entire statistical model. Bell curves don't work that much with me because I'm an RF and EMF expert. I take it with a pinch of salt. I depend on individual traits and characteristics and the ability to debunk the bell curve.

Remember how they used the bell curve and statistical model to say the COVID vaccine is safe and advantages outweigh the disadvantages? Well, using a different model that is based on RF and EMF theory, the COVID vaccine would find that's disadvantages outweigh its advantages!

There is a time, place and purpose for every activity under heaven but the bell curve is not the time, not the place, not the activity/theory/model to adjudicate about COVID, exercise, high-performance exercise and the like!

If exercise is done right (wholesomely or handsomely), rural men and women still die but they die a painless death and at an older age. If they do happen to die younger and younger, which is increasingly happening, it's not because the laws of physics of RF and EMF has failed them in their environment but because modern vain and corrupt govts and institutions are finally encroaching in their environments by polluting them from afar. Think air pollution that travels across continents, and also think RF and EMF technology both terrestrial and space-based ones blanketing the entire earth and travelling hundreds of kilometers with relays, repeaters, boosters etc causing more anthropogenic electromagnetic frequencies and energies. Under such conditions, you therefore find rural men and women like Daniel Komen possibly dying faster and younger than those in the supposedly more deadly and polluted cities but the cause is entirely due to the actions of the city and its leaders and not those belonging to the once unspoiled natural environment in the rural lands.

You target politicians and statesmen, not rural herders and tribesman! The latter always obeys the laws of physics in the way they eat, sleep, drink, live whereas the former corrupts them and spoil it causing more consequences such a pollution all over the earth that affects the lifespan of even the latter group!

From what I’ve read, isn’t that 300 minutes a week MODERATE exercise, not vigorous. Which for many would be brisk walking, not running ( or even jogging for most).

The official recommendations were 75 minutes of vigorous exercise, and 150 minutes of moderate. From my recollection the recent studies that I presume you are referring to doubled those recommendations. At 150 minutes of vigorous exercise, it would appear that good ol’ Dr Cooper is still not too far off the mark with his advice.

Research? You’ve brought up nothing. Sure…you’ve mentioned it. But cited nothing.
As I mentioned, I could probably cite as much research extolling the virtues of lower volumes with regards to health and mortality, as you could for a higher volume approach.

You've actually thrown way more insults than provided evidence. At least with my mentions of Dr Cooper and Dr O’Keefe I have pointed towards evidence. You haven’t even done that. And despite your claims that the argument is between us, therefore they are not relevant, that seems a bit stupid as both doctors have an opinion that is the same as mine, with research ( however flawed you feel it is) to back it up. Heck Dr O’Keefe was ONE of the people cited in the original article…so tell me again, why is he and his views not relevant?
I think that you are trying to be clever, but failing miserably. If insults are all you can offer at this point, may I suggest that you give up and back away. Surely that is better than posting another emotionally charged response at someone who has dared question your favourite activity, the thing that you clearly base your self worth as a person around?

Thanks, I'm going to take your advice and back away from this argument after this. You constantly misinterpret what I say and try and throw it back at me.

For what it's worth, I only run about 15 miles a week these days and I don't really have a horse in the race. You are mistaking my being triggered by your belligerent trollish stupidity with me being triggered by your actual point.

As a scientist with a passing interest in this literature, my opinion is that there isn't enough evidence to know what the optimal amount of exercise is (never mind what the optimal amount of running). My suspicion is that it will vary a lot based on peoples ability to adapt to the training, which will vary with age, health, genetic predispositions etc. For someone doing nothing, good advice would be to try doing just a little. But, much like other aspects of fitness/health there is likely some benefit in building up to a much higher level while you are young.

I really don't care about the argument but find the back and forth interesting. You really do not know how to rationally argue a point. I hope (for your sake) that you're young and still in school. Otherwise, I hope you work with your hands. :)

I know that was insulting but I think you need to be told that. Something tells me that you do this kind of thing with respect to lots of topics. If so, learn to articulate and argue better. You deserve a C+, at best, in a grade 9 debate class.

Wow….

I was always taught that if you have to throw insults, then you’ve already lost the argument. And here you are leading with one.

Yet you give me a C+?! 🤔

Maybe you and soemcnut should retake your debating classes…

A scientist? Yet not one piece of evidence was cited.

Where did you study?