You might have very low standards for being out of shape.

Actually, I think Iowa State did a study and found that it's actually not healthy to run more than around ~5K at a time. Long distance runs eventually lead to no health benefits and if anything are detrimental to almost every part of your body. Our ancestors likely walked long distances, but didn't run that distance. There's no need to run while gathering, or while farming, only while hunting and even then we developed tools to not have to even do that.

Their findings were considerably more equivocal than you make out; certainly "actually not healthy to run more than around ~5K at a time" doesn't seem be something that their study is even equipped to discuss.

https://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(16)...

Things start to look rough for the highest quintile and especially the top 2 'tertiles of the top quintile' (I know, a weird subdivision here). But we're talking about 24 miles in a week and maybe 5+ sessions... pretty far removed from evidence that you shouldn't ever run more than 5K.

I don't have a horse in this race but there's a lot of broscience drifting around this area with the general message being that any kind of slow distance training will turn you into a pencil-necked dweeb with bad health and a shocking hormone profile.

Most 5K training programs have you running about ~18 miles a week. A full marathon is 26.2 miles in a DAY. That's quite a difference. If you ran every day with no rest days, for 24 miles a week (per your post)...that's almost a 5K a day. I never said that was a definitive number. Hence the "~." There are other studies that back up this idea.

As for your last sentence...no one here said anything about that. No one even said it would cause "bad health" to run a full marathon. However, when you run long distances, it has tremendous effects on parts of your body that are prone to injury and strain. Women long distance runners even have fertility problems. The human body was not meant to run long distances as the person I was replying to suggested. It's not "healthy" when contrasted with lower distances. Running itself is good.

Bear in mind that a few thousand years ago it was pretty unusual to get to be 50, 70 was considered a top bound (three score years and 10) and 80 was extreme old age.

I know that many people will say... but but there were old people and the stats are very skewed by infant mortality, but the fact is that mortality was high in every cohort when compared with now which made living into late middle age unusual.

Key difference is that people are now trying to break records and timing themselves.

Anyone can complete a marathon. But completing it in a good time is hard.

> if you roll back the clock more than a couple thousand years. Long distance running is a core competency of humanity -

Hasn't this been debunked?

I think if the parent knew it to be debunked, they certainly wouldn't have made that claim.

This was a fact (AFAIK) that I was aware of before as well. A quick Googling provides large amounts of resources suggesting it's true.

Article in Nature: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/11/041123163757.h...

NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/27/health/27well.html

Harvard: https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2007/04/humans-hot-sw...

And, again, many more from a quick Googling.

Ok. Sorry my bad. not sure why I thought it was debunked, prbly listening to too much joe rogan garbage :D.

Edit: Ok found where I read it

http://running.competitor.com/2014/01/injury-prevention/are-...