http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2006/12/14/national/a112559S55.DTL
“William Haskell, professor at the Stanford School of Medicine, says that in general the risk of harm begins to outweigh the benefits for adults after more than an hour a day. Above an hour, it’s questionable whether you’re going to get much more from it, he said.”
only an hour? so my weekly 17 hours is way excessive…
Wait, so increasing volume way too fast can potentially lead to injury? When will this study get published?
This really isn’t a study… its more an opinion by a couple of people. Its just anectdotel by his experience. He doesn’t reference what is the literature or science behind his numbers. We all know training more than 1 hr/day is more than just for fitness.
Sorry I left out the 
for sarcasm. I think the article/opinion is a bit lame.
they are talking about health, not fitness. many people don’t recognize the difference.
Absolutely.
I think the point they are making is we are probably not adding anymore years to our life by working out 20 hours vs. 7 hours, but that probably isn’t our immediate motivation.
It might be useful to differentiate between the reporter and editor who say ’ why not do a piece on the potential risks of overexercise’ and the doctors and researchers who they asked for quotes to give their ‘story’ some life. Not sure the opinions are lame. I suspect a MD from Stanford is quite a smart guy…
Again, agreed. Criticism mainly towards the reporter than the MD - I doubt he thinks this is groundbreaking stuff
Somebody needs to tell that buffoon that more is MORE.