Slashdot Mirror


Endocannabinoids Contribute To Runner's High

MTorrice writes: After a nice long bout of aerobic exercise, some people experience what's known as a "runner's high" — a feeling of euphoria coupled with reduced anxiety and a lessened ability to feel pain. For decades, scientists have associated this phenomenon with an increased level in the blood of beta-endorphins, which are opioid peptides thought to elevate mood. Now, German researchers have shown the brain's endocannabinoid system—the same one affected by marijuana's 9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)—may also play a role in producing runner's high, at least in mice.

112 comments

  1. So that's why! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I always have the munchies after a long run!

  2. DEA declares running illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    In a bid to short cut the supply lines of those "runners" getting high, the DEA has announced a maximum speed limit for unpowered human locomotion: 2mph. Those caught in pedestrian speed traps going over the 2mph speed limit will be jailed a minimum of 7 months.

    Kingpins of cartels like the Running Room and gyms will face stiffer penalties due to their "intent to traffic" and could face up to 8 or more years in federal prison.

    1. Re:DEA declares running illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sound legit. I think that I have read about it on The Onion.

    2. Re:DEA declares running illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In a bid to short cut the supply lines of those "runners" getting high, the DEA has announced a maximum speed limit for unpowered human locomotion: 2mph. Those caught in pedestrian speed traps going over the 2mph speed limit will be jailed a minimum of 7 months.

      Kingpins of cartels like the Running Room and gyms will face stiffer penalties due to their "intent to traffic" and could face up to 8 or more years in federal prison.

      This should have been rated Insightful due to the fact it makes just as much sense as outlawing a fucking harmless plant.

      Ironically, treadmills kill more people every year than cannabis ever has.

    3. Re: DEA declares running illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Harmless? Marijuana is linked to higher chances of developing mental disorders and other psychiatric problems. Not to mention the smoke is harmful for our lungs.

      I'll give you that alcohol and tobacco are far worse, but to call it harmless is just as wrong as to call it as dangerous as heroin.

    4. Re: DEA declares running illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Cannabis don't have to be smoked, it can be eaten. Peoples with psychiatric problem are more prone to substance abuse. The 1950 have called and they want their debunked argument back.

    5. Re: DEA declares running illegal by Pax681 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Harmless? Marijuana is linked to higher chances of developing mental disorders and other psychiatric problems. Not to mention the smoke is harmful for our lungs.

      I'll give you that alcohol and tobacco are far worse, but to call it harmless is just as wrong as to call it as dangerous as heroin.

      CBD is a fantastic anti-psychotic and is going under further research. and anything can unlock a genetic predisposition ... alcohol, light... anything can trigger it.. not just cannabis

    6. Re: DEA declares running illegal by king+neckbeard · · Score: 2

      I don't believe the only links to mental illness is that it can, in some cases, cause earlier onset of symptoms in those already predisposed to have schizophrenia.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    7. Re:DEA declares running illegal by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      And a $10 million reward for bringing in Usain Bolt.

    8. Re: DEA declares running illegal by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

      I don't believe the only links to mental illness is that it can, in some cases, cause earlier onset of symptoms in those already predisposed to have schizophrenia.

      And interestingly enough, so can a vegan diet.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    9. Re:DEA declares running illegal by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      Or a White House press release.

    10. Re: DEA declares running illegal by Duckman5 · · Score: 1

      Sources? Seriously. I really want to see that paper. I know some people it might apply to and would like to read/analyze it myself and pass it on if it's true.

    11. Re: DEA declares running illegal by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 3, Informative
      http://www.schizlife.com/the-s...

      http://blogs.psychcentral.com/...

      But where I first heard of th econnection was in a fascinating book written by Mark Vonnegut (son of Kurt) called "The Eden Express". In th elate 60's early 70's, he was living the good hippie life in Western Canada, and went schizophrenic, twice. He was eventually cured - dunno if that was the right word - but he's now a pretty well known pediatrician. But his issues largly stemmed from diet along with a predisposition to the issue. He noted that the cruel aspect of it was that it started by trying to be "good", and not cruel, so eating meat was a bad thing. So he got into a positive feedback loop

      Here's an old article from People magazine 1975 : http://www.people.com/people/a...

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    12. Re: DEA declares running illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Hillary gets in, I wouldn't be shocked to see this headline in a real newspaper.

    13. Re: DEA declares running illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good luck catching that motherfucker without breaking the no running the law yourself!

      If we outlaw running, only outlaws will be able to run.

      Same with guns, yet many a liberal has the "bright" idea to outlaw them.

    14. Re: DEA declares running illegal by elgatozorbas · · Score: 1

      Cannabis don't have to be smoked, it can be eaten. Peoples with psychiatric problem are more prone to substance abuse. The 1950 have called and they want their debunked argument back.

      As much as I would like it to be different, the GP's claim is not unreasonable.

      From the npr.org:
      'There have been nine studies following hundreds to thousands of people for decades looking for a connection between marijuana use and psychosis. All but one of these studies suggest that marijuana use is associated with schizophrenia. Sir Robin Murray, a psychiatrist at King's College in London, says that evidence changed his mind about weed. "Even I, 20 years ago, used to tell patients that cannabis is safe. It's only after you see all the patients that go psychotic that you realize – it's not so safe."'

    15. Re: DEA declares running illegal by elgatozorbas · · Score: 1

      (admittedly, a bit further in the article, it is mentioned that the relation is not neccesarily causal -my bad)

    16. Re: DEA declares running illegal by flopsquad · · Score: 1

      In a bid to short cut the supply lines of those "runners" getting high, the DEA has announced a maximum speed limit for unpowered human locomotion: 2mph. Those caught in pedestrian speed traps going over the 2mph speed limit will be jailed a minimum of 7 months.

      Kingpins of cartels like the Running Room and gyms will face stiffer penalties due to their "intent to traffic" and could face up to 8 or more years in federal prison.

      If Hillary gets in, I wouldn't be shocked to see this headline in a real newspaper.

      I've heard that she's really hitting the addiction theme hard on the campaign trail, but I just can't be arsed to go and look up her detailed platform points on these things. What's her position on actual drug laws, enforcement, decrim/legalization, etc?

      --
      Nothing posted to /. has ever been legal advice, including this.
    17. Re: DEA declares running illegal by flopsquad · · Score: 1

      (admittedly, a bit further in the article, it is mentioned that the relation is not neccesarily causal -my bad)

      Even if it is causal, IIRC it's currently understood to have the potential to trigger (or be one in a combination of triggers) for a psychotic break in people already susceptible to schizophrenia.

      --
      Nothing posted to /. has ever been legal advice, including this.
    18. Re: DEA declares running illegal by Duckman5 · · Score: 1

      Thanks. I'll have a read through the papers this weekend. I'm a bit bummed that some of it's from the 70's and 80's. Doesn't mean that it's invalid, just means that there might be new information because our understanding of genetics and brain pathways has come a LONG way since then. Anyway, it's a starting point and I appreciate it.

    19. Re:DEA declares running illegal by davester666 · · Score: 1

      And both feet must simultaneously be in contact with the ground during each stride when switching from one foot to the other. Otherwise, you also go directly to jail.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    20. Re: DEA declares running illegal by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      (admittedly, a bit further in the article, it is mentioned that the relation is not neccesarily causal -my bad)

      Even if it is causal, IIRC it's currently understood to have the potential to trigger (or be one in a combination of triggers) for a psychotic break in people already susceptible to schizophrenia.

      You can argue the same for psychedelics like LSD, which are generally safe but can also cause disastrous psychotic breakdowns for some people.

      The problem is that we don't know which people are susceptible to schizophrenia in advance.

      So it's a bit like playing Russian Roulette, albeit there are a hundred empty chambers (or whatever) and one bullet.

      The difference with a legal drug like alcohol is that while it undoubtedly causes long term health problems in many people, it rarely produces immediate psychotic breakdown as far as I know.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    21. Re: DEA declares running illegal by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      I suspect a much more causative relationship.

    22. Re: DEA declares running illegal by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      The sad part is that the connection has been known for so long and the US government has continued to push a diet that we know for a fact is highly detrimental.

    23. Re: DEA declares running illegal by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      I suspect a much more causative relationship.

      I don't think it makes you go psychotic, but I think if you are predisposed, it can trigger a break.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  3. Arrested for running by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So how many teenagers in Texas will be locked up for life after going for a run?

    1. Re:Arrested for running by Racemaniac · · Score: 3, Insightful

      All of them naturally, as they're already doing :).
      Why would you run if you don't have anything to hide?

    2. Re:Arrested for running by nucrash · · Score: 2

      Only if they happen to look Latino. Others will only be briefly detained.

      --
      Place something witty here
    3. Re:Arrested for running by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only if they happen to look Latino. Others will only be briefly detained.

      Or black, in which case they'll be dragged behind a pickup truck on a rope.

    4. Re:Arrested for running by ChrisMaple · · Score: 0

      Only if they happen to look Latino.

      In which case, they'll be put on welfare, food stamps, medicare, ... and encouraged to have many children.
      They'll be given driver's licenses which won't be revoked after driving through crowds of pedestrians, and encouraged to vote multiple times.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  4. Hmmm ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So if our brains are hardwired with receptors for this stuff, maybe it's time to actually look at it and evaluate it for what is is instead of this bullshit moralistic prohibition which is there to keep a bunch of religious assholes happy?

    Maybe start by stopping treating marijuana as a narcotic, when in fact it's nothing of the sort?

    The scientific facts have never matched the bullshit claims by the "just say no" crowd, so let's start making some actual evidence-based policy.

    1. Re:Hmmm ... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So if our brains are hardwired with receptors for this stuff, maybe it's time to actually look at it and evaluate it for what is is instead of this bullshit moralistic prohibition which is there to keep a bunch of religious assholes happy?

      Um, Puritanism is the State Religion in the USA. They offer platitudes about separation of Church and State, but all the evidence points in the other direction.

      Puritanism is also considered Satanic by some serious theologists (assuming the premise).

      Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    2. Re:Hmmm ... by dunkelfalke · · Score: 2

      The scientific fact is that most "recreational" drugs attach to certain receptors, which are meant for internal communication only. The euphoria you get from drugs is due to them being in far higher dosage than what the receptors normally expect.

      This abuse leads to desensitisation, making it difficult for drug users to feel good naturally.

      Besides, the argument that the brains are hardwired is kind of stupid. Your stomach is hardwired to be filled with hydrochloric acid, but that doesn't mean you should drink it.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    3. Re:Hmmm ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not all recreational drugs impact feeling good. For example most hallucinogens don't, and only in extreme cases do they seem to be habit forming. I'm sure they were banned because the dirty hippies liked them or some other such nonsense.

    4. Re:Hmmm ... by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      More like due to a possible psychosis. Nobody wants a hallucinogen crazed person starting a shooting spree because that person sees demons around.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    5. Re: Hmmm ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Maybe try reading a newspaper once in your life? We already are.

    6. Re:Hmmm ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've known this dude from college (actually more my brother's friend). There were certain topics (including religion) where he made a very good argument against the recreational drugs he'd been using as a student, and I don't know for how long after that. Not that he meant to. It was just the way he presented his on-topic arguments that made the very persuasive off-topic argument.

      Judging from your above post, given a little bit of time, you'll most probably reach the same level of mastery as this guy.

    7. Re:Hmmm ... by QRDeNameland · · Score: 2

      1967 called....it wants its imaginary LSD horror story propaganda back.

      --
      Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
    8. Re:Hmmm ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Florida called and wants to eat your face.

    9. Re:Hmmm ... by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      And that would be a 'designer drug' that only exists because less harmful drugs are heavily prosecuted.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    10. Re:Hmmm ... by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Um, Puritanism is the State Religion in the USA. They offer platitudes about separation of Church and State, but all the evidence points in the other direction.

      If drugs were illegal in the U.S. merely for puritanical reasons, why would they also be illegal in places like China, North Korea or Vietnam? The religion they all have in common is statism.

      The reason for outlawing them is simple: You belong to the state, and if you're taking illegal drugs, you're not being a productive member of society. If you're selling illegal drugs, you're not contributing to the welfare of the state in the form of taxes. It all goes back to statism. Of course, most statists don't like to admit this.

      Saying this as a pro-legalization Christian who also doesn't like puritanism/legalism/statism...

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    11. Re:Hmmm ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you asserting marijuana is a hallucinogen? Because that's pretty much bullshit.

    12. Re:Hmmm ... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Even LSD was designed. Also, are you asserting the drug would not have otherwise been made? That's silly and illogical to conclude. I say this as a drug user.

      Legalize, tax, spend the saved money on rehabilitation and education. If we couldn't already get drugs we'd not have a drug problem. Legalization isn't going to make people run out and try shooting up heroin. Those who want to already can and that's why we have a "drug problem."

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    13. Re:Hmmm ... by KGIII · · Score: 2

      Maybe you should stop smoking shitty weed or smoke weed before you elect to comment.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      I'll quote the important part:

      "In large enough doses, THC can induce auditory and visual hallucinations."

      Sit down and shut up while the adults talk. Just because you've never enjoyed anything other then brick weed doesn't mean you understand anything. Some of us have been smoking this stuff for longer than you've been alive.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    14. Re:Hmmm ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If someone smokes, or otherwise consumes MJ on a regular basis it is not. Try not smoking, or otherwise consuming, MJ for at least a few months than take a few big 'ol bong rips and get back to us.

    15. Re:Hmmm ... by dj245 · · Score: 1

      Um, Puritanism is the State Religion in the USA. They offer platitudes about separation of Church and State, but all the evidence points in the other direction.

      If drugs were illegal in the U.S. merely for puritanical reasons, why would they also be illegal in places like China, North Korea or Vietnam? The religion they all have in common is statism.

      The reason for outlawing them is simple: You belong to the state, and if you're taking illegal drugs, you're not being a productive member of society. If you're selling illegal drugs, you're not contributing to the welfare of the state in the form of taxes. It all goes back to statism. Of course, most statists don't like to admit this.

      Saying this as a pro-legalization Christian who also doesn't like puritanism/legalism/statism...

      Marijuana is not illegal in North Korea. You can buy weed in the supermarket in most areas of North Korea. It is illegal in Pyongyang only, and the reason for that is primarily because it is seen as "a drug for the lower classes". They also don't want to become known as a marijuana haven. Given all their other reputation issues, they don't want the "Amsterdam" reputation also. Although the only thing they have to worry about is most likely that their weed is very weak.

      Meth is also seen as an acceptable drug in the DPRK and is legal everywhere. It is even frequently given as a gift to influence party/business officials.

      Drugs in the US are mainly illegal for racist reasons. Harr Anslinger is almost singlehandedly responsible for the illegality of weed in the US. Most of the arguments he used are obvious lies, racist arguments, or obvious racist lies.

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    16. Re:Hmmm ... by QRDeNameland · · Score: 1

      Even LSD was designed.

      Not by any definition of 'designed' I'm aware of. Wikipedia says it best:

      "LSD was first synthesized on November 16, 1938 by Swiss chemist Albert Hofmann at the Sandoz Laboratories in Basel, Switzerland as part of a large research program searching for medically useful ergot alkaloid derivatives. LSD's psychedelic properties were discovered 5 years later when Hofmann himself accidentally ingested an unknown quantity of the chemical."

      In other words, it's most noted property was not known at the time it was first synthesized. Not sure how that could be called 'designed'.

      --
      Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
    17. Re:Hmmm ... by QRDeNameland · · Score: 1

      Florida called and wants to eat your face.

      2012 wants its propaganda back, too.

      Again from Wikipedia:

      "While police sources speculated that the use of a street drug like "bath salts" might have been a factor, experts have expressed doubt toward this speculation as toxicology reports were only able to identify marijuana in his system, leaving the ultimate cause of Eugene's behavior to remain unknown."

      Hysterical anti-drug propaganda: scaring Americans stupid since 1914.

      --
      Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
    18. Re:Hmmm ... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Drugs in the US are mainly illegal for racist reasons.

      Yup. Making LSD illegal sure penalized that black guy, Timothy Leary.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    19. Re:Hmmm ... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      They designed the drug to match an already existent behavior much like the designer drugs are created to match (or mimic) existing drugs. I'm not sure how you'd think that's not designed?

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    20. Re:Hmmm ... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Your stomach is hardwired to be filled with hydrochloric acid, but that doesn't mean you should drink it.

      Oh, bollocks...

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    21. Re:Hmmm ... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Even LSD was designed.

      Not by any definition of 'designed' I'm aware of. Wikipedia says it best:

      "LSD was first synthesized on November 16, 1938 by Swiss chemist Albert Hofmann at the Sandoz Laboratories in Basel, Switzerland as part of a large research program searching for medically useful ergot alkaloid derivatives. LSD's psychedelic properties were discovered 5 years later when Hofmann himself accidentally ingested an unknown quantity of the chemical."

      In other words, it's most noted property was not known at the time it was first synthesized. Not sure how that could be called 'designed'.

      Ergot alkaloids were known to produce hallucinations (amongst other less pleasant effects) since the Middle Ages, at least.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    22. Re:Hmmm ... by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      Not all hatred is based on skin color. LSD was banned because it was a favored drug of those "dammed dirty hippies" who were against war.

    23. Re:Hmmm ... by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      Wake-up call! The dude didn't even have any bath salts in his system. He wasn't even high on anything, the dude was just insane.

    24. Re:Hmmm ... by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      Uhh, yes it is. I have hallucinated harder on it than any other drug. It just takes a lot of it before that property has any significant effect.

    25. Re:Hmmm ... by QRDeNameland · · Score: 1

      Source please. If they were looking specifically for psychedelics, why did take 5 years to figure out it had that property in spades and then only by accident?

      Ergotamine had been known as a vasoconstrictor and was used to treat migraines. I've never read a single source about Hofmann's work that indicated he was looking for psychedelics specifically.

      Wait...never mind, the answer is right on the Albert Hofmann Wikipedia page: (Gotta love WP...)

      "While researching lysergic acid derivatives, Hofmann first synthesized LSD on November 16, 1938. The main intention of the synthesis was to obtain a respiratory and circulatory stimulant (an analeptic) with no effects on the uterus in analogy to nikethamide (which is also a diethylamide) by introducing this functional group to lysergic acid. It was set aside for five years, until April 16, 1943, when Hofmann decided to reexamine it. While re-synthesizing LSD, he accidentally touched his hand to his mouth, nose or possibly eye, accidentally ingesting a small amount and fortuitously discovered its powerful effects."

      So I guess if you want to stick by 'designed' to mean 'designed for some completely different purpose for which it was no good but then accidentally discovered to be a powerful entheogen"...umm, yeah OK, but then I'd suggest that perhaps we're speaking different languages, because the intent was clearly not to create a psychedelic.

      --
      Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
    26. Re:Hmmm ... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I get what you mean now and it may be my mistake. Designed means, to me, designed for a purpose (albeit maybe several purposes might become evident) where as the rest would be those remaining in nature or extracted from nature such as those which use opium as their base. I imagine that it is I who has the definition wrong. If so then, my bad. I still don't know why you'd assume the drug wouldn't have been made, we're creative and curious creatures. It may well have still been created even if LSD were available OTC.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    27. Re:Hmmm ... by QRDeNameland · · Score: 1

      Nope, wasn't arguing that at all. My only point was that LSD was to my knowledge, and have now confirmed, a pretty serendipitous discovery.

      But to rant on a bit...in my opinion, most drugs are not really 'designed', and I've always bristled at the term 'designer drugs'. Ask people to name as many 'designer drugs' as they can and I'll bet you 99.99% of the answers will be some form of MDMA (discovered 1912), ketamine (1962), or maybe GHB (1874). There are a handful of drugs out there on the fringe of the party drug market that may be newer than than that, but I hope you get my point. Implicit in the concept of 'designer drugs' is that evil drug lords are just toiling day and night in their secret laboratories trying to come up with that just-right formula to evade the CSA scheduling list, but it's just not reality. The fact is that the pharmaceutical industry pretty much covered the vast majority of that ground by 50 years ago, and the corner of the illicit drug market beyond the 'tried and true' is statistically insignificant.

      Don't get me wrong, I'm not attributing any of that cultural baggage to you...I'm just trying to express where I'm coming from. Do I think that mankind would ever stop looking for a better trip/buzz/what-have-you? No, not at all. But for the most part, they are rarely designed, more like they try every variant that chemistry permits and then determine which ones are interesting. I can't call that 'design' any more than animal/plant breeding or hybridization is 'design'; sure, you may start with objectives in mind, but good luck if your design is to make a cow capable of photosynthesis.

      --
      Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
    28. Re:Hmmm ... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      See, I'd call anything designed to do something as being a designer drug vs. something that was discovered. I'm not sure if that makes any sense or not. But, you know, designed - that's the way I always thought of it. I can't say that I've ever heard anyone actually define it.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  5. Snappy Answers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Avid Runner: "You're such an addict. All you wanna do is get high."

    Avid Pothead: "Touché there, jogging junkie. Touché."

    1. Re:Snappy Answers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I feel like you don't know what touché means...

  6. Mice by Stephen+Chadfield · · Score: 5, Funny

    Mice get runner's high? No wonder they love those little wheels...

  7. "What's the matter with your eyes, boy?" by rmdingler · · Score: 3, Funny

    No sir, officer, just finished the morning run.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

    1. Re:"What's the matter with your eyes, boy?" by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Sorry Sir, you should have a designated driver when you go to the Gym.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    2. Re:"What's the matter with your eyes, boy?" by bobaferret · · Score: 1

      Although your comment made me laugh, sometimes it's not that far from the truth. Trying to drive a car after an hour plus run can be a little dangerous sometimes. You can be all sorts of buzzy and distracted for well over an hour after it. From dehydration to exhaustion, there are all sorts of reasons driving can be a bad idea.

    3. Re:"What's the matter with your eyes, boy?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One time after finishing a strenuous 16 mile hike in the mountains I got back to my car and was driving back on the highway. I was going under the speed limit but not below 45. I was just kind of in a daze and readjusting to city lights. A cop pulled me over thinking that I must be drunk or something because I wasn't driving the speed limit. I told him what was what. Realizing that I wasn't drunk, he let me go and told me to drive carefully.

    4. Re:"What's the matter with your eyes, boy?" by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      One time after finishing a strenuous 16 mile hike in the mountains I got back to my car and was driving back on the highway. I was going under the speed limit but not below 45. I was just kind of in a daze and readjusting to city lights. A cop pulled me over thinking that I must be drunk or something because I wasn't driving the speed limit. I told him what was what. Realizing that I wasn't drunk, he let me go and told me to drive carefully.

      Just because you weren't drunk doesn't mean you weren't driving dangerously.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  8. The argument from environmentalism... by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 3, Funny

    So, if you go for (say) an hour's hard run, you're burning many hundreds of extra calories. That translates into "burning" (converting to carbon dioxide and water) a hundred or more grams of carbohydrate and protein, and/or tens of grams of fats. Worse, you need to replenish that energy with food-grade material, which most often has been farmed, trucked, and packaged, all of which consumes more energy. That one-hour run ends up cranking out hundreds of grams of carbon dioxide.

    If, on the other hand, you simply burn through one medium-sized joint, you're only combusting a few grams of plant material. I'll bet the total CO2 output is less than ten grams.

    Admittedly, there are health benefits to running. But at what cost to the health of the planet?

    1. Re:The argument from environmentalism... by Major+Blud · · Score: 2

      "one medium-sized joint, you're only combusting a few grams of plant material"

      but about 30 minutes later you'll still eat food-grade material that most often has been farmed, trucked, and packaged ;-)

      --
      If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
    2. Re:The argument from environmentalism... by randallman · · Score: 1

      I expected your comment to be modded funny. Smoke a joint to save the environment. I consider myself environmentally conscious, but (if you weren't actually trying to get a laugh) that argument is ridiculous. I'm sure nobody runs just for the high. They run for their health. Telling people they shouldn't run because it's bad for the environment is wack. Probably modded up by obese people because it justifies not exercising.

    3. Re:The argument from environmentalism... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clearly you're not a regular pot smoker because a "medium-sized joint" is NOT a couple of grams. That would be a pretty large joint. At least where it's legal.

    4. Re:The argument from environmentalism... by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

      So, if you go for (say) an hour's hard run, you're burning many hundreds of extra calories.

      Umm... only if your name is Barry Allen or Eobard Thawne..

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    5. Re:The argument from environmentalism... by king+neckbeard · · Score: 2

      Technically, he would be right. A Calorie is 1000 calories.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    6. Re:The argument from environmentalism... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The health benefits of running will save more energy in the long run than if one did not run. The key is to run and smoke in moderation, likely.

    7. Re:The argument from environmentalism... by wasteoid · · Score: 1

      For an even lower carbon footprint, vaporize your material - no combustion at all (if done properly).

    8. Re:The argument from environmentalism... by truck_soccer · · Score: 1

      You're leaving out the energy required to farm and grow the plant. The energy required to manufacture the rolling paper and the adhesive on the rolling paper, including the packaging the papers and marijuana were packaged in (most likely cardboard and plastics). It probably evens out.

    9. Re:The argument from environmentalism... by citylivin · · Score: 1

      You must be high dude. No environmentalist would make that argument. Its a fake argument.

      the weed dealer drives around town burning gas to get the weed to you. the grower uses tonnes of electricity because he has to work indoors. the lighter has butane in it. the papers were harvested from virgin forests... and other stupid arguments. You cant extrapolate down so much, your just making fun of the environmental movement.

      If you were a runner you would know that it makes you a better walker, you are then able to handle public transit without keeling over, which is one of the best ways to cut your own carbon footprint.

      Dont make stupid arguments because then you just look stupid.

      --
      As a potential lottery winner, I totally support tax cuts for the wealthy
    10. Re:The argument from environmentalism... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're telling me in order to save the planet we have to do away with fast food? Now we're going to have to pre-order food months/years in advance so our favorite restaurant can raise the cow that we'll be eating in 2-3 years time?

    11. Re:The argument from environmentalism... by pslytely+psycho · · Score: 1

      "one medium-sized joint, you're only combusting a few grams of plant material."

      No man, that's what The Big Bambu was for!
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bambu

      Only Cheech and Chong's medium sized joints are "a few grams....."

      --
      Donald Trump, on a crusade to make Nixon look respectable
    12. Re:The argument from environmentalism... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Technically, you're both morons. Trained individual typically burn 10-15 kCals/minute while running, so an hour of running for them is typically burning 600 - 900 kCals.

      And yes, I have both the science and data to prove it.

    13. Re: The argument from environmentalism... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You are an idiot. It was a fucking joke.
      Christ sakes you people have no sense of humor. Maybe you need pot.

    14. Re:The argument from environmentalism... by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 1

      "Insightful"? Okay, I'll admit I was kind of nervous that that might happen.

      No, I haven't seen a joint in a long time, so I'm not sure what one actually weighs. I figured it would be more than a gram, counting paper (which is also plant material that gets burned).

      Yes, I was referring to ignorant-American "Calories" (kcal), not one-water-gram-degree-C calories.

      No, I wasn't serious.

    15. Re:The argument from environmentalism... by GNious · · Score: 1

      There's a "semi-recognized" affliction where people are addicted to exercising - they are not so much doing to become/stay healthy, they are doing it become they are compelled to do so, even to a point of it having a negative impact on health, family/relations, work etc.

      (I use "semi-recognized" since it seems to differ quite a bit from country to country)

    16. Re:The argument from environmentalism... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah while I feel a part of me does it to stay healthy, there is a real urge there to. I can start the day in my crappy office job and think about going for a run all day, just wanting to break out into a fast pace. Definitely has an addiction aspect for me beyond health.

    17. Re: The argument from environmentalism... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      It was a fucking joke.

      No, it was a running gag.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    18. Re:The argument from environmentalism... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      So, if you go for (say) an hour's hard run, you're burning many hundreds of extra calories. That translates into "burning" (converting to carbon dioxide and water) a hundred or more grams of carbohydrate and protein, and/or tens of grams of fats. Worse, you need to replenish that energy with food-grade material, which most often has been farmed, trucked, and packaged, all of which consumes more energy. That one-hour run ends up cranking out hundreds of grams of carbon dioxide.

      If, on the other hand, you simply burn through one medium-sized joint, you're only combusting a few grams of plant material. I'll bet the total CO2 output is less than ten grams.

      Admittedly, there are health benefits to running. But at what cost to the health of the planet?

      This is the sort of argument which sounds totally logical when you're high.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  9. Explains a lot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ski day ? Fun.
    Ski Day with a doob on the lift. Better.

    Explains a lot.

  10. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  11. No wonder they are lethargic by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

    Marijuana makes you feel as though you had just completed a marathon. So they say, "whatever. pass the toke. I'm vegging out". And they get the munchies too.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:No wonder they are lethargic by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Marijuana makes you feel as though you had just completed a marathon.

      Marijuana causes you to hurt everywhere and be unable to walk?

      --
      I stole this Sig
    2. Re:No wonder they are lethargic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That or proclaim epic victory over the Persians.

  12. Re:This is slashdot by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

    Don't say that.
    I finished the C25K and wanted to start B210K, but then I took an arrow in the knee.

    --
    "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  13. Re:This is slashdot by PPH · · Score: 1

    And I have the bumper sticker to prove it.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  14. It is a cellular peptide cake by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 2

    With mint frosting.

  15. Re:This is slashdot by Rinikusu · · Score: 1

    I ran track in high school and have done C25k a few times (week 7 is where I stop). Your point still stands, though. If I was going to get a runner's high, i'd have gotten one by now. As it is, my "high" is kinda like the Lament Configuration: I'm just so happy when I stop running because I've stopped running.

    --
    If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
  16. Re:This is slashdot by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    then I took an arrow in the knee.

    Wow. I think there's some confusion here about the meaning of "high."

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  17. Ban school sports! NOW! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    We can't subject our kids to something that is akin to smoking pot! On school premises to boot!

    And they want to make it mandatory! Obama wants to make our kids addicts!

    Thinkofthechildren! Ban sports!

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  18. Get rich off of this by jmcwork · · Score: 1

    Just park a food truck with pizza, Twinkies, and Fritos at the end of any marathon you can find.

  19. Gruesome and sick by meadow · · Score: 0

    Experiments on mammals are gruesome and sick. More important than where you arrive is how you get there. If, in the process of getting there, you violate the sanctity of other beings which deserve freedom just as we do, you will find that everything you thought you have gained you will ultimately lose 100 times over.

    1. Re:Gruesome and sick by ooshna · · Score: 1

      Yeah accept these rats never would have even came into being without science. All lab rats are specially bred. They need control groups or just rats with certain genes or traits.

    2. Re: Gruesome and sick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shut the fucking up, peta loser. Animals are meant for us to use for our benefit - not abuse, but testing is obviously going to result in their death. What is your alternative? All testing be done on humans?

  20. Re:This is slashdot by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

    Nah, I meant that I had to quit running after an unrelated injury. I miss running a lot, though.

    --
    "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  21. Re:This is slashdot by anjrober · · Score: 1

    13 marathons in 5 years, 2 of which were 50 milers, 3 sub 3:00 hours, 5 bostons, 7 bqs, so some running experience...
    but thru it all, still a slashdot reader and a nerd....

  22. Does anyone else remember... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does anyone else remember that shtick from Robin Williams during one of his standup routines some 20+ years ago where he jest about how running gets you high? Good stuff.

  23. Re:This is slashdot by trampel · · Score: 1

    13 marathons in 5 years, 2 of which were 50 milers, 3 sub 3:00 hours, 5 bostons, 7 bqs, so some running experience...
    but thru it all, still a slashdot reader and a nerd....

    Here: 13 marathons in 14 years, most just under 4:00 hours.

    anjrober, it seems our running cred and our Slashdot IDs are aligned.

  24. Re:This is slashdot by Darinbob · · Score: 1

    I used to jog a lot. I NEVER got a runners high. There was no second wind either. Every minute was difficult, and it got more difficult with every passing minute, and the only way to keep going was either to become numb (ie, like those who stumble over the finish line in a daze) or just keep repeating "one more step" over and over. The only high was when it was over you were elated that you could stop.

    But I do think some people get this high. But being humans, they are prone to assuming that everyone else in the world should be exactly like them. Thus if they hear when someone doesn't have a runners high the first instinct is to think the other person must be doing it wrong. Keep at it a few more months they'll say, then you'll be hooked for life. Or they'll apologize and say the first two years are the hardest but it gets better.

  25. Re:This is slashdot by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    I used to jog a lot. I NEVER got a runners high.

    Once you get the hang of it "jogging" can take little more effort than walking, so you're not going to have the same reaction. I can slowly jog or walk for a couple of hours and just feel pleasantly tired afterwards. I'm not knocking it, it's still good for you, and possibly better in the long term as there's less stress on joints (pun intended).

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it