Thursday March 5, 2009
Friday, March 6, 2009
How Tinkering with Inflation Measurements May Have Led to the Current Financial Crisis
by Rodrigue Tremblay <http://www.thenewamericanempire.com/author.html>
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
Mark Twain, (1835 - 1910)
“The Cost of Living [has been] replaced by the Cost of Survival. The old system told you how much you had to increase your income in order to keep buying steak. The new system promised you hamburger, and then dog food, perhaps, after that.”
John Williams, private economist
“The consumer price index is being understated by at least 1 percent per year.”
Bill Gross, professional investor
"... The development of credit derivatives has contributed to the stability of the banking system by allowing banks, especially the largest, systemically important banks, to measure and manage their credit risks more effectively. In particular, the largest banks have found single-name credit default swaps a highly attractive mechanism for reducing exposure concentrations in their loan books...."
Alan Greenspan, Fed Chairman, May 5, 2005
Last February 20th, the U.S. Department Of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics announced that, on a seasonally adjusted basis, the U. S.
Consumer Price Index (CPI)
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Consumer_Price_Index>
increased by 0.3 percent during the month of January. Some independent economists, however, think that the real inflation rate is much higher, possibly as high as 7.52 percent. Why is that so?
The CPI is a measure of how much the price level of a basket of representative consumer goods and services, adjusted for predictable seasonal shifts, is supposed to have varied during a month or a year.
Such a measure has been provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_of_Labor_Statistics> since 1919, covering the period between 1913 and today.
For many people, the CPI is less a measure of inflation than an imperfect measure for adjusting cost of living allowances. It is a technique that plays a central role in computing increases in the Cost Of Living Allowances (COLAs) <http://www.leavingthefolks.com/cost.php>
of various money disbursements, incomes and wages. Some incomes, for example, such as Social Security payments and other entitlements, are statutarily adjusted upwards when the CPI goes up, and such adjustments have a direct influence on one's standard of living.
Economists have long debated the best methods of measuring inflation, especially as it affects the cost of living of various categories of consumers. This is a complex issue that involves statistical methods in calculating price indices, economic principles and notions of social justice. Moreover, not everyone is impacted equally by a rise in the overall level of consumer prices, depending on one's economic and financial situation. For example, for people living in a city and who are renters, a rise in the price of cars or of houses would not have the same predictable effect on them as it would on folks living in a rural area and who own their own homes. And it is not everyone who can deflect the negative impact of a rise in the price of consumer goods on their standard of living by substituting less costly items.
For the period between 1913 and 1982, the formula for measuring consumer inflation in the U. S. was pretty much straightforward. Government statisticians would periodically collect prices in certain identified areas with which the Bureau of Labor Statistics would then construct price indexes. Over time, surveys of consumer expenditures were conducted and the weight of different goods in the index would be adjusted accordingly to reflect people's new buying habits.
In the early 1980s, the Reagan administration feared that the standard CPI index overstated the impact of overall inflation on the cost of living of many recipients of government payments, the most important ones being Social Security outlays. The decision was then made to move away from the objective of having a general consumer price index measuring overall consumer inflation and adopt instead the policy of constructing a cost-of-living index <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_living> that more closely reflected the true impact of inflation on different categories of consumers. That is why, since 1982, the CPI measurements that the Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes relates more to the cost of living, as defined and periodically revised, than to providing accurate information about the level of general inflation. [As a matter of fact, another government agency, the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), has the responsibility to calculate a price deflator for consumption expenditures and other expenditures as part of the National Income and Product Accounts (NIPA).]
Indeed, in the mid-1990s, substantial changes were made to the CPI index which had the net result of lowering the official measure of consumer inflation. First, increases in asset prices, such as in housing, were only indirectly taken into account. For example, the 2002-2006 real estate bubble hardly registered at all in the CPI because only ‘imputed’
home rents for home owners were used in the index. At that time, rents were virtually stagnant in many cities due to overbuilding. Secondly, arbitrary downward adjustments were made in the prices of certain goods to reflect their enhanced quality. It is true that cars, TV sets or cellular phones are more performing today than their alternatives in the past, and this raises people's standard of living. However, such goods cost more, and the higher prices are not fully recorded in the CPI.
Thirdly, and maybe more debatably, in order to concentrate on the impact of price increases on the true cost of living, it was assumed that consumers adjust to higher prices of certain items by substituting relatively less costly goods when relative prices <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_price> change. For instance, buyers would be assumed to switch from steaks to hamburgers or from beef to chicken when the price of steaks or beef increases. Similarly, people would tend to switch from high-priced stores to discount stores when their incomes do not follow inflation. It can also be assumed that such forced substitutions are not without inconveniences or hardships for the consumers, and thus could indicate a lowering in their standard of living. Nevertheless, these modifications that lowered the official measure of the CPI were incorporated into new statistics from 1982 on.
Consequently, it has become somewhat risky to rely on official CPI figures to obtain a true assessment of inflation. Because of all the changes made in the CPI index since 1982, the CPI has become less and less a true measure of consumer inflation, even though it may or may not more closely reflect the true impact of inflation on people's cost of living. For the overall economy, it is fair to assume that the true inflation rate is substantially higher than what is reflected in official CPI announcements, and this has a compounding effect overtime.
For its part, since February 17, 2000, the Fed uses a “core” chain-type price index for personal consumption expenditures (CTPIPCE), <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_consumption_expenditures_price_in
dex> i.e. a price measure for all items less price increases in food
and energy. What is at stake here is the danger that government officials may begin to believe their own official inflation figures which are understated, maybe for good reasons as far as cost of living issues are concerned, but nevertheless severely understated as far as the true inflation rate is concerned. This has the potential for disastrous consequences, not only for the public in correctly judging inflation pressures for investment purposes, but also for public officials in framing policy, especially monetary policy.
The most recent example is provided by the pronouncements that Fed officials made during the crucial 2003-2005 period, when a dangerous housing bubble was building up speed and when financial firms were embarking upon riskier and riskier financial schemes. To a man, Fed officials denied there was any risk of inflation and, contrary to what everybody could see, declared that there was no housing bubble going on.
For instance, on March 1, 2003, the No. 2 man at the Federal Reserve, Fed Gov. Donald Kohn
<http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?guid=%7B0C18F474-BFDB-
43D9-9748-7203914E9448%7D&siteid=google&dist=google> insisted that the extremely low short-term interest rates that the Fed was keeping down had not created a speculative bubble in real estate.
In 2004 and in 2005, Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan <http://www.federalreserve.gov/BoardDocs/Testimony/2004/20040421/default
.htm> himself echoed Mr. Kohn and repeated many times that there was no inflation and that he was in no hurry to raise short-term interest rates from their 46-year low level of 1 percent. In April 2004, for example, in remarks on the economic outlook to the Joint Economic Committee, Greenspan remained unconcerned about inflation, declaring that "as yet, the protracted period of monetary accommodation has not fostered an environment in which broad-based inflation pressures appear to be building", just at a time when the housing bubble was but one year from its final top.
At that time, the old pre-1982 CPI formula, as calculated by private economists, indicated that U.S. consumer inflation was above 8 percent and that a housing bubble and a concomitant stock market bubble were in full swing. Future Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, then a Fed Board member, echoed his mentor in late 2005 by saying that there was no housing bubble
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/26/AR20051
02602255_pf.html> to go bust and that the fact that U.S. house prices were rising four times faster than the economy was "largely [a reflection of] strong economic fundamentals."
But, it is now generally agreed that from 2002 to 2004, the American central bank pursued a monetary policy that was too expansionary and that—plus the lack of government regulation of the derivative market— contributed greatly to create the conditions for a major financial crisis. Let us keep in mind that in 2004, the Fed Chairman was publicly recommending that people buy adjustable rate mortgages (ARMs), <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adjustable_rate_mortgage> especially interest-only adjustable-rate mortgages, and other subprime loans instead of safer fixed rate loans.
As a matter of fact, most economists agree that interest rates should have been raised as early as 2002. But Mr. Greenspan implied later that he was forced to play politics with his monetary policy, when he declared on September 17, 2007, in an interview with the Financial Times, that “raising interest rates sooner and faster would not have been acceptable to the political establishment given the very low [official] rate of inflation”.
There you have it. What is suggested here is that the push to reelect President George W. Bush, in the fall of 2004, may have played an important role in letting the housing bubble become bigger, thus paving the way for a housing bubble burst in 2005-2006. This is, by the way, on top of the confession that Mr. Greenspan made in his Memoirs (The Age of
Turbulence)
<http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/17/a-weekend-with-greenspans-i
raq-war-comment/index.html?ex=1347681600&en=6df508d576520eb2&ei=5088&par
tner=rssnyt&emc=rss> that he had personally lobbied the Bush-Cheney administration in favor of the unprovoked 2003 U.S. war against Iraq, and that consequently, he was personally tied to the overall political agenda of the Bush-Cheney administration.
When the history of this financial and economic crisis is written, it shall be recorded that the Fed and other government agencies, such as the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), did little or nothing to prevent the debt pyramid from reaching the dangerous levels it attained and which is now crashing down, dragging down with it the entire U.S economy and most of the world economies.
Published on Thursday, March 5, 2009 by CommonDreams.org
Iraqi Children Bear the Costs of War
by César Chelala
The great number of Iraqi children affected with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is one of the saddest, and least known, legacies of the Iraq war. That a new clinic for their treatment opened last August in Baghdad is the first of its kind says a lot about how this problem is being addressed. Until now, hundreds of children suffering from PTSD have been treated by Dr. Haider Maliki at the Central Pediatric Teaching Hospital in Baghdad. Hundreds of thousands remain untreated.
Dr. Maliki, who is the only child psychiatrist in the entire country working at a government hospital, hasn't even been trained as a child psychiatrist and only took up the position when he saw the tremendous needs for that kind of professional in the country. It is well known that children are particularly vulnerable to stress, violence, and displacement.
Hardly a week still passes by in Iraq without renewed signs of violence that leave both children and adults with permanent mental scars. Dr. Haithi Al Sady, Dean of the Psychological Research Center at Baghdad University has been studying the effects of PTSD in Iraqi children. According to him, 28 percent of Iraqi children suffer some degree of PTSD, and their numbers are steadily rising. It is easy to see children's psychological status being affected by daily explosions, killings, abductions, threatening noises and turmoil in Iraq's main cities.
PTSD in children can affect their brain and lead to long term effects that will alter their development. Researchers at Stanford University School of Medicine found that children with PTSD were likely to experience a decrease in the size of the brain area known as hippocampus, which is a brain structure important in memory processing and emotion.
Stress sustained over a long period of time is likely to cause more serious effects. More than half a million Iraqi children had been traumatized by conflict, according to a 2003 UNICEF report.
UNICEF states that almost two million children have been displaced from their homes since the last war began. "Iraqi children, already casualties of a quarter of a century of conflict and deprivation, are being caught up in a rapidly worsening humanitarian tragedy, "according to that organization. "Iraqi children are paying far too high a price," stated Roger Wright, UNICEF's Special Representative for Iraq in December of 2007.
Information collected by UNICEF from different sources support his assertion. By the end of 2007, approximately 75,000 children had resorted to living in camps or temporary shelters. Many of the 220,000 displaced children of primary school age had their education interrupted. This is in addition to the estimated 760,000 children already out of primary school in 2006. Hundreds of children held in prison -some as young as nine-years-old- are kept in overcrowded cells and are frequent targets of sexual abuse by prison guards, according to information from current and former child prisoners.
Both the United States and Great Britain are recognized as Iraq's occupying powers, and as such are bound by the Hague and Geneva Conventions that demand that they be responsible not only for maintaining order, but also for responding to the medical needs of the population. Children's mental health is among the most urgent of those needs.
What is now needed is to increase funding to UNICEF and other organization working with children and vulnerable groups in Iraq. New clinics addressing the mental health needs of children should be created. In addition, U.S., British, and other European professionals with experience in working in conflict situations and with PTSD-affected children can give valuable assistance. A generation of Iraqi children has already paid too high a price for this sinister war.
César Chelala, MD, PhD, is a co-winner of an Overseas Press Club of America award. He is also the foreign correspondent for Middle East Times [1] International (Australia).
Health Benefits of White Vegetables
The Record, Bergen County, NJ 03-04-09
Vibrantly colored vegetables often overshadow the paler varieties, which
many people view as nutritional lightweights. It's true that color is
usually a reliable indicator of the nutrients inside, and typically the
brighter the better. Even so, winter white vegetables should not be
discounted. They may lack the vivid hues of squashes, carrots, beets and
broccoli, but white-colored vegetables have many overlooked attributes
that may surprise you. Brush up on your nutritional know-how this week.
TODAY
Cauliflower: It's a tremendous source of vitamin C and contains certain
phytonutrients that may help reduce the risk of cancer. The natural
compounds in cauliflower called glucosinolates have been linked to a
decreased risk of breast, colon, bladder, prostate and lung cancers.
Some studies suggest glucosinolates may also help lower blood pressure.
MONDAY
Celeriac: This ugly duckling relative of celery, often referred to as
celery root, is packed with blood pressure-lowering potassium and is
remarkably high in vitamin K, a nutrient vital for healthy blood. The
knobby, softball-size root vegetable also is a good source of vitamin C,
phosphorus, manganese, vitamin B-6 and fiber. A Swiss study with rats
found that celeriac may help protect against osteoporosis.
TUESDAY
Onions: Onions are one of the best sources of quercetin, a type of
phytonutrient that is rapidly gaining attention for its protective
powers. One Finnish study found that men with higher intakes of
quercetin had a 60 percent lower risk of lung cancer and 20 percent less
diabetes and deaths from heart disease. A Cornell University study
suggests quercetin may help fight Alzheimer's disease by protecting
brain cells from oxidative stress. Onions also have anti-inflammatory
properties that may reduce the severity of symptoms related to
arthritis, asthma and even the flu.
WEDNESDAY
Parsnips: Parsnips are good sources of vitamin C, potassium and folate,
a B vitamin that helps the heart and reduces the risk of certain birth
defects. You'll also find a hefty dose of dietary fiber in these
underrated root vegetables. With a sweet, nutty taste, parsnips are less
starchy than potatoes. You can lighten up your favorite recipe of mashed
spuds by swapping in some steamed parsnips.
THURSDAY
White beans: White navy and Great Northern beans have more fiber than
any other legume. Just one cup provides half your fiber needs for the
day. These anemic-looking legumes also provide the most phosphorus, a
mineral important for strong bones. Like all beans, the white varieties
are good sources of high-quality protein, potassium, folate and fiber,
especially the soluble type that can help lower blood cholesterol
levels.
FRIDAY
Potatoes: The second-most food consumed in the United States (milk is
No. 1) is low in sodium and high in potassium, and has more antioxidants
than carrots or tomatoes. A single potato, with the skin on, has about
100 calories, and is a good source of vitamin C, vitamin B6, folic acid,
beta-carotene and iron.
SATURDAY
Jicama: This Mexican vegetable has many fruit-like qualities -- not just
its apple-like crispness and pear-like flavor, but also its quantity of
vitamin C. Just a half-cup has 40 percent of the daily minimum
requirement. They're also high in fiber, and like celeriac, a Swiss
study found them to be a potential defender against osteoporosis.
Chicago Tribune, Bill Pitcher
http://www.lef.org/news/LefDailyNews.htm?NewsID=7968&Section=Nutrition
Life Extensions March 04, 2009
Selenium added to broccoli compound combats melanoma
Selenium added to broccoli compound combats melanomaIn an article
published in the March, 2009 issue of the journal Clinical Cancer
Research <http://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/> , researchers at
Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine report their finding
of a potent effect of a compound consisting of selenium and
isothiocyanates from cruciferous vegetables such as broccoli against the
potentially deadly cancer known as melanoma.
Previous research conducted by Penn State associate professor of
pharmacology, pathology and dermatology Gavin Robertson and his
colleagues found that isothiocyanates target a protein known as Akt3
which is increased in approximately 70 percent of tumors. Recognizing
that the known cancer fighting ability of isothiocyanates would require
the administration of impractical amounts of the compounds, the team
replaced isothiocyanantes’ sulfur bonds with selenium to create new
compounds called isoselenocyanates. "Selenium deficiency is common in
cancer
<http://www.lef.org/protocols/cancer/alternative_cancer_therapies_01.htm
> patients, including those diagnosed with metastatic melanoma,"
explained Robertson. "Besides, selenium is known to destabilize Akt
proteins in prostate cancer cells."
When mice injected with melanoma cells were treated with isothiocyanates
or isoselenocyanates, animals that received the selenium-containing
compound had approximately 60 percent less tumor development compared
with those that received isothiocyanates. In additional experiments with
human melanoma cell lines, tumor growth was decreased by 30 to 70
percent. "We found that the selenium-enhanced compounds significantly
reduced the production of Akt3 protein and shut down its signaling
network," Dr Robertson stated.
"There are currently no drugs to target the proteins that trigger
melanoma," Dr Robertson noted. "We have developed drugs from naturally
occurring compounds that can inhibit the growth of tumors in mice by 50
to 60 percent with a very low dose."
"We have harnessed something found in nature to target melanoma," he
remarked. "And since we only need tiny amounts to kill the cancer cells,
it means even less toxic side-effects for the patient."
News : Sitting at the Office Desk All Day Creates a Big Fat Problem;
Diabetes Research
The Press 03-04-09
Try not to panic, but the simple act of sitting has just become
dangerous.
Not even 30 minutes at the gym can halt the bloating waistlines of
sedentary office workers, new research shows.
The Australian study, which will appear in the April issue of Diabetes
Care, says damage caused by prolonged sitting could increase the risk of
diabetes and heart disease.
However, occasional standing, with a bit of pacing thrown in, will fight
the fat.
The study measured the intensity of physical activity in 168 subjects
over seven days.
It showed that, regardless of the amount of moderate-to- vigorous
exercise, those who took more breaks from sitting had smaller
waistlines, lower body mass indexes and lower levels of glucose in the
blood.
Researchers said the results proved there were benefits in regularly
interrupting sitting time.
Christchurch fitness instructor Bevan Eyles said workers who were
chained to their desks should stand while making phone calls, sit on a
swiss ball instead of a chair, or remind themselves to sit up straight.
He suggested putting a coloured dot on the computer as a reminder to
improve posture or setting a timer to send you on a lap of the office
every hour.
Ergostyle Ergonomic Solutions business manager Chris Andrew said office
planners were increasingly installing "sit-to-stand" work stations which
could be used as workers felt the need to move.
"Humans were never designed to sit for eight hours a day," Andrew said.
"It creates a risk of permanent discomfort. If you're stooping over a
laptop, breathing can be laboured and it interrupts blood flow.
"Standing, which uses more of the skeletal system, means soft tissue
will function in a normal fashion without the pressure points you might
get from being seated or being seated inappropriately."
In 2006, The Mayo Clinic in America suggested chairless schools might
help fight the obesity epidemic.
Researchers have applied for Australian Government funding for a
two-year study into the impact on productivity and health from prolonged
sitting.
http://www.lef.org/news/LefDailyNews.htm?NewsID=7969&Section=Disease
Obama begins health reform drive with W.House forum
Last Updated: 2009-03-05 9:21:08 -0400 (Reuters Health)
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama takes on healthcare reform
at a White House forum on Thursday, seeking to design an overhaul of a
costly and inefficient system he believes is threatening the U.S.
economy.
Obama, who has nominated Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius as his health
secretary, will gather about 120 people representing everyone from
doctors and patients to health insurers and lawmakers to discuss how to
fix U.S. healthcare.
It's a challenge that has defeated earlier presidents. But officials say
the current U.S. economic crisis only makes it more imperative.
"If we want to create jobs and rebuild our economy, then we must address
the crushing cost of healthcare this year, in this administration,"
Obama said in remarks prepared for the opening of the event.
"Making investments in reform now, investments that will dramatically
lower costs, won't add to our budget deficits in the long-term --
rather, it is one of the best ways to reduce them," he said.
The United States spends approximately $2.5 trillion annually on
healthcare but leaves some 46 million people uninsured and consistently
ranks lower than other Western countries on indicators like infant
mortality rates.
Obama pledged during his election campaign that he would expand health
insurance coverage to virtually all people and find a way to control
costs, which businesses complain are making their products less
competitive in the global markets.
"Our healthcare costs are exploding our economy," said Melody Barnes,
Obama's senior domestic policy adviser. "When he talks about getting
spending under control ... one of the primary things he is focusing on
is bringing our healthcare costs under control."
The president has not presented a specific reform plan to Congress,
seeking to avoid the problems that killed President Bill Clinton's
healthcare effort in the 1990s when his administration presented a long,
detailed plan to lawmakers.
"He isn't sending a bill up to the Hill," said Barnes. "He's articulated
some of the principles that are important to him, but I think he also
strongly believes that to get this done he's going to have to ... be
open, pragmatic and listen and engage with Congress to get a bill done."
'STARTING POINT'
Kenneth Thorpe, director of the Partnership to Fight Chronic Disease,
said healthcare legislation in Congress would likely take the shape of a
white paper issued last year by Max Baucus, chairman of the Senate
Finance Committee.
"That really is the starting point," he said. "It largely reflects
candidate Obama's healthcare reform proposals."
The Baucus plan would require health insurance for all, going a step
further than Obama proposed. But the plan envisions many of the
principles outlined by Obama, including better management of chronic
illnesses, steps to encourage preventive care, insurance reform and
improving healthcare delivery.
Baucus promised this week to "do all I can to make meaningful
comprehensive health reform pass this year."
He said Obama and Congress had already taken important steps to advance
healthcare reform by extending insurance to children of low-income
families and approving an economic stimulus that included $19 billion
for healthcare information technology.
Baucus said Obama's decision to set aside $634 billion for healthcare
reform in his 2010 budget showed the president's "very strong
commitment."
Battle lines already are being drawn, with some Republicans opposing any
move to let the government act as an insurer of last resort in
competition with private insurers.
"If the government is one of the competitors, eventually there are no
competitors left," Representative Roy Blunt, who is leading Republican
healthcare efforts, said this week.
Edmund Haislmaier, a health policy expert for the conservative Heritage
Foundation, said Obama's decision to put $634 billion for healthcare
reform on the table was an error.
"He just told every interest group that 'I'm not really going to reform,
I'm just going to expand,'" Haislmaier said.
http://www.reutershealth.com/archive/2009/03/05/eline/links/20090305elin
007.html
Distance may be key in running's health benefits
Last Updated: 2009-03-04 10:41:00 -0400 (Reuters Health)
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Running is a good way to stay in shape, but
long-distance runs may be particularly effective at keeping high blood
pressure, high cholesterol and diabetes at bay, a study suggests.
The survey, of more than 100,000 male and female runners, found that
those who ran marathons were less likely to be on medication for high
blood pressure, high cholesterol or diabetes.
The odds of needing those medications were related to the number of
marathons a runner participated in each year -- rather than the total
number of miles run per year.
What's more, even among non-marathoners, those who included longer-
distance runs in their routine were less likely to be on medication,
according to findings published in the journal Medicine & Science in
Sports & Exercise.
The results suggest that there is something particularly beneficial
about distance running, said Dr. Paul T. Williams of the Lawrence
Berkeley Laboratory in Berkeley, California.
"Too often, the headlines are about the rare heart attack that occurs
during or immediately after the event," Williams told Reuters Health.
"However, our results show that there appear to be important health
benefits to training for a marathon, and running more marathons."
For the study, Williams used data from a national health study of more
than 107,000 runners. About 30 percent of men and women in the study
said they'd run a marathon in the past five years.
Most study participants were not on any medication for diabetes or
elevated cholesterol or blood pressure. Still, the odds were especially
low among distance runners.
Among men, Williams found, the odds of needing drugs for high blood
pressure or cholesterol declined by about 15 percent for each marathon
run per year -- even with factors such as age, weight and diet
considered. The chances of needing diabetes medication, meanwhile,
dropped by half with each yearly marathon.
Among marathoners and non-marathoners alike, the odds of needing these
medications declined as a runner's longest usual distance increased.
That's good news for runners who may not be up for marathon training.
"The key advantage to marathon training may be the inclusion of longer
runs are part of regular training," Williams explained. "Even among
non-marathon runners, we found that runners who included longer runs
each week had additional health benefits over those that didn't."
SOURCE: Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, March 2009.
http://www.reutershealth.com/archive/2009/03/04/eline/links/20090304elin
003.html
| 
