Two students are discussing whether running or walking is better for a person's health. Which piece of evidence would best strengthen the argument that running is better for a person's health?(1 point)
A strong piece of evidence advocating that running is better for a person's health could be a scientific study or meta-analysis that has found significant health benefits associated with running compared to walking. For instance:
Evidence from a large-scale epidemiological study showing that people who run regularly have a lower risk of cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, or all-cause mortality than those who only walk.
A citation from such a study might read: "According to a study published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, runners showed a 30-45% reduced risk of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality compared to non-runners, with benefits observed even at low running doses."
Other supportive evidence could include findings that demonstrate running:
- Improves aerobic fitness to a greater extent than walking within the same duration of exercise.
- Leads to greater bone density improvements, which could be especially important in preventing osteoporosis.
- Is more effective for weight management or fat loss due to higher energy expenditure.
- Contributes to improved mental health outcomes, such as reducing the symptoms of depression and anxiety, more so than walking.
Keep in mind that while running may have certain benefits, it is also associated with a higher injury risk compared to walking. Therefore, for a well-rounded argument, the health benefits of running should be weighed against these risks, and the individual health status and goals of a person should also be considered.