I was going to comment on this post over at Complete Running, but I decided to give it a post all its own.  In his post, Mike Antonucci discused a new study about runner's high.  Mike suggested that the idea of "runner's high" puts too much pressure on runners.  People who expect a high get discouraged when they never reach it.

Like Mike, I think that part of the problem is definition.  Maybe "runner's high" is just a misnomer.  I generally feel better after a run than I did at the beginning.  However, I've had my share of lousy runs where I was grumpy about running when I stepped out the door and just as grumpy about it when I finished.  It doesn't happen a lot, but it does happen.  I can't say that I've ever felt high from even my best runs.

And, really, how is running that different from any pleasurable activity?  I sing in a chorus, and I have days that I don't really feel like going to rehearsal but I generally end up really enjoying myself and feeling better about life in general.  Even with the acknowledged mood-altering properties of music, nobody expects or discusses a "singer's high."  

I was wondering about the history of this idea.  I did some desultory poking around on the 'net, but didn't find anything.  I turned to the ever-handy Oxford English Dictionary, which listed this:

DRAFT ADDITIONS NOVEMBER 2004 

  runner's high n. a feeling of well-being or euphoria resulting from physical exercise, esp. running.