Can't beat running!

[coyfish]

1) Let me get this straight.....sprinting in itself builds muscle?

2) You believe in the so called "Afterburn effect"? I know this is the theory, but I have my doubts (and have read things that call this claim into question).

Running long distance builds muscle just as sprinting does. They stimulate slow / fast fiber development. That is building muscle. If you have never done a workout in your life and do nothing but long distance running for a year. You will build muscle. It doesn't always mean becoming huge. Sprinters develop more explosive / resistance muscle by sprinting alone. You get stronger so you can push yourself harder / faster. Long distance running your muscles become more efficient. You aren't continuously pushing them to their limit like you are sprinting.

And yes I do believe in the afterburn effect. The science (logic) seems sound and I always do cardio with my HR monitor. I used to make diaries and logs but now I just watch it mostly for fun. I don't know what crazy afterburn advocates argue in terms of calories. All I know is that you will burn more calories after your intense sprint workout than you will a steady state run. In the scheme of things I think thats meaningless to the calories you burn while working out.

 

[r2473]

Running long distance builds muscle just as sprinting does.

OK. In the above you seemed to suggest that sprinters muscle mass is mostly due to them just sprinting (you said something about that is why they are so big).

And yes I do believe in the afterburn effect.

I'm on the fence about it, especially in a practical sense. If it does have an effect, my intuition tells me that it is not that big of a deal. Additionally, few people probably do "true" HIIT training and will never really see the benefits anyway (if they really do exist).

 

[heycal]

Its not a fad. Fad's are generally a result of ignorance like no carb diets / sugar busters / etc. Just people willing to pay money to make up for their lack of effort. It's science. Here is how each aspect of cardio works.

Yes, I understand you claim it's not a fad. But of course, all advocates of various fads over the years claimed they were not fads either, and could provide equally plausible and scientific sounding explanations to buttress their point of view.

Additionally, few people probably do "true" HIIT training and will never really see the benefits anyway (if they really do exist).

This was the question I was asking before. Is half a loaf better than none when it comes to HIIT style training, or do you have to go whole hog to get actual benefits?

 

[coyfish]

OK. In the above you seemed to suggest that sprinters muscle mass is mostly due to them just sprinting (you said something about that is why they are so big).



I'm on the fence about it, especially in a practical sense. If it does have an effect, my intuition tells me that it is not that big of a deal. Additionally, few people probably do "true" HIIT training and will never really see the benefits anyway (if they really do exist).

Yeah I believe in it but it doesn't really matter or change anything so I don't think its really worth the effort to dig too deeply. I agree with you about the effort part. True high intensity is something that is very difficult to do. But you can still get the benefits without absolutely killing yourself in a cardio aspect.

 

[coyfish]

Yes, I understand you claim it's not a fad. But of course, all advocates of various fads over the years claimed they were not fads either, and could provide equally plausible and scientific sounding explanations to buttress their point of view.



This was the question I was asking before. Is half a loaf better than none when it comes to HIIT style training, or do you have to go whole hog to get actual benefits?

What fad are you thinking of where that is true? I can't think of any. I can only think of those geared to manipulate the ignorant.

You don't have to look deep into it heycal. The more effort you put in the more calories you burn. Simple as that.

 

[r2473]

This was the question I was asking before. Is half a loaf better than none when it comes to HIIT style training, or do you have to go whole hog to get actual benefits?

My suggestion (and take this for what it is worth) would be to do whatever you can stick with on a consistent basis AND gives you the results you seek.

 

[heycal]

What fad are you thinking of where that is true? I can't think of any. I can only think of those geared to manipulate the ignorant.

You don't have to look deep into it heycal. The more effort you put in the more calories you burn. Simple as that.

Well, I suppose the no carb diet or whatever you referenced before has had advocates who could make a great case for it. My main point is that the understanding of diet and exercise seems to be constantly changing, and what seems like gospel today might prove silly in 20 years. I hope this is not one of those things. ("HIIT: Get fit in only 20 minutes a day!")

My suggestion (and take this for what it is worth) who could be to do whatever you can stick with on a consistent basis AND gives you the results you seek.

Of course.

 

[Kevin T]

Thats the exact attitude that creates so much confusion about running. People always want generalizations and easy answers. What shoe should I buy? What strike should I use? Will running injure me? The truth is its not so simple. I have done undergraduate research about this and have read many of the studies you suggest.

First of all the key thing to understand is everyone is built differently. These barefoot running advocates always point to mexican / african tribes to show how beneficial running barefoot can be. That my friend is evolution in action. These people have been isolated / running for centuries. Thus their gene pools contain a higher % of alleles for better running anatomy. That doesn't mean someone from america can't be built the same. That is simply illustrating that more people in these tribes have builds that are better suited for running than many americans.


That leads me to my next point. What defines a "runner?" Distance running vs recreational running. . . People who run 10 miles a week often have nothing but praise. Its not until you really start running at a high level where the stresses begin having negative effects. Balance is key to life and when you take basically anything to an extreme, it will have negative effects.

Lastly you have to take into account what types of people these studies analyze. On one hand you have the runners (often healthier in every aspect) and on the other you have a typical american. What is a typical american?? OBESE (out of shape / limited exercise / bad diet) !!!! That is the #1 cause for poor joints. They don't exercise and their tissues don't become stronger / rebuild as they do when you run.

In conclusion running, like anything, is all about balance and moderation. There are plenty of alternative methods to strengthen your body and avoid the impact.

I'm still waiting on the studies. And what attitude is creating the confusion? The attitude based on research or the attitude that running= the sky is falling? I'm glad you've done the undergrad research because I've done the graduate research and not talking out of my rear on this one. I also have a family full of PT's and as mentioned, two well-educated PT friends who specialize in sports rehab.

You're the only one here talking about barefoot running. I know it's the latest fad and likely has a place in one's training week but it's not the focus of this argument.

Who here is advocating that everyone go out and run a marathon? The proponents are talking about running to stay in shape and lose weight. We're not training to run Leadville. And since well over 95% of the running population is a casual, not a competetive runner (just like tennis and every other sport out there), the majority aren't logging 100 mile weeks and hampering their immune system.

What subject group would you rather pull from when comparing runners to regular folk? The very skinny or the average American? Who is most representative? Run and be healthier, happier and live longer or be fat and lazy, have a lower quality of life and still have the same or higher risk of joint issues/arthritis? I'll run. By the way, there are numerous studies from Germany, Australia and the UK with similar results and excellent
statistical power. These are very well-done studies at world class research universities.

No one here, particularly me, has ever argued for anything but balance. Running 10 or 12 miles per week is no more likely to ruin your knees than pleasuring oneself will make you go blind or grow hair on your palms.

 

[r2473]

Running 10 or 12 miles per week is no more likely to ruin your knees than pleasuring oneself will make you go blind

I just had to get glasses. Are you sure there isn't a correlation?

 

[WildVolley]

I think that sprinting tends to be more anabolic than distance running, especially for a given calorie intake. However, one of the reasons that sprinters are more bulked these days is due to weightlifting. Sprinters are usually less concerned about carrying more muscle mass in the upper body than distance runners.

From mere observation, the sprinters on my college team were more muscular than the distance runners and spent less time training. The problem with this observation is that sprinting tends to select people who have more fast twitch muscle fiber in the first place.

 

[Kevin T]

I just had to get glasses. Are you sure there isn't a correlation?

I've never seen a double-blind...heyooooo!!! (just a little 'blind' research jargon humor )...study but I'm pretty sure because my vision is great. Maybe Lasik?

 

[Kevin T]

I think that sprinting tends to be more anabolic than distance running, especially for a given calorie intake. However, one of the reasons that sprinters are more bulked these days is due to weightlifting. Sprinters are usually less concerned about carrying more muscle mass in the upper body than distance runners.

From mere observation, the sprinters on my college team were more muscular than the distance runners and spent less time training. The problem with this observation is that sprinting tends to select people who have more fast twitch muscle fiber in the first place.

Bingo. They already have running back/defensive back builds. The sprinters on my college team also trained with the throwing disciplines, meaning they did a lot of squats, power cleans, etc.

 

[OrangeOne]

It's funny, if one sits back and says, at the onset of anything remotely new "hmm, I wonder if this will turn out to be a fad that is later proved untrue", then eventually one will be able to say, of some of the things, that they were right.

It's like the betting system scam. Send out a letter to 1000 people trying to sell your system, and mention in the letter your outside pick for this weekend. Of course, pick a close game, and send 500 letters picking team a, and 500 picking team b. Next week, send 500 letters saying 'look how great my system is, and here is my pick for this weekend'. After three or four weeks, you look like a god to 100 people, and you try and sell your system for $10000 a pop to those people.

Anyways, back to topic, barefoot running is a great idea in theory. It's a better idea, in my humble opinion, if you happen to have spent your whole life barefoot. Which many of us haven't.

 

[coyfish]

I'm still waiting on the studies. And what attitude is creating the confusion? The attitude based on research or the attitude that running= the sky is falling? I'm glad you've done the undergrad research because I've done the graduate research and not talking out of my rear on this one. I also have a family full of PT's and as mentioned, two well-educated PT friends who specialize in sports rehab.

You're the only one here talking about barefoot running. I know it's the latest fad and likely has a place in one's training week but it's not the focus of this argument.

Who here is advocating that everyone go out and run a marathon? The proponents are talking about running to stay in shape and lose weight. We're not training to run Leadville. And since well over 95% of the running population is a casual, not a competetive runner (just like tennis and every other sport out there), the majority aren't logging 100 mile weeks and hampering their immune system.

What subject group would you rather pull from when comparing runners to regular folk? The very skinny or the average American? Who is most representative? Run and be healthier, happier and live longer or be fat and lazy, have a lower quality of life and still have the same or higher risk of joint issues/arthritis? I'll run. By the way, there are numerous studies from Germany, Australia and the UK with similar results and excellent
statistical power. These are very well-done studies at world class research universities.

No one here, particularly me, has ever argued for anything but balance. Running 10 or 12 miles per week is no more likely to ruin your knees than pleasuring oneself will make you go blind or grow hair on your palms.

Oh well if you have done the grad research than you must be right . . .

Another guy mentioned the benefits of barefoot running so I tried to tie that in. The attitude that you seem to be only convinced by studies that yield unquestionable results is unrealistic. When it comes to running that won't happen. People are asking the same questions regarding which foot strike is better or high support vs low support. You can't make universal generalizations like that when it comes to running. Bio-mechanical build, genetics and many other factors play a role. Those with perfect structural balance have a much better chance of avoiding injury . . . but not everyone is perfect which is why you can't make those generalizations.

You never established what you consider "running" in your initial post which is why I brought it up. You can't simply make the generalization that running doesn't create problems without defining what "running" is. You should have said that light running is unlikely to cause problems. Not running in general. Just like you can't say tennis doesn't cause injury when you really mean people playing 3.0 tennis 1-2X a week. You are also assuming that arthritis is the only issue here. Arthritis is caused by so many factors. There are many other overuse injuries both short and long term related to running.

I am not say you are wrong. Im trying to illustrate that its not as simple as you seem to portray. People, like me, get injured running very little and others get away with running 30+ miles a week for decades. Running changed my life when it prevented me from playing D1 soccer. Was devastating dealing with something like that being so young. My mom also suffers from her years of running. Therefore I have seen the bad and the stress that running causes on the body is obvious.

 

[coyfish]

Well, I suppose the no carb diet or whatever you referenced before has had advocates who could make a great case for it. My main point is that the understanding of diet and exercise seems to be constantly changing, and what seems like gospel today might prove silly in 20 years. I hope this is not one of those things. ("HIIT: Get fit in only 20 minutes a day!")



Of course.

No the low carb diet was an already known concept that was taken to an extreme and sold to the masses. Just like so many things in the past. Bodybuilders / experts have known for years to a science what it took to lose fat. Knowledgeable people don't fall for these fads. I would consider p90x a fad right now. People follow that crap like its a religion. Annoys me so much but props to Horton for creating such a brilliant marketing scheme.

 

[Kevin T]

Oh well if you have done the grad research than you must be right . . .

Another guy mentioned the benefits of barefoot running so I tried to tie that in. The attitude that you seem to be only convinced by studies that yield unquestionable results is unrealistic. When it comes to running that won't happen. People are asking the same questions regarding which foot strike is better or high support vs low support. You can't make universal generalizations like that when it comes to running. Bio-mechanical build, genetics and many other factors play a role. Those with perfect structural balance have a much better chance of avoiding injury . . . but not everyone is perfect which is why you can't make those generalizations.

You never established what you consider "running" in your initial post which is why I brought it up. You can't simply make the generalization that running doesn't create problems without defining what "running" is. You should have said that light running is unlikely to cause problems. Not running in general. Just like you can't say tennis doesn't cause injury when you really mean people playing 3.0 tennis 1-2X a week. You are also assuming that arthritis is the only issue here. Arthritis is caused by so many factors. There are many other overuse injuries both short and long term related to running.

I am not say you are wrong. Im trying to illustrate that its not as simple as you seem to portray. People, like me, get injured running very little and others get away with running 30+ miles a week for decades. Running changed my life when it prevented me from playing D1 soccer. Was devastating dealing with something like that being so young. My mom also suffers from her years of running. Therefore I have seen the bad and the stress that running causes on the body is obvious.

I only made the grad school crack to highlight the absurdity of your "undergrad research" comment. I'm "generalizing" that 'most' runners are running a safe amount. Just as 'most' tennis players are playing a safe amount. And I'm not assuming that arthritis is the only issue...the breadth of research has looked at arthritis, joint replacement, quality of life, etc. I'm sorry to hear that running was tough on you and your Mom but you're a two person subject group. Should we tell everyone that tennis is bad for your elbow? That's not true for most people, though it's a pretty common injury. Besides, there's plenty of other sports that can break us down.

http://www.nyssf.org/statistics1998.html

 

[coyfish]

I only made the grad school crack to highlight the absurdity of your "undergrad research" comment. I'm "generalizing" that 'most' runners are running a safe amount. Just as 'most' tennis players are playing a safe amount. And I'm not assuming that arthritis is the only issue...the breadth of research has looked at arthritis, joint replacement, quality of life, etc. I'm sorry to hear that running was tough on you and your Mom but you're a two person subject group. Should we tell everyone that tennis is bad for your elbow? That's not true for most people, though it's a pretty common injury. Besides, there's plenty of other sports that can break us down.

http://www.nyssf.org/statistics1998.html

Why is undergrad research absurd? That helped me get into med school so I doubt its useless. . .

I never said that running will make your knees explode. But the stress on the body is evident and many people respond differently. You said that running IMPROVES the health of ones knees implying that there is basically no risk involved with running. Regardless of your intention that is how you came off.

Im here to say that you can't make that generalization. Just as you can't say tennis improves the health of your arm. Its the same idea. You are stressing the body and there are other ways to get in shape with less risk. Tennis elbow / shoulder injury is way too common to make that type of statement.

 

[Kevin T]

Why is undergrad research absurd? That helped me get into med school so I doubt its useless. . .

I never said that running will make your knees explode. But the stress on the body is evident and many people respond differently. You said that running IMPROVES the health of ones knees implying that there is basically no risk involved with running. Regardless of your intention that is how you came off.

Im here to say that you can't make that generalization. Just as you can't say tennis improves the health of your arm. Its the same idea. You are stressing the body and there are other ways to get in shape with less risk. Tennis elbow / shoulder injury is way too common to make that type of statement.

Is this the same med school teaching you that glucose is a poison?

And also because you said:

"I have done undergraduate research about this and have read many of the studies you suggest." That's fine but it makes you no more an authority than my grad research.

I'm not so sure you have read these studies. The studies show that running strengthens ligaments...the same ligaments that support joints and make them more stable and less likely to experience strains/sprains that damage cartilage. Running improves bone density. Running draws oxygen into and flushes waste out of cartilage, making it thicker and healthier. And note from your reading that the Stanford study used 1000 subjects, including 'healthy' non-runners and runners logging 200-2000 miles per year (quite a range). But the results were consistent. And the runners' mortality rate was 39% lower. I'd say there is good evidence of improving knees, overall health and mortality.

I never said there was no risk. If you go back and read all my posts on this topic, I'm quite moderate and sensible, IMHO. I say run 3-4 days per week, not on consecutive days, preferably on trails/grass/no concrete and mix up the volume/pace/distance/time. Of course runners experience knee, ankle, hip and other injuries. But a blanket statement of "don't run...it's brutal on the body...it destroys knees" is very incorrect. But if you look at the data, cycling, football, basketball and a host of other sports have a far greater incidence of injury than running. Besides, you do triathlons for fun. So why are you still running?

 

[coyfish]

Is this the same med school teaching you that glucose is a poison?

And also because you said:

"I have done undergraduate research about this and have read many of the studies you suggest." That's fine but it makes you no more an authority than my grad research.

I'm not so sure you have read these studies. The studies show that running strengthens ligaments...the same ligaments that support joints and make them more stable and less likely to experience strains/sprains that damage cartilage. Running improves bone density. Running draws oxygen into and flushes waste out of cartilage, making it thicker and healthier. And note from your reading that the Stanford study used 1000 subjects, including 'healthy' non-runners and runners logging 200-2000 miles per year (quite a range). But the results were consistent. And the runners' mortality rate was 39% lower. I'd say there is good evidence of improving knees, overall health and mortality.

I never said there was no risk. Of course runners experience knee, ankle, hip and other injuries. But a blanket statement of "don't run...it's brutal on the body...it destroys knees" is very incorrect. But if you look at the data, cycling, football, basketball and a host of other sports have a far greater incidence of injury than running.

I don't think you even understand what I am saying. I am not denying that running has many health benefits. I agree 100%. In this thread I said running moderately is unlikely to produce stress related injuries. I never told anyone or implied that you should avoid running which for some reason you keep assuming.

I am not talking about other sports and whether or not running is better or worse. I am talking about the direct result of repetitive impact stress on the body. Not the overall benefits of exercise. You can get many of the benefits you listed from other activities that don't require the constant banging of your knees.

Its important to know how they define a typical "healthy" individual. Thats a very broad term. Some studies I saw actually did not include subjects with above average pronation / supination (which is VERY common). There have been studies that conclude that any biomechanical issue increases the risk substantially. While that seems obvious what people don't realize is that perfect mechanics is not all that common. Another issue is that running injuries don't happen overnight. They develop over years of stress which render many studies inconclusive. They only show temporary benefits.

I do triathlons because they are fun (do them with my uncles). I don't run much or train hard for them. Tennis and lifting are what I enjoy the most.

 

[GuyClinch]

boxing or martial arts (training), basketball, squash - those three sports beat the pants of running for fitness and tennis improvement. Not to mention long distance running is like a form of torture...

hell I never knew why we bothered with water boarding..make some dude run long distance till he squeals.. Heh.

 

[EikelBeiter]

I'm planning to run the Berlin Marathon on 26 september.
My training has been poor because of injuries and too much tennis.
I will put tennis on hold for now to focus on running.
I created the scedule below myself. In order to prevent injuries I will do no interval running or strides or anything of the sort. My stamina is good at the moment, but my knees and feet are not. Does anyone have any comments or improvements to my scedule? The 3 columns represent the 3 days i plan to run a week. The rows represent the weeks i have left (14) The numbers are the distances in Kilometres I plan to run each time

6 6 8 (km)
6 6 10
7 7 10
7 7 12
8 8 14
9 9 16
10 10 18
11 11 18
11 11 20
12 12 23
12 12 25
10 10 15
10 10 13
10 5 5

 

[ttwarrior1]

runners are nuts and no its not good for you

 

[r2473]

runners are nuts and no its not good for you

Nuts aren't good for you?

 

[Kevin T]

runners are nuts and no its not good for you

Neither is dating your sister but Kentucky is still keeping it's head above water.

 

[OrangeOne]

I'm planning to run the Berlin Marathon on 26 september.
My training has been poor because of injuries and too much tennis.
I will put tennis on hold for now to focus on running.
I created the scedule below myself. In order to prevent injuries I will do no interval running or strides or anything of the sort. My stamina is good at the moment, but my knees and feet are not. Does anyone have any comments or improvements to my scedule? The 3 columns represent the 3 days i plan to run a week. The rows represent the weeks i have left (14) The numbers are the distances in Kilometres I plan to run each time

6 6 8 (km)
6 6 10
7 7 10
7 7 12
8 8 14
9 9 16
10 10 18
11 11 18
11 11 20
12 12 23
12 12 25
10 10 15
10 10 13
10 5 5

I'm not sure if you're looking for suggestions, and I throw the word 'periodisation' around a lot on here, but if anyone is a perfect candidate, you are.

Over the longer term, you've got it pretty right, and you've thrown a nice taper in at the end too. The only element you've roughly missed is some recovery weeks along the way - it would guide you to step back every 4th week and recover, and then increase in the next week. Google it, have a read, and see if it works for you. It's designed to allow recovery, thus preventing injury, etc... I see you're sorta doing this with holding some numbers the same for two weeks in a row, but have a read about it - you just might tweak things a little.

 

[EikelBeiter]

I'm not sure if you're looking for suggestions, and I throw the word 'periodisation' around a lot on here, but if anyone is a perfect candidate, you are.

Over the longer term, you've got it pretty right, and you've thrown a nice taper in at the end too. The only element you've roughly missed is some recovery weeks along the way - it would guide you to step back every 4th week and recover, and then increase in the next week. Google it, have a read, and see if it works for you. It's designed to allow recovery, thus preventing injury, etc... I see you're sorta doing this with holding some numbers the same for two weeks in a row, but have a read about it - you just might tweak things a little.

Thanks for the suggestion, only problem is I only have 14 weeks until the marathon, so i'm not really sure what would be best, take a step back after 4 weeks or just gradually increase the distance.

 

[goober]

Great for the body its not. Long distance running is an absolute brutal way to get in shape. Our bodies just are not meant to run like that. You might like it mentally but is terrible on our bodies.

I didn't read all the posts, so sorry if you addressed this already...

Do you actually consider jogging 25 miles a week is terrible on a body? That's really not that much running and certainly not going to harm someone espcially if they are running on a soft surface. I have had way more injuries in my years of playing tennis than I ever did when I was running and I trained much harder when I was running.

 

[OrangeOne]

Thanks for the suggestion, only problem is I only have 14 weeks until the marathon, so i'm not really sure what would be best, take a step back after 4 weeks or just gradually increase the distance.

Read up on periodization.

It was essentially created to remove the problems caused by continually increasingly training load (injuries, illnesses etc from lack of recovery), and to optimise results over a training period (by allowing training to be conducted in a step-wise manner, and allowing the body to recover to accept additional training loads).

 

[coyfish]

I didn't read all the posts, so sorry if you addressed this already...

Do you actually consider jogging 25 miles a week is terrible on a body? That's really not that much running and certainly not going to harm someone espcially if they are running on a soft surface. I have had way more injuries in my years of playing tennis than I ever did when I was running and I trained much harder when I was running.

Everyone is different man. That's the take home message. Running creates repetitive stress on the same joints over and over. Obviously the less you do it the less the risk. But many people get injured even with moderate running. Many times injuries take time to develop so you might not even suffer the consequences for a while. It comes down to genetics and biomechanics. Running on a soft surface is a good idea but thats not ideal for many people. You either have to find a nice track you can use, a soccer field, or if you are blessed to have a nature trail.

There are plenty of people who have run thousands of miles without problems. And plenty of injured people with moderate running.

 

[heycal]

It's funny, if one sits back and says, at the onset of anything remotely new "hmm, I wonder if this will turn out to be a fad that is later proved untrue", then eventually one will be able to say, of some of the things, that they were right.

Or one could assume every new thing to come along under the sign is legitimate and supported by research, and they will eventually be able to say, of some of the things, that they were right.

If you were trying to make a meangingful point of some kind, you failed.

 

[goober]

Everyone is different man. That's the take home message. Running creates repetitive stress on the same joints over and over. Obviously the less you do it the less the risk. But many people get injured even with moderate running. Many times injuries take time to develop so you might not even suffer the consequences for a while. It comes down to genetics and biomechanics. Running on a soft surface is a good idea but thats not ideal for many people. You either have to find a nice track you can use, a soccer field, or if you are blessed to have a nature trail.

There are plenty of people who have run thousands of miles without problems. And plenty of injured people with moderate running.

Well if that is your standard, many sports you take seriously put you at risk for repetitive stress injury. I would say the vast majority of people would gain far more than would lose by jogging 25 miles a week. That is only 3.5 miles per day. That is just a light warmup for a lot of people.

 

[albino smurf]

I think stretching after running is critical to not ending up injured. I see hardcore runners that do not stretch that look like crabs the way they walk. Got to keep the hamstrings, and as a result the rest of your core, stretched or it is no good.

 

[OrangeOne]

Got to keep the hamstrings, and as a result the rest of your core, stretched or it is no good.

Umm, Hamstrings yes, 'core' stretching?

I'd be thinking Hip flexors, Calves, ITB, Quads, Adductors.... all well before worrying about 'core'.

Unless you have a different definition than I do....

 

[mb73]

I think stretching after running is critical to not ending up injured. I see hardcore runners that do not stretch that look like crabs the way they walk. Got to keep the hamstrings, and as a result the rest of your core, stretched or it is no good.

I think stretching after running is very good for your muscles and tendons. A lot of people try to stretch before running when their body is not warmed up. This appears to be a frequent cause of injuries to runners. Stretching afterward is recommended by many people these days, and from personal experience I would have to say I feel much better since I started stretching after rather than before my runs.

 

[heycal]

I think stretching after running is very good for your muscles and tendons. A lot of people try to stretch before running when their body is not warmed up. This appears to be a frequent cause of injuries to runners. Stretching afterward is recommended by many people these days, and from personal experience I would have to say I feel much better since I started stretching after rather than before my runs.

Nowadays, I actually run as my warm up for tennis, if you can call my lame pace of 13 minute miles "running", and my lame 3.5 game "tennis". No pre-match streching at all. Just perhaps a mile and half of straight jogging, followed by one lap of backwards or sideways movement. (I'd do more if I could bear it.) No a single stretch of any kind before I play, but some afterwards.

So needless to add, I certainly don't do any strectching before I go out for a 3 mile jog. (Maybe I could play some tennis as my "warm up" for jogging!)

 

[mb73]

Nowadays, I actually run as my warm up for tennis, if you can call my lame pace of 13 minute miles "running", and my lame 3.5 game "tennis". No pre-match streching at all. Just perhaps a mile and half of straight jogging, followed by one lap of backwards or sideways movement. (I'd do more if I could bear it.) No a single stretch of any kind before I play, but some afterwards.

So needless to add, I certainly don't do any strectching before I go out for a 3 mile jog. (Maybe I could play some tennis as my "warm up" for jogging!)

Funny stuff! But seriously, there's no shame in a 13 minute pace. Busting ass the whole way is not enjoyable every time. Sometimes I like to run hard, most of the time I enjoy just barely pushing myself to the point of being out of breath for a few miles or so.

As for your 3.5 game, it would probably beat mine! If I don't get my wrist issues lined out, I will be spending a lot less time on the court.

 

[sn1974]

distance running is the one thing human beings do better than most any other creature on the planet. our bodies are built for distance running. that's we we have bigger butts than monkeys. our big butts (and the other physical attributes that make us good distance runners) and our big brains are part of our evolutionary advantage.

so how can it be unnatural or unhealthy?

http://discovermagazine.com/2006/may/tramps-like-us

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/27/health/27well.html

 

[albino smurf]

Umm, Hamstrings yes, 'core' stretching?

I'd be thinking Hip flexors, Calves, ITB, Quads, Adductors.... all well before worrying about 'core'.

Unless you have a different definition than I do....

psoas, hams and low back muscles... tighten up part and the rest will follow

 

[heycal]

Funny stuff! But seriously, there's no shame in a 13 minute pace.(

If there's no shame in it, how come virtually every man, woman, and child I mention it to seems shocked at how slow I 'run'?

 

[mb73]

If there's no shame in it, how come virtually every man, woman, and child I mention it to seems shocked at how slow I 'run'?

That's because everybody thinks it's easier than it is in reality!

 

[coyfish]

distance running is the one thing human beings do better than most any other creature on the planet. our bodies are built for distance running. that's we we have bigger butts than monkeys. our big butts (and the other physical attributes that make us good distance runners) and our big brains are part of our evolutionary advantage.

so how can it be unnatural or unhealthy?

http://discovermagazine.com/2006/may/tramps-like-us

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/27/health/27well.html

Evolution stop favoring "running genes" a long time ago for most of us. The human body is an amazing machine but unfortunately most of us are not perfect. Small running biomechanical abnormalities greatly increase the risk of injury for many people. Some are more lucky than others. Nobody said it was unnatural or unhealthy.

Many barefoot / natural running advocates point to indigenous tribes such as that in the article you linked. The problem is that they have been isolated / running for centuries. As I have mentioned earlier their gene pools contain a higher % of alleles coding for proper running biomechanics.

 

[OrangeOne]

Evolution stop favoring "running genes" a long time ago for most of us.

Really? I think evolution's too long a bow to draw.

I'd point to lifestyle - a predominately seated, predominately mechanically assisted lifestyle has meant that running becomes more difficult now. But this is only a change from the last 70-150 years - during the period of mechanized assisted transport. Even in the times of horse & cart, humans walked / ran a lot, lot, lot more than they do now.

Add in a change in lifestyle that means food is plentiful, and thus bodyweights are (much) higher than they should be, and the problems are compounded.

I can't see that this period is long enough to change things biomechanically, especially in a period in which we've grown in stature and strength.

Of course, all of the above is mostly relevant to western first-world societies. I'd suggest most of the 2nd/3rd world is still far more adapted to running (as are most babies born in the first world if they live the right life growing up!).

 

[coyfish]

Really? I think evolution's too long a bow to draw.

I'd point to lifestyle - a predominately seated, predominately mechanically assisted lifestyle has meant that running becomes more difficult now. But this is only a change from the last 70-150 years - during the period of mechanized assisted transport. Even in the times of horse & cart, humans walked / ran a lot, lot, lot more than they do now.

Add in a change in lifestyle that means food is plentiful, and thus bodyweights are (much) higher than they should be, and the problems are compounded.

I can't see that this period is long enough to change things biomechanically, especially in a period in which we've grown in stature and strength.

Of course, all of the above is mostly relevant to western first-world societies. I'd suggest most of the 2nd/3rd world is still far more adapted to running (as are most babies born in the first world if they live the right life growing up!).

It is hard to say when exactly "running" no longer became a vital means of transport for humans. That is to say when it no longer affected survival rates. I would argue it is significantly longer than 150 years. They key is when running stopped influencing survival. During the exploration era if you had a gimp leg you were not worse off in terms of survival than anyone else. You wouldn't have to chase an animal to kill it or run from a lion lol.

I think you are looking to a broad definition of evolution. Evolution can happen very rapidly and dramatically. Recent observations have shown radical changes (adaptions) in as short as 20-30 generations in many organisms. Biologists define evolution as a change in the frequency of alleles from gen to gen. So it is not necessarily an external change.

This is not any adaption or "change" to the normal human body. That would, like you said, take a long time. I am saying that humans with slight biomechanical abnormalities have not been selected against so they have flourished.

It is a different story in tribes where running has been vital until today. Of course there are exceptions but it is my belief that they have a better pool of genes in terms of biomechanical structure. Which is why there are so many successful distance runners from Kenya. It isn't because they are superhuman but because most of them have awesome mechanics.

Anyway that is just what I believe take it or leave it.

 

[mike53]

If there's no shame in it, how come virtually every man, woman, and child I mention it to seems shocked at how slow I 'run'?

Because they only have to run in their minds while you have to run on the road.

 

[heycal]

Because they only have to run in their minds while you have to run on the road.

Nah, they are mostly people who currently run or have run in the past and are familiar enough with paces and times to realize 13 minute miles ARE shameful for a healthy, non-overweight or otherwise impaired 47 year old. These include my daughter, my life long best friend, and some chick I was seeing awhile who was only a year younger than me.

 

[OrangeOne]

It is hard to say when exactly "running" no longer became a vital means of transport for humans. That is to say when it no longer affected survival rates. I would argue it is significantly longer than 150 years. They key is when running stopped influencing survival. During the exploration era if you had a gimp leg you were not worse off in terms of survival than anyone else. You wouldn't have to chase an animal to kill it or run from a lion lol.

I think you are looking to a broad definition of evolution. Evolution can happen very rapidly and dramatically. Recent observations have shown radical changes (adaptions) in as short as 20-30 generations in many organisms. Biologists define evolution as a change in the frequency of alleles from gen to gen. So it is not necessarily an external change.

This is not any adaption or "change" to the normal human body. That would, like you said, take a long time. I am saying that humans with slight biomechanical abnormalities have not been selected against so they have flourished.

It is a different story in tribes where running has been vital until today. Of course there are exceptions but it is my belief that they have a better pool of genes in terms of biomechanical structure. Which is why there are so many successful distance runners from Kenya. It isn't because they are superhuman but because most of them have awesome mechanics.

Anyway that is just what I believe take it or leave it.

Interesting reply. It's almost disappointing that we've slowly designed our way out of something natural and healthy. I like the natural selection point, with the prevalence of medication, it's one that will become more and more relevant.

 

[genius24]

My favorite way to stay in shape may very well be the most boring method to most people. I love to run! Never in my younger years did I enjoy getting out and running voluntarily. In the last couple of years I have grown to love the miles on the road. I run 4 days for an average of about 25 miles each week. I would run more, however my risk for injury would likely increase. This would also take some time away from tennis, which would not be good either!

A nice side benefit to running is I get to use this time to think about my game. I get into a good mindset while running that allows me to "solve" little issues in my life, at least mentally. When I am having problems on the court, it is a great help to be able to ponder what I need to do to fix those problems during my runs.

If you haven't tried it, I highly recommend that you try a little slower-paced distance running. Just like everything else, start off with shorter runs and work your way up. It's great for the mind and the body of a tennis lover!

feel the same way. recently feel in love with running. swimming is great as well

 

[mike53]

they are mostly people who currently run or have run in the past and are familiar enough with paces and times

I would have thought that current or former runners, of all people, would be sympathetic to someone starting out, especially at your age. You should feel good about yourself for even doing it at all. And it's an excellent warm up for tennis, I use it myself.

 

[heycal]

I would have thought that current or former runners, of all people, would be sympathetic to someone starting out, especially at your age. You should feel good about yourself for even doing it at all. And it's an excellent warm up for tennis, I use it myself.

It's not like they are mean or unsympathetic -- just shocked and puzzled at how slow I'm going.

"At my age"? OMG! Am I that age already??

 

[mike53]

It's not like they are mean or unsympathetic -- just shocked and puzzled at how slow I'm going.

"At my age"? OMG! Am I that age already??

I guess they must have no memory. My kid is starting out and he barely runs any faster and he's the fastest kid in his class and he can't even run 3 miles. I don't know how fast everyone else was when they started, but I know my first mile wasn't all that fast either. And you will probably improve sooner.

Unfortunately, there just aren't a lot of people over age 40 taking up jogging. I think it's highly commendable, but it's going against the trend (which is mostly down and out).