Can't beat running!

[coyfish]

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).

The prime age for runners is mid 30's. Meaning that across the board you will find more solid runners at that age than any other. Distance running is a very mental sport which a lot of people don't realize.

 

[mike53]

The prime age for runners is mid 30's. Meaning that across the board you will find more solid runners at that age than any other. Distance running is a very mental sport which a lot of people don't realize.

No doubt, but a lot of people start earlier than that so they can have some training under their belt before their prime age for performance.

 

[sn1974]

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.

that's very interesting. but i don't think we've devolved as a species in terms of our basic running abilities.

we are built to run. yes we're too fat and lazy and certain physical defects that would not have survived centuries ago are here now, but it's not like making a golden retriever do jumping jacks.

 

[coyfish]

that's very interesting. but i don't think we've devolved as a species in terms of our basic running abilities.

we are built to run. yes we're too fat and lazy and certain physical defects that would not have survived centuries ago are here now, but it's not like making a golden retriever do jumping jacks.

Im not following. You are contradicting yourself in this statement.

We have "devolved" which, as you stated, is the reason why there are more prevalent bio mechanical abnormalities in the public now a days. The body is an amazing machine but even slightly excess pronation, supination, etc. increases the risk of injury. We are built to run but we haven't had to for centuries. Thus it degenerates . . . just like anything would in a similar circumstance.

Just think about it. The only way natural selection would select for proper running mechanics is if it affected reproduction rates. It doesn't so these malformations have become more common.

I don't think you are understanding what these biomechanical problems are. I am talking about things like pelvic tilts, muscle imbalances, excess pro/supination, etc. Those things won't disable you from running. But they will increase the risk of injury which is a big thing when it comes to long distance running.

 

[heycal]

I guess they must have no memory.

My buddy definitely must remember, since he just started running himself and I think started at a 10 minute mile pace. I know a women in her forties -- looks in much worse shape than me in terms of bodyfat, etc -- and I think she's doing 11 minute miles and didn't start that long ago herself. My daughter says she can do a 7 minute mile, but that's just 1 mile. I'd Like to see her time on 3 miles!

I do believe a 13 minute mile is a pretty slow time for an otherwise basically fit 47 year old. No need to try and cheer me up by pretending otherwise. I'll live Also, I've gotten under 12 minute miles a couple of times this month, so I'm assuming that trend will continue.

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).

Down and out. Jeez... I am getting old, no matter how many young girls I chase, huh?

Also, to me the phrase "starting out" to me generally means sedentary, overweight people who haven't moved a muscle in years and suddenly decide they must change their lifestyle. I've more or less always gone to the gym and done weights every couple of days for the last 20 years or so, did occasional aerobic stuff, never managed to get too big a belly, and do play tennis every chance I get since I took it up regularly almost 5 years ago. I like to think of myself as not quite in the "starting out" camp when it comes to fitness.

 

[mike53]

to me the phrase "starting out" to me generally means sedentary, overweight people who haven't moved a muscle in years and suddenly decide they must change their lifestyle

I totally apologize, I really just meant starting out with running. Because running puts a lot of stress on the whole body and especially the lower extremities, a lot of start up time at lower performance levels helps develop technique and build joint strength for future performance gains.

Also, you have to be careful of other people's self-reported performance. I've been running for 45 years and I still run plenty of 10 minute miles. Mostly because it's fun for me and I don't suffer any negative consequences. I wouldn't be in any hurry to start increasing my times. The important thing is that you're out there doing it.

 

[heycal]

I totally apologize, I really just meant starting out with running.

No need to apologize. I wasn't offended in the least. I don't take any of this stuff too seriously, and will certainly survive the ribbing about my slow pace from buddies, gf's, and wise acre children.

 

[sn1974]

Im not following. You are contradicting yourself in this statement.

We have "devolved" which, as you stated, is the reason why there are more prevalent bio mechanical abnormalities in the public now a days. The body is an amazing machine but even slightly excess pronation, supination, etc. increases the risk of injury. We are built to run but we haven't had to for centuries. Thus it degenerates . . . just like anything would in a similar circumstance.

Just think about it. The only way natural selection would select for proper running mechanics is if it affected reproduction rates. It doesn't so these malformations have become more common.

I don't think you are understanding what these biomechanical problems are. I am talking about things like pelvic tilts, muscle imbalances, excess pro/supination, etc. Those things won't disable you from running. But they will increase the risk of injury which is a big thing when it comes to long distance running.

i'm not sure you are understanding me. i am saying even if we have picked up some physical defects they have not significantly impacted our ability to run long distances.

where is the data to support the notion that all these genetic mutations have made their way into the average person such that they can't run long distances and are more prone to injury? there is very limited evidence that certain physiological traits may be risk factors for injuries (i am not talking aches and pains and soreness but injuries that would prevent you from running).

and even if we accepted that as true, age is the single biggest risk factor when it comes to running injuries. we do break down as we age because we weren't built to live as long as we do. sure, if you're over 40 and your knees give out that sucks. but that has nothing to do with a lack of natural selection. and if you're 30 pounds overweight and your joints cause you problems when you run, well, that's not an issue of natural selection either.

and as to the bigger argument, there is some data out there that suggests that that running does not cause additional injuries people would not have otherwise experienced. and plenty of data that suggests that runners are healthier and more fit than non runners despite any injuries they may sustain as a result of running.

 

[coyfish]

i'm not sure you are understanding me. i am saying even if we have picked up some physical defects they have not significantly impacted our ability to run long distances.

where is the data to support the notion that all these genetic mutations have made their way into the average person such that they can't run long distances and are more prone to injury? there is very limited evidence that certain physiological traits may be risk factors for injuries (i am not talking aches and pains and soreness but injuries that would prevent you from running).

and even if we accepted that as true, age is the single biggest risk factor when it comes to running injuries. we do break down as we age because we weren't built to live as long as we do. sure, if you're over 40 and your knees give out that sucks. but that has nothing to do with a lack of natural selection. and if you're 30 pounds overweight and your joints cause you problems when you run, well, that's not an issue of natural selection either.

and as to the bigger argument, there is some data out there that suggests that that running does not cause additional injuries people would not have otherwise experienced. and plenty of data that suggests that runners are healthier and more fit than non runners despite any injuries they may sustain as a result of running.

you don't understand. They are not mutations. They are deviations from the norm. Every human is built anatomically differently. There is no longer any force of selection acting on our ability to run. Thus people with slight biomechanical abnormalities (like excess pronation or legs that point inward) are just as likely to reproduce as anyone else. Why do you think there is such a market for shoes that correct excess pronation / supination / arch support / insoles etc etc?

Biomechanics is EVERYTHING when it comes to running. That is why good technique is important. People with these problems are often unable to compensate and thus are more likely to incur injury.

Google it. Improper biomechanics = more likely to incur injury. That is fact.

The health benefits of running is not related to what I am saying.

 

[Slazenger07]

All I want to say is...

I HATE RUNNING! unless its after a ball on a tennis court

 

[sn1974]

They are not mutations. They are deviations from the norm.

??? a deviation from the norm is a mutation. at least that's what we learned in genetics.

yeah, biomechanics makes a big difference. but not all biomechanics issues stem from inherent physical traits.

anyway, i'd be interested in seeing the data. all the data i've seen suggests a very, very tenuous link between these "deviations from the norm" and running injuries, if any.

and yes, google, of course. most reliable source out there. especially when it comes to culling fact from myth.

 

[coyfish]

??? a deviation from the norm is a mutation. at least that's what we learned in genetics.

yeah, biomechanics makes a big difference. but not all biomechanics issues stem from inherent physical traits.

anyway, i'd be interested in seeing the data. all the data i've seen suggests a very, very tenuous link between these "deviations from the norm" and running injuries, if any.

and yes, google, of course. most reliable source out there. especially when it comes to culling fact from myth.

Where have you been looking lol. . . This is common knowledge. I never said "all biomechanical issues arise from physical traits." I said biomechanical abnormalities significantly increase the chance of running related injury. Many problems can be corrected naturally or through protective measures (shoes / insoles / etc.) But many problems cannot.

http://www.sportsinjurybulletin.com/archive/biomechanics-running.html

http://www.rice.edu/~jenky/sports/pelvic.biomech.html

There are many many more. It is just common sense. The body is an amazing, but not perfect machine. Deviation from the "normal range" creates increased stress in certain places.

 

[sn1974]

yes, absolutely. bad mechanics can cause injuries. but the biggest risk factor is still age, not bad bio mechanics.

i don't mean to jump all over you (at all). the myth that i don't like seeing perpetuated is that running is tough and hard and dangerous and that it takes some special physical traits to do it.

most people hate running at first because it takes a base amount of conditioning not to feel awful. people hate the feeling of sucking wind and definitely do not like waking up really sore the next day.

so, people see all this stuff about injuries and think -- big relief. that's bad for me anyway.

i also don't like the myth that it's all about buying a shoe or insert. for a small portion of the population this absolutely will make a difference but people get rich telling us why we need to fix things that aren't broken. the average running shoe inherently creates bad bio mechanics and the average shoe sales person will tell everyone that walks through the door that they have some problem that needs fixing.

not discounting that there are some people may have physical traits that make them prone to injury, just saying that's the rare exception and not the rule.

 

[coyfish]

yes, absolutely. bad mechanics can cause injuries. but the biggest risk factor is still age, not bad bio mechanics.

i don't mean to jump all over you (at all). the myth that i don't like seeing perpetuated is that running is tough and hard and dangerous and that it takes some special physical traits to do it.

most people hate running at first because it takes a base amount of conditioning not to feel awful. people hate the feeling of sucking wind and definitely do not like waking up really sore the next day.

so, people see all this stuff about injuries and think -- big relief. that's bad for me anyway.

i also don't like the myth that it's all about buying a shoe or insert. for a small portion of the population this absolutely will make a difference but people get rich telling us why we need to fix things that aren't broken. the average running shoe inherently creates bad bio mechanics and the average shoe sales person will tell everyone that walks through the door that they have some problem that needs fixing.

not discounting that there are some people may have physical traits that make them prone to injury, just saying that's the rare exception and not the rule.

There is a very distinct link between poor biomechanics and injury. You now see that which was my one and only point.

The big problem with running is not "people trying to get rich." It isn't the great salespeople convincing people they have problems. It is ignorance. People can spend 20 minutes and learn a little but they walk into the stores clueless. Thus a 20 year old kid working at food locker who knows nothing about running is giving advise about pronation and recommending a shoe. Oh asics have a good running reputation so I will only purchase asics . . . typical mentality that I see everywhere.

 

[Jfolks259]

I've been looking for a good deal on running shoes and I found this today on Groupon. For $25 you get $50 worth of shoes at Dick Pond! I almost bought a pair last night and now I'm quite happy I waited. Just thought I'd share in case anyone else is looking for new shoes.

http://gr.pn/hOZb8a

 

[matt.flynn60]

that's very interesting. but i don't think we've devolved as a species in terms of our basic running abilities.

we are built to run. yes we're too fat and lazy and certain physical defects that would not have survived centuries ago are here now, but it's not like making a golden retriever do jumping jacks.

I think human body is built to walk. We are rather inefficient runners.

 

[Rorsach]

Started out running 7 weeks ago and i'm following a couch to 5k app. I can't believe how fast you see improvement in your condition. When i started out i could hardly do 1 minute of running before collapsing in a heap, now i'm doing 30 minutes without any problems, just a light bit of sweating at a pace of 5 minutes per kilometer (don't know how that'll hold up when going past the 30 minutes though).
Played a 2-setter last weekend against a friend i hadn't played against since before i started running and it was fun to see him huffing and puffing and near a heart attack afterwards while i walked tall off the court, hardly sweating.

Been playing tennis for 2 years now (i'm 38 years old) and take the bike to work every day (about 20k a day), but running has improved, well, everything really (well stopping with smoking a year ago has helped too). Can't wait to try and lenghten my runs to 60 minutes.