So much for running

[smiley74]

Well, I have been running 3 miles about 3 or 4 times a week at 9:00 to 9:30 pace as a relatively new runner. Not blazing but pretty darn good for a getting back into shape person! I thought I was in decent shape.

However, after trying to play soccer again (my true sport) I realized I was in pathetic shape. I was shocked to realize that soccer will get me in shape faster than straight road running. I guess it's all the starting, stopping, and having to play the minutes.

So, after this discovery, soccer is back in, along with the plyometric work I just started, and straight running is out!

I think I am going to dump the weight training too in favor of plyometrics. Man, that stuff is so brutal. Kicks my aerse but I know it will get me into shape...:shock: What are your thoughts on this? Anyone else do plyometrics versus weight training?

I never really noticed my condition playing tennis before (I have only been playing for 3 months) because not too sound cocky but I am all set in the athletic department! Even out of shape, I can still cover court, baby! LOL Plus, when you are a 3.0 it's not like you have these really long rallies! Most of the time neither of us break a sweat because points are over in 10 seconds! hahaha

Anyone else have similar discoveries?

I know that as I seek to improve my strokes I need to improve my fitness. I am sure at some point down the line, whataver level that is, fitness will start to be a factor. Just curious..what level is that! LOL I am thinking 4.0....

 

[Sanyi]

when you are in competition chasing after a ball, you'll be 1,000 times more motivated than if you're running alone and watching your watch for your heartbeat. At least I am!

I joined a soccer league but I don't want it to be too serious so I choose a co-ed league. Much to my surprise, the girls are way cuter than I thought they'd be! Win-win

 

[Oxford]

Those starts and stops after long sprints in soccer are brutal. Go for it. It's a different kinda conditioning you will get. Nothing like spiking your HR in 40 beat lumps in 20 seconds.

I played on an arena team for years. We won all the championships!! but what a work out. Had night games. I could not fall asleep till about 3 am after a game.

Have fun

ox

 

[Cindysphinx]

What is plyometrics?

I found the exertion required even for 2.5 singles to be tiring. Part of it is that adrenalin and nerves kick in and mental stress, which cause fatigue I don't feel when no one is keeping score.

Also, all the knee bending required to hit correctly as well as the constant shifting back and forth in the service box for doubles or the effort to close the net wears on you over the course of two hours.

Me, I do distance running, hills, sprints, free weights, Pilates-type stuff, ab work and free weights. A sick amount of lunges and other stuff to build the quads/hams. Soccer and similar sports would be great, I imagine. I would just worry that I would hurt my knees, is all.

 

[Zets147]

What is plyometrics?

I found the exertion required even for 2.5 singles to be tiring. Part of it is that adrenalin and nerves kick in and mental stress, which cause fatigue I don't feel when no one is keeping score.

Also, all the knee bending required to hit correctly as well as the constant shifting back and forth in the service box for doubles or the effort to close the net wears on you over the course of two hours.

Me, I do distance running, hills, sprints, free weights, Pilates-type stuff, ab work and free weights. A sick amount of lunges and other stuff to build the quads/hams. Soccer and similar sports would be great, I imagine. I would just worry that I would hurt my knees, is all.

what kind of demons do you play with Cindy?
2.5 players should not tire anybody out.
You might get tired from bending over and picking up the balls.

 

[Cindysphinx]

what kind of demons do you play with Cindy?
2.5 players should not tire anybody out.
You might get tired from bending over and picking up the balls.

Oh, I remember 2.5 singles. The strokes weren't good. It was some butt-ugly tennis. But they were Moonball Push-fests From Hell in stifling indoor tennis facilities. Just running from one moonball-up-the-middle to the next is tiring, and the matches often took quite a long time because no one can finish a point. The funny thing is that the shots were so bloody unpredictable that you had to scramble to retrieve them. Run from baseline to net for short ball, push it back up the middle, backpedal to baseline. For two hours.

I remember flying from the East Coast to Denver to play a tournament there (and visit family). I played three 2.5 singles matches. I thought I was going to stroke out on the court because of the endless running around in that thin air. And still I couldn't do anything to shorten the points! Playing a 4.0 would have been much less exhausting, because all the running in the world wouldn't have achieved a thing.

 

[stormholloway]

Long distance running is really very low on the totem pole of fitness exercises for me. If you're going to run then sprint. Running mile after mile is tedious and taxing on the body in my opinion.

All I've been doing is lifting weights and it's had a tremendous fat burning effect on me. I toss in the occasional spin class.

 

[Ano]

What is plyometrics?

I found the exertion required even for 2.5 singles to be tiring. Part of it is that adrenalin and nerves kick in and mental stress, which cause fatigue I don't feel when no one is keeping score.

Also, all the knee bending required to hit correctly as well as the constant shifting back and forth in the service box for doubles or the effort to close the net wears on you over the course of two hours.

Me, I do distance running, hills, sprints, free weights, Pilates-type stuff, ab work and free weights. A sick amount of lunges and other stuff to build the quads/hams. Soccer and similar sports would be great, I imagine. I would just worry that I would hurt my knees, is all.

Plyometric training is also known as "shock training."

It was developed by Yuri Verkhoshansky in 1977. The objective of this method is to increase concentric power and force output by stimulating the muscles and reflexes via a "shock stretching" action preceding the overcoming portion of the movement.

This is accomplished by dropping from a certain height (typically 0.4m to 0.7m, although heights of up to 1.1m have been used by very advanced athletes) to elicit a powerful stretch activation, then jumping up as high as possible immediately upon landing (or projecting yourself in the air in the case of a depth push-up).

It's been established in both Eastern and Western studies that depth jumping, or shock training, can significantly increase power production and vertical jump height.

Beware : plyometric is an advanced form of training.

Enough information?

 

[Ano]

Long distance running is really very low on the totem pole of fitness exercises for me. If you're going to run then sprint. Running mile after mile is tedious and taxing on the body in my opinion.

All I've been doing is lifting weights and it's had a tremendous fat burning effect on me. I toss in the occasional spin class.

One more thing that we agree.

 

[Cindysphinx]

Oh, hey. Apparently I've been doing plyometrics without even knowing it.

In our class, we often do "frog jumps." You get into a deep squat and then blast yourself into the air. Repeatedly. 20-30 times. It is outrageously taxing, especially if it comes at the end of a long leg workout.

We don't do any leaping off of things. Yikes.

I don't mind a long run. It's helpful for weight control, and that's important. Gotta have my Ipod or I die of boredom, though. It's fun to try to keep pace with the music.

 

[Ano]

Oh, hey. Apparently I've been doing plyometrics without even knowing it.

In our class, we often do "frog jumps." You get into a deep squat and then blast yourself into the air. Repeatedly. 20-30 times. It is outrageously taxing, especially if it comes at the end of a long leg workout.

We don't do any leaping off of things. Yikes.

I don't mind a long run. It's helpful for weight control, and that's important. Gotta have my Ipod or I die of boredom, though. It's fun to try to keep pace with the music.

Well, if you don't want to put your knees at risk, stop doing long distance running.

I've said this before and I will say it again. Most women should NOT run long distance . If you insist to run long distance, prepare your body for it.

The OP called me nuts because of that.

If you don't trust me, read the article in this link.

http://www.musclewithattitude.com/readArticle.do?id=1784089&cr=

The author is a woman and an endurance athlete. She is also a certified strength and conditioning specialist. She knows a lot more about woman than me.

Good luck.

 

[Zets147]

Keep up the good work, sir. I think your contributions to this forum are very helpful to us all.

 

[Ano]

Ano, I think you have a mistake in your last post.

Most women should not run long distance.

Just a heads up. Keep up the good work. I think your contributions to this forum are very helpful to us all.

Yup. Thanks for the correction. I will edit that post.

 

[OrangeOne]

I realized I was in pathetic shape.

...

I think I am going to dump the weight training too in favor of plyometrics. Man, that stuff is so brutal. Kicks my aerse but I know it will get me into shape...:shock: What are your thoughts on this? Anyone else do plyometrics versus weight training?

The two sentences above in bold are are odds with one another. Plyometric training should only be done by those in shape (and injury free, and under the guidance of a skilled trainer!).

It's also flawed thinking to treat plyometrics as a way to get back into shape. Plyo's should be done by those who are very fit and are looking to add a few percent - think of it as getting from 95% to 99% fitness, not from 70% to 85%.

Sure, do all forms of running, sprinting, etc etc to get you back in shape, but don't do plyo's until you're in shape, not carrying any additional weight, and very conditioned as a whole. (And as I say above, find someone to teach you if you haven't already).

 

[Chauvalito]

Well, I have been running 3 miles about 3 or 4 times a week at 9:00 to 9:30 pace as a relatively new runner. Not blazing but pretty darn good for a getting back into shape person! I thought I was in decent shape.

However, after trying to play soccer again (my true sport) I realized I was in pathetic shape. I was shocked to realize that soccer will get me in shape faster than straight road running. I guess it's all the starting, stopping, and having to play the minutes.

So, after this discovery, soccer is back in, along with the plyometric work I just started, and straight running is out!

I think I am going to dump the weight training too in favor of plyometrics. Man, that stuff is so brutal. Kicks my aerse but I know it will get me into shape...:shock: What are your thoughts on this? Anyone else do plyometrics versus weight training?

I never really noticed my condition playing tennis before (I have only been playing for 3 months) because not too sound cocky but I am all set in the athletic department! Even out of shape, I can still cover court, baby! LOL Plus, when you are a 3.0 it's not like you have these really long rallies! Most of the time neither of us break a sweat because points are over in 10 seconds! hahaha

Anyone else have similar discoveries?

I know that as I seek to improve my strokes I need to improve my fitness. I am sure at some point down the line, whataver level that is, fitness will start to be a factor. Just curious..what level is that! LOL I am thinking 4.0....

I apologize, but I do not have a citation. There was a recent study which supported what you have stated.

In the study 2 experimental groups participated in running, and soccer. The soccer group lost more weight, decreased their body fat, and ended up gaining more muscle over the length of the study.

The runners did make gains, but they just werent as much.

The study explained this deifference by noting the varied intensity which soccer entails, in tother words your rate is high and low throughout the duration of the game.

With running, intensity levels tend are level, this is unless you are running at different speeds or up hills. the same intensity can be created with running by changing pace and incline etc.

Soccer is way more fun anyway!

 

[Chauvalito]

Well, if you don't want to put your knees at risk, stop doing long distance running.

I've said this before and I will say it again. Most women should NOT run long distance . If you insist to run long distance, prepare your body for it.

The OP called me nuts because of that.

If you don't trust me, read the article in this link.

http://www.musclewithattitude.com/readArticle.do?id=1784089&cr=

The author is a woman and an endurance athlete. She is also a certified strength and conditioning specialist. She knows a lot more about woman than me.

Good luck.

Ano,

The article you posted is anecdotal at best, I scanned through it and the author did not provide an empirical support for her claims. Yes, she may have had trouble with her knees, and may have met people who had trouble with their knees, but that information cannot be generalized to the population at large.

I dont have time to look through my issues of runners world right now, but there was PEER-REVIEWED empirical study looking at MRI scans of subjects training for a marathon. The scans were done pre-run, and post run...

They found that running in a controlled and gradual manner had no signifigant effect on the health of knees for the participants.

The key words, are controlled and gradual. If someone who is out of shape hits the pavement tomorrow and decides to run miles and miles, they will get injured.

But if you follow a gradual tapered program, MOST people will have no problems.

The author in the article posted makes a number of ridiculous claims, the fact that she is a certified trainer is worrisome, because she is probably out there giving shotty advice.

 

[Chauvalito]

Ano,

The article you posted is anecdotal at best, I scanned through it and the author did not provide an empirical support for her claims. Yes, she may have had trouble with her knees, and may have met people who had trouble with their knees, but that information cannot be generalized to the population at large.

I dont have time to look through my issues of runners world right now, but there was PEER-REVIEWED empirical study looking at MRI scans of subjects training for a marathon. The scans were done pre-run, and post run...

They found that running in a controlled and gradual manner had no signifigant effect on the health of knees for the participants.

The key words, are controlled and gradual. If someone who is out of shape hits the pavement tomorrow and decides to run miles and miles, they will get injured.

But if you follow a gradual tapered program, MOST people will have no problems.

The author in the article posted makes a number of ridiculous claims, the fact that she is a certified trainer is worrisome, because she is probably out there giving shotty advice.

I found the article:

A German medical team gave 22 midpack runners a knee MRI before and right after they completed a marathon.

The researchers concluded that "marathon running does not cause severe, acute lesions of cartilage, ligaments, or bone marrow of the knee in WELL TRAINED RUNNERS"

Journal European Radiology


The people who are haphazard get injured, not those who are informed and take a smart approach to running.

If you can find evidence to the contrary, I would love to read it. What you posted above does not really count.

 

[Chauvalito]

If you insist to run long distance, prepare your body for it.

I agree fully.

 

[Ano]

I found the article:

A German medical team gave 22 midpack runners a knee MRI before and right after they completed a marathon.

The researchers concluded that "marathon running does not cause severe, acute lesions of cartilage, ligaments, or bone marrow of the knee in WELL TRAINED RUNNERS"

Journal European Radiology


The people who are haphazard get injured, not those who are informed and take a smart approach to running.

If you can find evidence to the contrary, I would love to read it. What you posted above does not really count.

Most women are NOT well trained runners.

Women are up to six times more likely to have an ACL tear compared to men.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/e...ez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/e...med.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/e...med.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/e...med.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus

Why put them at that risk by running long distance when there are better alternatives for getting in shape ?

 

[Ano]

Keep up the good work, sir. I think your contributions to this forum are very helpful to us all.

Thanks. But obviously, not every posters agree with that.

 

[Marius_Hancu]

If you're more than 30 and not in very good shape already, I wouldn't recommend plyometrics, esp jumping from high platforms. It's very demanding on your joints.

Suggest biking instead of running, but do intervals and sprints, beside long distance. If you do running, better do just the sprinting and walking on the treadmill, to reduce impact.

Check my signature:

Great fitness sites
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=15571
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=52164

there are sections on plyometrics, etc. there.

 

[Cindysphinx]

My "distance running" is for an hour once a week, sometimes twice a week. The rest of my running is of much shorter durations and more focused (sprints, hills, backwards). I have been running/exercising for the last 8 years. I am 46.

I challenge anyone to show me any proof that this sort of running is bad for women of my age who are fit and of an appropriate weight.

I think marathon running is a poor idea for most people.

 

[Chauvalito]

My "distance running" is for an hour once a week, sometimes twice a week. The rest of my running is of much shorter durations and more focused (sprints, hills, backwards). I have been running/exercising for the last 8 years. I am 46.

I challenge anyone to show me any proof that this sort of running is bad for women of my age who are fit and of an appropriate weight.

I think marathon running is a poor idea for most people.

Marathon running is a poor idea if you go out one day and decide to run a marathon. If you train for it which usually takes months it can be one of the most rewarding experienced of your life.

My father has run a little less than 20 marathons and he started in running in his 50's.

I myself (my dad dragged me along) have run 2 half-marathons. They were difficult and brutally tiring, but I wouldnt take back any of the pain because I crossed the finish line...and it felt good .


20, 000 people run the Boston marathon by the way, and that doesnt count new york, chicago and the nundreds of smaller runs like 5k's and 10k's..

 

[Chauvalito]

I have no issue with anything really in this thread...

It's just difficult for me to take when people disseminate ill-informed information which people might take seriously.

I know its a message board, but some of the things people post(not this thread) equate to someone saying that running causes infertility.

 

[Chauvalito]

Most women are NOT well trained runners.

Women are up to six times more likely to have an ACL tear compared to men.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/e...ez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/e...med.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/e...med.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/e...med.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus

Why put them at that risk by running long distance when there are better alternatives for getting in shape ?

The abstracts you posted concern "JUMPING AND PIVOTING SPORTS", which unless you are trail running do not include running.

Jumping and pivoting: Soccer etc.

I agree that there is a higher rate of knee injury in women, but for the specific sports mentioned above, but not for running.

Long distance running: 3.1-26.2 miles.

So running for half an hour or an hour daily or every other day would not be considered long-distance running...so there is plenty of room for running in an exercise plan that not constitute long distance running.

 

[Cindysphinx]

Marathon running is a poor idea if you go out one day and decide to run a marathon. If you train for it which usually takes months it can be one of the most rewarding experienced of your life.

My father has run a little less than 20 marathons and he started in running in his 50's.

I myself (my dad dragged me along) have run 2 half-marathons. They were difficult and brutally tiring, but I wouldnt take back any of the pain because I crossed the finish line...and it felt good .


20, 000 people run the Boston marathon by the way, and that doesnt count new york, chicago and the nundreds of smaller runs like 5k's and 10k's..

I don't doubt that lots of people run marathons. I believe that many find it enjoyable.

My husband trained diligently for and ran a marathon a few years back. He developed severe plantar faschitis (sp?). Numerous doc visits, orthotics, efforts at treatment have failed. Now he cannot run at all, and his feet hurt all the time.

I have declined to do a marathon. My feet are in good shape.

Running a marathon is a risk. It works out for some. Not so for everyone.

Cindy -- who trained for and ran two ten-milers and was bored out of her skull by mile five

 

[HyperHorse]

Cindy dear, my love...
PLEASE...
Save your joints and limit your running to sprints...
Cycling/swimming is where it's at...
A little weight training maybe? Aerobics? Taebo?
Praying for your joints..
Your Sherminator,
Hyperhorse

 

[bluetrain4]

Running is great (at least for me) for losing weight. Eating well and regular running (at a moderate pace) really sheds the pounds quickly. The loss of weight does help around the tennis court. But, moderate-pace running really isn't that great for increasing cardiovascular (not sure that's the word I'm looking for) capacity. As others have stated, soccer and other activities which involve stopping and starting and sprinting, where you are winded and have to recover, only to get winded again, is what really helps get you "in shape" for sprinting around a tennis court.

I've recently started boxing with my friend who is a trainer. I do pyramids, throwing a series of punches and then a different series, etc. and sometimes doing lifts (where I actually bend down and lift my friend) and then throw more punches. It's exhausting and it really helps on the tennis court.

Also, sprinting helps on the tennis court. I'll either do straightaway sprints over 80 yards, or I'll go out on a track and sprint 100 yards, walk 100 yards, sprint 100 yards, etc. Or, on a treadmill, I'll do intervals where I'll run 2 minutes at 6.5 mph, then 2 minutes at 7.0, 7.5, 8.0, etc. It's not tiring at first, but by the time you get to the end, the heart is pounding.

 

[Ano]

Hi, I admit. I was wrong. I should not say: " most women should not run".

After spending last night searching the pubmed, I realized I should have said: " most women and men should not run".

You need to look at your goals or the goals of your client (if you are a trainer).

Does distance running coincide with the stated goals? If the goal is to run a road race, then running is a necessity.

If the goal is fat loss or increased conditioning, distance running may not be the first choice.

It really comes down to choosing the right tool for the job. I have a saying that I like. "Chainsaws are a bad choice for molding." Wrong tool for the job. Too rough for fine work.

Distance running may be the wrong choice for most females and males if they are running for fat loss or fitness.

 

[Ano]

Sports Med. 1994 Sep;18(3):202-14.

Exercise, training and injuries.

Jones BH, Cowan DN, Knapik JJ.
Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine, Natick, Massachusetts.

Although exercise results in a number of well documented physical fitness and health benefits, accruing such benefits entails a risk of exercise-related injuries.

Musculoskeletal injuries occur frequently among fitness programme participants, runners, athletes, military ******** and others who engage in routine vigorous exercise.

The same parameters of exercise (intensity, duration and frequency) that determine the positive fitness and health effects of physical training also appear to influence the risk of injuries.

Studies of runners and other physically active groups have consistently demonstrated that greater duration and frequency of exercise are associated with higher risks of injury.

However, the sports medicine literature shows little association between exercise intensity and injuries, a finding which may be misleading.

The strongest and most consistent association reported exists between greater total amounts of exercise and higher risks of injury.

This is not surprising, since the total amount of exercise is the product of the intensity, duration and frequency of exercise.

Recent military research confirms the finding that higher volumes of running are associated with higher rates of injury.

Furthermore, the study of army ******** suggests that greater amounts of exercise not only result in greater risks of injury, but in some instances may also impart no additional increase in fitness, a finding consistent with an earlier study of civilian runners.

Several military studies also demonstrate that those ******** who have been more physically active in the past are less likely to be injured during basic training.
T
hese military studies also document a number of other factors, such as older age, smoking, sedentary jobs and lifestyle, high or low flexibility and high arches of the feet, which may contribute to or modify the risks for exercise-related injuries.

In conclusion, the present review suggest that, for activities such as running, specific parameters of exercise may contribute to the overall risk of injuries in rough proportion to their contribution to the total amount of activity performed.

Also, better knowledge of the effects of the parameters of training and other factors on the risks of exercise-related injuries is necessary to make more judicious choices about how to best achieve the benefits of exercise and to prevent injuries.

PMID: 7809556 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

 

[Ano]

Sports Med. 1992 Jan;13(1):50-7.

Lower extremity injuries in runners. Advances in prediction.

Macera CA.

School of Public Health, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of South Carolina, Columbia.

Recreational and competitive running is practised by many individuals to improve cardiorespiratory function and general well-being.

The major negative aspect of running is the high rate of injuries to the lower extremities.

Several well-designed population-based studies have found no major differences in injury rates between men and women; no increasing effect of age on injuries; a declining injury rate with more years of running experience; no substantial effect of weight or height; an uncertain effect of psychological factors; and a strong effect of previous injury on future injuries.

Among the modifiable risk factors studied, weekly distance is the strongest predictor of future injuries.

Other training characteristics (speed, frequency, surface, timing) have little or no effect on future injuries after accounting for distance run.

More studies are needed to address the effects of appropriate stretching practices and abrupt change in training patterns.

For recreational runners who have sustained injuries, especially within the past year, a reduction in running to below 32 km per week is recommended.

For those about to begin a running programme, moderation is the best advice.

For competitive runners, great care should be taken to ensure that prior injuries are sufficiently healed before attempting any racing event, particularly a marathon.

PMID: 1553455 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

 

[Ano]

Sports Med. 1992 Nov;14(5):320-35.
Running injuries. A review of the epidemiological literature.

van Mechelen W.

Department of Health Science, Faculty of Human Movement Sciences, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Running is one of the most popular leisure sports activities. Next to its beneficial health effects, negative side effects in terms of sports injuries should also be recognised.

Given the limitations of the studies it appears that for the average recreational runner, who is steadily training and who participates in a long distance run every now and then, the overall yearly incidence rate for running injuries varies between 37 and 56%.

Depending on the specificity of the group of runners concerned (competitive athletes; average recreational joggers; boys and girls) and on different circumstances these rates vary.

If incidence is calculated according to exposure of running time the incidence reported in the literature varies from 2.5 to 12.1 injuries per 1000 hours of running.

Most running injuries are lower extremity injuries, with a predominance for the knee. About 50 to 75% of all running injuries appear to be overuse injuries due to the constant repetition of the same movement.

Recurrence of running injuries is reported in 20 to 70% of the cases. From the epidemiological studies it can be concluded that running injuries lead to a reduction of training or training cessation in about 30 to 90% of all injuries, about 20 to 70% of all injuries lead to medical consultation or medical treatment and 0 to 5% result in absence from work.

Aetiological factors associated with running injuries include previous injury, lack of running experience, running to compete and excessive weekly running distance.

The association between running injuries and factors such as warm-up and stretching exercises, body height, malalignment, muscular imbalance, restricted range of motion, running frequency, level of performance, stability of running pattern, shoes and inshoe orthoses and running on 1 side of the road remains unclear or is backed by contradicting or scarce research findings.

Significantly not associated with running injuries seem age, gender, body mass index, running hills, running on hard surfaces, participation in other sports, time of the year and time of the day. T

he prevention of sports injuries should focus on changes of behaviour by health education. Health education on running injuries should primarily focus on the importance of complete rehabilitation and the early recognition of symptoms of overuse, and on the provision of training guidelines.

PMID: 1439399 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

 

[Ano]

Mil Med. 1997 Jul;162(7):472-6.

Injuries in Australian Army ********. Part I: Decreased incidence and severity of injury seen with reduced running distance.

Rudzki SJ.

Royal Australian Army Medical Corps, Canberra, Australia.

Three hundred fifty male ******** were randomly allocated to either the standard recruit training program (N = 180) or substituted a weighted march activity for all running periods in the physical training program (N = 170).

There were no other differences in the formal training program. The incidence of injury was 37.6 and 46.6% in the walk and run groups, respectively. The rate of injury was 52.9/100 ******** in the walk group and 61.7/100 in the run group.

The exposure incidence was 12.8/1,000 hours of physical training in the walk group and 14.9/1,000 hours in the run group. There was no statistically significantly difference in the total number of injured ******** in the two groups (64 vs. 85, chi(2) = 2.90, p = 0.09, relative risk [RR] = 1.24). There were, however, significantly more lower-limb (43 vs. 75, chi(2) = 9.77, p = 0.0018, RR = 1.65) and knee injuries (15 vs. 35, chi(2) = 6.54, p = 0.011, RR = 2.14) in the Run group.

Lower-limb injuries constituted 79.8% of all Run injuries and 61.1% of all Walk injuries. Injuries in the Run group produced more morbidity, with nearly double the number of days of restriction, hospitalization, and not fit for duty.

Standardized morbidity rates showed an average of 5.4 days of restriction per injury in the Run group and 3.96 days of restriction per injury in the Walk group.

Reduction of running distance in the physical training program resulted in significant reductions in both the incidence of lower-limb injury and the overall severity of injury.

PMID: 9232976 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

 

[Ano]

If you are interested in reading more studies, here's the link.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/e...med.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus

 

[Cindysphinx]

Hi, I admit. I was wrong. I should not say: " most women should not run".

After spending last night searching the pubmed, I realized I should have said: " most women and men should not run".

You need to look at your goals or the goals of your client (if you are a trainer).

Does distance running coincide with the stated goals? If the goal is to run a road race, then running is a necessity.

If the goal is fat loss or increased conditioning, distance running may not be the first choice.

It really comes down to choosing the right tool for the job. I have a saying that I like. "Chainsaws are a bad choice for molding." Wrong tool for the job. Too rough for fine work.

Distance running may be the wrong choice for most females and males if they are running for fat loss or fitness.

Don't take this the wrong way or anything, but I kind of found myself wondering whether this research was published in "Duh!" Journal or something.

Yes, if you run more, you are more likely to have a running injury. All sports have risks. Tennis in particular is quite hard on the body. If you can show that runners have a higher injury rate than soccer players, basketball players or tennis players, I would be shocked.

Nor is there much attention paid to the benefits of running. Running is simple. You can do it anytime, anywhere. It requires no skill or special equipment. It is efficient (no need to commute or conform your schedule to someone else's). It benefits women in particular because it is weigh-bearing and so wards off osteoporosis. In moderation, it can be the foundation for a weight loss program. I bet if you compared runners to the general population, you would find them healthier by a large margin.

Get good shoes, don't overtrain, increase gradually, use some common sense and go have a nice run, I say.

Cindy -- whose only serious exercise injury occurred on a tennis court a month after she began playing competitively and who hasn't been injured in 8 years of running

 

[Ano]

Don't take this the wrong way or anything, but I kind of found myself wondering whether this research was published in "Duh!" Journal or something.

Yes, if you run more, you are more likely to have a running injury. All sports have risks. Tennis in particular is quite hard on the body. If you can show that runners have a higher injury rate than soccer players, basketball players or tennis players, I would be shocked.

Nor is there much attention paid to the benefits of running. Running is simple. You can do it anytime, anywhere. It requires no skill or special equipment. It is efficient (no need to commute or conform your schedule to someone else's). It benefits women in particular because it is weigh-bearing and so wards off osteoporosis. In moderation, it can be the foundation for a weight loss program. I bet if you compared runners to the general population, you would find them healthier by a large margin.

Get good shoes, don't overtrain, increase gradually, use some common sense and go have a nice run, I say.

Cindy -- whose only serious exercise injury occurred on a tennis court a month after she began playing competitively and who hasn't been injured in 8 years of running

Don't worry Cindy, I don't take that the wrong way.

I think we agree to disagree. I really have no problem with that. I'm just a bit surprised that a woman who did not know what plyometric is, can be so convincing in giving her opinion about running. Oh, please don't take this the wrong way.

Could you give me the study that says running wards off osteoporosis?

I think we should end this right now by saying :

If you are a runner and want to run, go ahead.

If you are healthy and run for the way it makes you feel, please feel free to continue.

To other posters : If you think I am the biggest jerk in the world, save your time, don't write. I can't be swayed, and your insults only reinforce my impression of you as zealots. However, don't enforce your will on other posters whose bodies are not made for distance running.

 

[Chauvalito]

If you are a runner and want to run, go ahead.

If you are healthy and run for the way it makes you feel, please feel free to continue.

To other posters : If you think I am the biggest jerk in the world, save your time, don't write. I can't be swayed, and your insults only reinforce my impression of you as zealots. However, don't enforce your will on other posters whose bodies are not made for distance running.

I agree with this as well, and I dont think anyone thinks your a jerk. Furthermore I hope I did not come off as trying to enforce my will on anyone, I just wanted the conversation to be objective, which it has become as evidenced by your research.

To be honest with you, I have not ran in a long time, with grad school I have not made the time, and my body is paying for it. I hope to get back to it soon.

 

[Chauvalito]

Mil Med. 1997 Jul;162(7):472-6.

Injuries in Australian Army ********. Part I: Decreased incidence and severity of injury seen with reduced running distance.

Rudzki SJ.

Royal Australian Army Medical Corps, Canberra, Australia.

Three hundred fifty male ******** were randomly allocated to either the standard recruit training program (N = 180) or substituted a weighted march activity for all running periods in the physical training program (N = 170).

There were no other differences in the formal training program. The incidence of injury was 37.6 and 46.6% in the walk and run groups, respectively. The rate of injury was 52.9/100 ******** in the walk group and 61.7/100 in the run group.

The exposure incidence was 12.8/1,000 hours of physical training in the walk group and 14.9/1,000 hours in the run group. There was no statistically significantly difference in the total number of injured ******** in the two groups (64 vs. 85, chi(2) = 2.90, p = 0.09, relative risk [RR] = 1.24). There were, however, significantly more lower-limb (43 vs. 75, chi(2) = 9.77, p = 0.0018, RR = 1.65) and knee injuries (15 vs. 35, chi(2) = 6.54, p = 0.011, RR = 2.14) in the Run group.

Lower-limb injuries constituted 79.8% of all Run injuries and 61.1% of all Walk injuries. Injuries in the Run group produced more morbidity, with nearly double the number of days of restriction, hospitalization, and not fit for duty.

Standardized morbidity rates showed an average of 5.4 days of restriction per injury in the Run group and 3.96 days of restriction per injury in the Walk group.

Reduction of running distance in the physical training program resulted in significant reductions in both the incidence of lower-limb injury and the overall severity of injury.

PMID: 9232976 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

This study looked at males only. I thought our first conversation was on women...but thats ok.

 

[Chauvalito]

Sports Med. 1992 Nov;14(5):320-35.
Running injuries. A review of the epidemiological literature.

van Mechelen W.

Department of Health Science, Faculty of Human Movement Sciences, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Running is one of the most popular leisure sports activities. Next to its beneficial health effects, negative side effects in terms of sports injuries should also be recognised.

Given the limitations of the studies it appears that for the average recreational runner, who is steadily training and who participates in a long distance run every now and then, the overall yearly incidence rate for running injuries varies between 37 and 56%.

Depending on the specificity of the group of runners concerned (competitive athletes; average recreational joggers; boys and girls) and on different circumstances these rates vary.

If incidence is calculated according to exposure of running time the incidence reported in the literature varies from 2.5 to 12.1 injuries per 1000 hours of running.
Most running injuries are lower extremity injuries, with a predominance for the knee. About 50 to 75% of all running injuries appear to be overuse injuries due to the constant repetition of the same movement.

Recurrence of running injuries is reported in 20 to 70% of the cases. From the epidemiological studies it can be concluded that running injuries lead to a reduction of training or training cessation in about 30 to 90% of all injuries, about 20 to 70% of all injuries lead to medical consultation or medical treatment and 0 to 5% result in absence from work.

Aetiological factors associated with running injuries include previous injury, lack of running experience, running to compete and excessive weekly running distance.

The association between running injuries and factors such as warm-up and stretching exercises, body height, malalignment, muscular imbalance, restricted range of motion, running frequency, level of performance, stability of running pattern, shoes and inshoe orthoses and running on 1 side of the road remains unclear or is backed by contradicting or scarce research findings.

Significantly not associated with running injuries seem age, gender, body mass index, running hills, running on hard surfaces, participation in other sports, time of the year and time of the day.

The prevention of sports injuries should focus on changes of behaviour by health education. Health education on running injuries should primarily focus on the importance of complete rehabilitation and the early recognition of symptoms of overuse, and on the provision of training guidelines.
PMID: 1439399 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Ano,
this study I think, supported both our claims. They state that age and gender were not signifigantly correlated with unjury, which means that other factors like training methods and knowledge have more impact on injury.

Again, if people are well-informed and "study up" so to speak, they may not have problems.

I think people think they can just go out and start running, whereas with tennis, football, soccer etc., getting lessons and practice are a large part of the support, people get educated and trained.

That doesnt seem to happen as much as running.

A great avenue for new research would be providing an education plan about running an injuries to the experimental group and then having no intervention for the control group.

Have them run: I would hypothesize a lower incidence of injury in the expereimental group.

 

[Ano]

Hi, I admit. I was wrong. I should not say: " most women should not run".

After spending last night searching the pubmed, I realized I should have said: " most women and men should not run".

You need to look at your goals or the goals of your client (if you are a trainer).

Does distance running coincide with the stated goals? If the goal is to run a road race, then running is a necessity.

If the goal is fat loss or increased conditioning, distance running may not be the first choice.

It really comes down to choosing the right tool for the job. I have a saying that I like. "Chainsaws are a bad choice for molding." Wrong tool for the job. Too rough for fine work.

Distance running may be the wrong choice for most females and males if they are running for fat loss or fitness.

This study looked at males only. I thought our first conversation was on women...but thats ok.

I had already admited that I was wrong. Did you miss that post?

 

[chess9]

Don't take this the wrong way or anything, but I kind of found myself wondering whether this research was published in "Duh!" Journal or something.

Yes, if you run more, you are more likely to have a running injury. All sports have risks. Tennis in particular is quite hard on the body. If you can show that runners have a higher injury rate than soccer players, basketball players or tennis players, I would be shocked.

Nor is there much attention paid to the benefits of running. Running is simple. You can do it anytime, anywhere. It requires no skill or special equipment. It is efficient (no need to commute or conform your schedule to someone else's). It benefits women in particular because it is weigh-bearing and so wards off osteoporosis. In moderation, it can be the foundation for a weight loss program. I bet if you compared runners to the general population, you would find them healthier by a large margin.

Get good shoes, don't overtrain, increase gradually, use some common sense and go have a nice run, I say.

Cindy -- whose only serious exercise injury occurred on a tennis court a month after she began playing competitively and who hasn't been injured in 8 years of running

I've played lots of tennis, and I've run all my life. I have never had so many small knee, shoulder and foot problems as I've had with tennis. I never got PF before I started back playing tennis. I never had any patellar femoral tendon inflammation before I strarted back playing tennis. I never had any rotator cuff problems while running! I've had a niggling one in my right shoulder from playing tennis. Biking on the other hand, has caused me numerous injuries from car drivers, other cyclists, and my own stupidity.

If no one should run, then I wonder whether they should play tennis? Tennis is a running sport with a bit of hitting tossed in to keep you running. The dynamic forces on the knee, foot, back, hips are huge in tennis, or can be if you play vigorously.

Runners do suffer from serious OCD and will often over-train, which leads to injuries. Plus, lots of overweight people, from all walks of life, including the military, use running to try to bring down their weight. They are a high risk category and account for large numbers of running injuries. I see fat guys out running TOO MUCH all the time.

Here is my prescription, since I've had years of experience and a 'foot' in many camps.

1. If you are unfit, then practice a careful diet for a few months and try to get your weight down before you embark on serious running.
2. If you are in category 1 above, then add weight training, by which I mean progressive resistance compound lifts at least two days per week.
3. Cycling is a good option but it is time consuming if done at a leisurely pace. If you go fast, your chances of injury are elevated. Unfit people should cycle indoors, or on bike trails. You must cycle at least 3 times longer, typically, to get the same cardio benefits as you get with running.
4. If you enjoy running, then simply do it progressively and listen closely to your body. Stop running when you are feeling some shin splints, knee or hip or back pain. <most weekend warriors do not stop at this point, which is why there are so many injured runners, plus there are about 100 times as many people jogging as doing tennis>
5. IMHO, running 3-4 miles x 2 each week is a good enough base for recreational tennis players. One interval session per week should help you not lose speed as quickly with age.

Finally, no one is going to avoid injuries. If you are an athlete, getting injured is a fact of life. Everyone on this list has been injured at one time or another, I'm sure. I will not lead my life avoiding the things I love to do.

-Robert

 

[Cindysphinx]

Ano, are you seriously questioning that weight-bearing exercise wards off osteoporosis in women? Or are you denying that running is a weight-bearing exercise? I mean, I don't want to spend my time Googling The Obvious.

Yep, Robert nailed it.

I will add that the people who get the worst injuries in tennis are the ones who don't exercise or train. I don't see how anyone thinks they are going to run down lobs and drop shots if they don't, you know, *run.*

Yes, you can and should sprint. But I don't think sprinting is very safe for anyone who is not in awfully good running shape to start. You can really hurt yourself sprinting. You have to prepare your body to sprint. How? By *running,* of course.

A sane sedentary person will start with walking. Then add in some short runs during their walks. Then alternate between jogging and walking. Then they can jog. Then they can alternate jogging and sprinting/hills. Only then are they perhaps ready for real sprinting.

And then they are ready for Real Tennis.

Cindy -- whose mother tells her all the time that she should stop all that tennis because tennis is so dangerous

 

[ananda]

cindy, your last lines are priceless!

 

[Cindysphinx]

cindy, your last lines are priceless!

Thanks!

Cindy -- who thinks ananda's avatar line is priceless

 

[stormholloway]

Ano, are you seriously questioning that weight-bearing exercise wards off osteoporosis in women? Or are you denying that running is a weight-bearing exercise? I mean, I don't want to spend my time Googling The Obvious.

Yep, Robert nailed it.

I will add that the people who get the worst injuries in tennis are the ones who don't exercise or train. I don't see how anyone thinks they are going to run down lobs and drop shots if they don't, you know, *run.*

Yes, you can and should sprint. But I don't think sprinting is very safe for anyone who is not in awfully good running shape to start. You can really hurt yourself sprinting. You have to prepare your body to sprint. How? By *running,* of course.

A sane sedentary person will start with walking. Then add in some short runs during their walks. Then alternate between jogging and walking. Then they can jog. Then they can alternate jogging and sprinting/hills. Only then are they perhaps ready for real sprinting.

And then they are ready for Real Tennis.

Cindy -- whose mother tells her all the time that she should stop all that tennis because tennis is so dangerous

Tennis involves running yes, but it doesn't involve countless hours of it in a nonstop fashion. Running five miles a day will wear on your body. It's taxing. Believe it or not, it's even bad for your brain. The brain doesn't need to be bouncing around inside the skull for hours on end.

You're saying someone can't run down drop shots without being a runner? Someone who sprints in short bursts is far more likely to get to that ball than the monotonous runner.

 

[Cindysphinx]

Tennis involves running yes, but it doesn't involve countless hours of it in a nonstop fashion. Running five miles a day will wear on your body. It's taxing. Believe it or not, it's even bad for your brain. The brain doesn't need to be bouncing around inside the skull for hours on end.

You're saying someone can't run down drop shots without being a runner? Someone who sprints in short bursts is far more likely to get to that ball than the monotonous runner.

I'm not suggesting running five miles a day. That is excessive for our purposes. As I said, I do 1-2 one-hour runs in a week, not 7 such runs.

Sorry, but I still think running is a necessary foundation for sprinting. If a middle-aged person asked me the best way to get in shape for tennis, I wouldn't tell them to get off the couch and start running 100-meter sprints. They would get hurt. I'd tell them walk, then run, then sprint.

By the way, I'm a runner *and* a sprinter. The two aren't mutually exclusive. They compliment each other quite nicely.

I think the idea that running for an hour is bad for one's brain is one for which I've not heard any support.

 

[Chauvalito]

I had already admited that I was wrong. Did you miss that post?

But you were not wrong, you are right when the context is epecified

 

[Ano]

Ano, are you seriously questioning that weight-bearing exercise wards off osteoporosis in women? Or are you denying that running is a weight-bearing exercise? I mean, I don't want to spend my time Googling The Obvious.

Cindy -- whose mother tells her all the time that she should stop all that tennis because tennis is so dangerous

No, I don't deny that running produces forces in the area of two to five times bodyweight per foot contact.

But I did ask you for a reference that running wards off osteoporosis.

I did spend 15 minutes replying your question about plyometrics. Don't you think it's time for you to return the favor?

Ano-- a guy who answered cindy question about plyometric and now ask her to return the favor.

 

[Ano]

You need to look at your goals or the goals of your client (if you are a trainer).

Does distance running coincide with the stated goals? If the goal is to run a road race, then running is a necessity.

If the goal is fat loss or increased conditioning, distance running may not be the first choice.

It really comes down to choosing the right tool for the job. I have a saying that I like. "Chainsaws are a bad choice for molding." Wrong tool for the job. Too rough for fine work.

Distance running may be the wrong choice for most females and males if they are running for fat loss or fitness.

If you are a runner and want to run, go ahead.

If you are healthy and run for the way it makes you feel, please feel free to continue.

I've played lots of tennis, and I've run all my life. I have never had so many small knee, shoulder and foot problems as I've had with tennis. I never got PF before I started back playing tennis. I never had any patellar femoral tendon inflammation before I strarted back playing tennis. I never had any rotator cuff problems while running! I've had a niggling one in my right shoulder from playing tennis. Biking on the other hand, has caused me numerous injuries from car drivers, other cyclists, and my own stupidity.

If no one should run, then I wonder whether they should play tennis? Tennis is a running sport with a bit of hitting tossed in to keep you running. The dynamic forces on the knee, foot, back, hips are huge in tennis, or can be if you play vigorously.

Runners do suffer from serious OCD and will often over-train, which leads to injuries. Plus, lots of overweight people, from all walks of life, including the military, use running to try to bring down their weight. They are a high risk category and account for large numbers of running injuries. I see fat guys out running TOO MUCH all the time.

Here is my prescription, since I've had years of experience and a 'foot' in many camps.

1. If you are unfit, then practice a careful diet for a few months and try to get your weight down before you embark on serious running.
2. If you are in category 1 above, then add weight training, by which I mean progressive resistance compound lifts at least two days per week.
3. Cycling is a good option but it is time consuming if done at a leisurely pace. If you go fast, your chances of injury are elevated. Unfit people should cycle indoors, or on bike trails. You must cycle at least 3 times longer, typically, to get the same cardio benefits as you get with running.
4. If you enjoy running, then simply do it progressively and listen closely to your body. Stop running when you are feeling some shin splints, knee or hip or back pain. <most weekend warriors do not stop at this point, which is why there are so many injured runners, plus there are about 100 times as many people jogging as doing tennis>
5. IMHO, running 3-4 miles x 2 each week is a good enough base for recreational tennis players. One interval session per week should help you not lose speed as quickly with age.

Finally, no one is going to avoid injuries. If you are an athlete, getting injured is a fact of life. Everyone on this list has been injured at one time or another, I'm sure. I will not lead my life avoiding the things I love to do.

-Robert

I think we are in agreement.

 

[Nastase]

I started running when I had a shoulder injury from tennis...I wanted to stay active and do something to remain active and keep weight off...running is good for the soul...having done several half-marathons I am simply addicted. One thing I have noticed about tennis players (not everyone of course) is its a bit clubby and chippy...I was a satellite-level player so this is not the complaint of a 2.5....Anyway I was concerned as a novice runner that I would face some embarassment for slow race times, poor form, whatever....but runners are so dang friendly, as a community they are fun to hang out with and generally very supportive...unless you are running crazy fast times its just something you can do for physical and emotional health and fellowship. Cindy has a good idea regarding two, 1-hour runs per week and mixing in the other stuff for flexibility, speed, etc...running long is great but it wont make you any faster on the tennis court....in fact it will probably slow you down unless you are putting in some time doing speed work or other stuff. I still play a lot of tennis but you cant beat a long slow run. as always IMO.