next »

[Paul Eres]

it also depends on how you run. we were made to run barefoot, not with shoes; people who run barefoot have none of the problems associated with running

They have a whole new slew of problems associated with running barefoot.

biggest problems i'm familiar with are callouses and foot injuries if you cut yourself on glass or a rock or something. unless you mean something else?

there are shoes which work like gloves intended to avoid some of those problems tho: http://www.vibramfivefingers.com/index.htm -- i haven't tried those yet, but intend to eventually

in any case saying that running is "the absolute worst exercise" seems pretty exaggerated considering that runners live about 5-6 years longer than average: http://www.wired.com/playbook/2012/05/joggers-live-longer/

Jogging regularly increases the lifespan of men by about six years and women by about five and a half, according to data from a Danish study that has tracked the cardiovascular health of 20,000 people since 1976. You don’t have to be Usain Bolt or Shalane Flanagan to enjoy the benefit, either. The data, being presented Saturday at the EuroPRevent 2012 meeting in Dublin, shows running as little as 20 minutes three times a week at a slow to moderate pace will do the trick.

people are saying in the comments section there that the time you spend running isn't worth the extra 5-6 years, since you'd save that time by not running, but i did some calculations and found otherwise.

let's say you run 20 minutes three times a week (the minimum they suggest). that's 52 hours spent running a year (1 hour per week). one year has 8800 hours. so you can see it's a pretty big difference. you'd have to run regularly for over 1000 years to spend 5 years running.

besides, the time spent running isn't really "wasted", you can do other things while running, like bring along an mp3 player and listen to audio books. running is low-attention, so you can easily listen to an audio book while running (or music if you prefer). so if you read an hour a week, you could replace that with running, *still* read an hour a week during your runs, and live 5-6 years longer

[Pandara_RA!]

it also depends on how you run. we were made to run barefoot, not with shoes; people who run barefoot have none of the problems associated with running

They have a whole new slew of problems associated with running barefoot.

biggest problems i'm familiar with are callouses and foot injuries if you cut yourself on glass or a rock or something. unless you mean something else?

there are shoes which work like gloves intended to avoid some of those problems tho: http://www.vibramfivefingers.com/index.htm -- i haven't tried those yet, but intend to eventually

in any case saying that running is "the absolute worst exercise" seems pretty exaggerated considering that runners live about 5-6 years longer than average: http://www.wired.com/playbook/2012/05/joggers-live-longer/

Jogging regularly increases the lifespan of men by about six years and women by about five and a half, according to data from a Danish study that has tracked the cardiovascular health of 20,000 people since 1976. You don’t have to be Usain Bolt or Shalane Flanagan to enjoy the benefit, either. The data, being presented Saturday at the EuroPRevent 2012 meeting in Dublin, shows running as little as 20 minutes three times a week at a slow to moderate pace will do the trick.

people are saying in the comments section there that the time you spend running isn't worth the extra 5-6 years, since you'd save that time by not running, but i did some calculations and found otherwise.

let's say you run 20 minutes three times a week (the minimum they suggest). that's 52 hours spent running a year (1 hour per week). one year has 8800 hours. so you can see it's a pretty big difference. you'd have to run regularly for over 1000 years to spend 5 years running.

besides, the time spent running isn't really "wasted", you can do other things while running, like bring along an mp3 player and listen to audio books. running is low-attention, so you can easily listen to an audio book while running (or music if you prefer). so if you read an hour a week, you could replace that with running, *still* read an hour a week during your runs, and live 5-6 years longer

The issue with the study about running = increased lifespan is what it's saying is kinda tricky because it's not comparing running vs other types of work outs, it's comparing Running vs not working out at all, running remains the most damaging mainstream way of fitness due to how high impact it is compared to other forms of working out.

Like if you compare lifting wights to running you burn more calories, in a safer way, with the least time, and minimal impact.

[Chris Pavia]

it also depends on how you run. we were made to run barefoot, not with shoes; people who run barefoot have none of the problems associated with running

They have a whole new slew of problems associated with running barefoot.

biggest problems i'm familiar with are callouses and foot injuries if you cut yourself on glass or a rock or something. unless you mean something else?

This can depend significantly on the individual runner and their knowledge of running mechanics. An amateur running barefoot on concrete can do damage to their knees/hips/back over time due to impact forces. An experienced runner however can run on concrete more efficiently than natural ground if they know how to change their foot strike and gait properly.

[Paul Eres]

@chris pavia -- that does make sense, thanks. i wouldn't really think concrete is a good idea for barefoot running though, since it's an unnatural and especially hard surface. i wouldn't even suggest running on concrete with shoes

@pandara -- did the study specifically say it compared people who jogged with people who didn't do any other form of exercise? my impression was that it compared people who jogged to people who did not jog. people who did not jog may or may not do other forms of exercise. but i do agree that studies comparing different forms of exercise would be a good idea

bodybuilding however doesn't actually improve the heart (unless you do it in "circuit training" or do a lot of low-weight repetitions so that it increases heart rate for a relatively long period of time), and my impression is that the increase in lifespan was due to a lessening of heart attacks. i'm not sure if weight lifting actually reduces heart attack incidence or not. burning calories isn't really the point of exercise (unless you're trying to lose weight, i guess)

also, regarding high-impact exercise, reportedly high-impact exercise improves bone density: runners have much better bone density than swimmers, for instance. it is true that runners are more prone to injury than swimmers and other low-impact aerobics though. so it's a trade off of whether you don't mind small injuries for increased bone density

[Desert Dog]

An experienced runner however can run on concrete more efficiently than natural ground if they know how to change their foot strike and gait properly.

Well, it isn't just 'experience', it's general body condition. Someone in good condition (specifically, strong core muscles) is much more likely to hold an even gait/ maintain control of how the legs work. Much less stress on joints.

Someone who runs a lot, but less conditioned (again, weak core) is going to have less control over how his legs move/land.. even if his legs are actually quite strong. More stress on joints.

I think running.. and I guess jogging, is a good exercise, wouldn't call it bad at all. If it causes issues, it's because that's "all" someone is doing.
(sprinting for 20 m near the end of a jog, before warm down is probably a good one.. it'll work the core muscles, build some strength)

[Chris Pavia]

That's not really what I'm talking about. I'm not referring to the anatomy of the runner, I'm referring to the mechanics of running (not that it isn't important, just not what I'm talking about currently). A knowledgeable runner will change their foot strike (for example from a heel to arch or front strike) and close their gait when running on concrete because it lessens impact force and the recoil can actually make running more efficient (less muscle expenditure) than on a surface with give/flex.

[Pandara_RA!]

@chris pavia -- that does make sense, thanks. i wouldn't really think concrete is a good idea for barefoot running though, since it's an unnatural and especially hard surface. i wouldn't even suggest running on concrete with shoes

@pandara -- did the study specifically say it compared people who jogged with people who didn't do any other form of exercise? my impression was that it compared people who jogged to people who did not jog. people who did not jog may or may not do other forms of exercise. but i do agree that studies comparing different forms of exercise would be a good idea

bodybuilding however doesn't actually improve the heart (unless you do it in "circuit training" or do a lot of low-weight repetitions so that it increases heart rate for a relatively long period of time), and my impression is that the increase in lifespan was due to a lessening of heart attacks. i'm not sure if weight lifting actually reduces heart attack incidence or not. burning calories isn't really the point of exercise (unless you're trying to lose weight, i guess)

also, regarding high-impact exercise, reportedly high-impact exercise improves bone density: runners have much better bone density than swimmers, for instance. it is true that runners are more prone to injury than swimmers and other low-impact aerobics though. so it's a trade off of whether you don't mind small injuries for increased bone density

The reason they have high bone density is because of the previous damage done to the bones themselves, for example if someone kicked you in the balls all the time your body would adapt to the stress. So hurting yourself consistently and at a younger age makes you stronger later in life.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yp92CQM2-vQ

As for heart attacks yeah I could see that, I think the real conclusion here is the people shouldnt go all-in on a single exercise.

And what I was trying to get across is that if comparing one exercise to another running could be one of the "worse" but in the thick of things it's like saying chocolate is the worst ice cream flavor where they all are very delicious compared to no icecream at all.

[Paul Eres]

that's true about the bone density, but i don't see how that's a bad thing? the reason weight training increases muscle size and strength, for instance, is *exactly for the same reason*. weight training damages the muscles, creating small tears in them. when they are repaired by the body, they are rebuilt stronger and better than before. so it's strange to object to when this happens with bones, tendons, and ligaments, but not object to when this happens with muscle

[Pandara_RA!]

that's true about the bone density, but i don't see how that's a bad thing? the reason weight training increases muscle size and strength, for instance, is *exactly for the same reason*. weight training damages the muscles, creating small tears in them. when they are repaired by the body, they are rebuilt stronger and better than before. so it's strange to object to when this happens with bones, tendons, and ligaments, but not object to when this happens with muscle

It's not a "bad" thing I think its because it hurts the bones, its just one of the worst exercises in terms of damage to the body, so its the opposite haha! they say weight training is the best for the performance of runners for example and maybe people extend that thought over to the subject of health. 

[Paul Eres]

i have heard that weight training improves running ability, yeah. one study i remember showed a 12% improvement in running speed for runners who started a weight training program who didn't previously weight train vs a control group of runners who didn't and continued to not weight train. i don't think any book on running that i've read recommends that people *only* and do no other form of exercise to supplement it

[Radix]

that's true about the bone density, but i don't see how that's a bad thing? the reason weight training increases muscle size and strength, for instance, is *exactly for the same reason*. weight training damages the muscles, creating small tears in them. when they are repaired by the body, they are rebuilt stronger and better than before. so it's strange to object to when this happens with bones, tendons, and ligaments, but not object to when this happens with muscle

Your muscles and skeleton are made up of different types of tissues and function in different ways, buddy. It's not strange to think that a superficially similar effect would affect them differently.

[Paul Eres]

how specifically is it different, if they are only superficially similar?

[sigfarter]

Working out is for shit heads who have unhealthy lifestyles. I'm slim and trim because I stay awake for days on amphetamines, so I don't have to exercise.