I ran 80-90 miles per week while in college and continued running 20-30 per week for a couple of years after until my knee stopped cooperating (I'm really looking forward to knee surgery in October).
I have experienced some of the described symptoms (irregular heartbeat and etc), but wouldn't have done much differently. Honestly, this article basically boils down to 'do what your body can handle'.
People are different. Bodies are different. Some people can handle 120 miles per week. Some people struggle to run one. Running is obviously good for your health, just don't over do it. And stretch and foam roll, that's as important as anything.
Running was clearly bad for my health: at 17 I f’d up both of mine. “Oh its just shin splints, run through it.”
Yeah, until I couldn’t run through the pain any more. Quit running track, bloated up like Pacheco’s pig. Found out later that I wore grooves through the cartiledge and into my bones.
Also, discovered that if I ran on my toes instead of heel strikes I can run now without pain. Its juts ingrained to hate it now.
I was lucky and avoided running myself into that kind of issue in high school. But I did get stuck with recurrent problems with my lower legs, and I did run through pain.
I was heel striking, which was encouraged by equipment (thick padded shoes) and by coaching. I took years off, learned to row, and came back literally running barefoot and on my toes. Tired of pulling glass out of my feet, I started using racing flats and then vibrams when training.
It took five years to get to where I could do the same mileage as before. Now my knees don't hurt any more than any other part of my body after running. I think the soft landings of toe strike running make all the difference.
Those early years definitely did damage. In my case I feel I have overcome it. I hope you will too. Running is a beautiful thing and a shame to lose.
I popped in specifically to search for "barefoot" to see if anyone was using barefoot running techniques.
When I first heard about the book "Born to Run", and how the Tarahumara use their legs/feet as the natural shock absorbers that they may have evolved to be, I said, "This is the style for me. I'm not a fan of running, but I do love efficiency, and this sounds like a fun way to give it a shot." It didn't really pan out--I have some Vibrams that get used once or twice a year--but I do like to sprint on rocky trails a lot, and going downhill is a lot more fun using something like BRT.
Interestingly, the only other comment besides yours mentioning "barefoot" is one from neilsharma, who writes that he had lots of problems from running that he chose to ante up on the footgear, which ended up further weakening his feet. I don't know if there have been studies done that show how our current shoe designs are bad for our feet--only that Vibram got in trouble for claiming that their shoes are better for you without anything backing them up--but it seems like something that ought to be looked at.
Coaching was definitely a factor. Was taught that heel strikes were more efficient. Also: instead of running long distance, I should have been sprinting.
Seems like you discovered it already, but shin splints, knee problems, back problems, etc. are usually based in either bad shoes or bad form. There are also strengthening exercises you can do for each to make you less susceptible to them.
Often times the body's limitations are caused by problems that can be fixed or worked around, allowing you to push yourself farther and harder without hurting your health.
Sounds like this person had an injury, didn't treat it, and it got worse. It seems like a pretty huge, unsubstantiated leap to claim that running "causes significant health problems".
I second what some others have said - many injuries in running are caused by bad form.
The guys who do my bike fitting (basically, ensuring your bike is properly adjusted so as not to cause undue stress on your body) also do running coaching - I recently did two sessions with them which I found useful.
(If you're in Sydney, it's The Body Mechanic in Milson's Point)
One of the big takeaways for me was increasing my cadence - where previously I was around 150-170 bpm, I now aim for around 180 bpm. The higher cadence seems to have helped me put less stress on my legs with each step.
Also, I'm working on having good posture, and ensuring my feed land under my torso (as opposed to in front or behind me).
And what mpol said about keeping your torso/head stable is correct - you do not want your head bobbing up/down as you run.
But yeah - if you are keen on running, definitely go see a professional, who can give you good advice based on your own individual running style.
Not a direct answer to your question, but I see many people running past my house and balkony, since there is a nice walkway next to my house. I see them do it in many different ways, some of which are good, some of which are really bad.
Many people seem to bounce up and down on every step, putting shocks of weight on their knees at every step. That will hurt you in the long term, probably even in the short term.
You should have a certain flow in running, where your upper body just remains at the same height, and your legs are the only moving parts. Like your upper body is just sliding forward, that is the effect you want.
And you might think you do it right, but chances are you don't. I do not run myself, but I can imagine there are running trainers who specialize in ergonomics and health. You might want to have someone like that take a look at how you are running.
I had some knee problems for a time, which a physical therapist diagnosed as a muscle imbalance - basically one leg was stronger than the other, and it caused me to twist my legs a bit while running.
The main exercises to correct this were one legged squats, leg extensions (again, one leg at a time), and several balance exercises to help me position my hips properly while running.
Obviously, though, if there's one thing we've learned, it's that there's a lot of variety in our bodies, so if you're having pain, see a doctor first and if they think it's necessary you can get a referral to a physical therapist or another doctor that specializes in that area.
To protect against shin splints, we spent a lot of time walking on our toes. Like, 100m on toes, then 100m on toes but with feet pointed out, then 100m on toes with feet pointed in. Then repeat all three on heels.
Note that this is a preventative exercise. Iirc if you already had shin splints this would make it worse. Those with shin splints either swam or biked, but mostly iced and rested. Running was strongly discouraged so that recovery could happen.
> if I ran on my toes instead of heel strikes I can run now without pain
I can't for the life of me understand how people bear to run landing on heels. The whole ankle system is "designed" to recover as much energy as possible by loading up the Achilles tendon while at the same time saving both the knee and hip joints.
FWIW, swimming was no better; "[swim] through it" is pretty common from any bad coach.
As a result, I have two bum knees (the breastroke kick puts so much lateral force on the knees that they separate), a pair of dodgy hips (again, I blame breaststroke), and shoulders which literally dislocate at will (I pin it on butterfly and bad form). Too much focus on the major muscle groups, and none on the muscles which keep all of those joints where they should be.
Is running through shin splits, or any kind of recurring consistent pain, a good idea? Did someone really give you that advice? I've always been advised to reduce the milage right down (or even stop) and focus on strength exercises before slowly building the milage back up.
> ran 80-90 miles per week [...] I'm really looking forward to knee surgery in October)
Apologies for being a bit harsh but the cause-effect-relationship is crystal clear. Extensive running puts a tremendous strain on our knees. You don't need to be a doctor, scientist or professional runner to know this. And just 20-30 miles/week over a long period is already way too much for the majority. Most will write, 'nah that works great for me, I run that amount for many years and my knees are in perfect shape'. Just wait till you're older and then it's pay back time.
It is not clear that running is bad for the knees. Recent studies ([1], [2]) find no evidence of any adverse effects, rather the contrary (lower incidence of knee osteoarthritis in the running group). One possible explanation is that the runners were less likely to put on weight over the years, leading to lower day-to-day stresses on the knees.
[1] Eliza Chakravarty et al. "Long distance running and knee osteoarthritis: A prospective study," American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 2008, 35(2), 133-138
[2] David Felson et al., "Effects of recreational physical activities on the development of knee osteoarthritis in older adults of different weights: The Framingham Study," Arthritis & Rheumatism, 2007, 57(1), 6-12
Is it 20-30 miles/week over a long period, which you claim is already way too much for the majority? If I read study [1] correctly the runners were running 3.5 hours a week at the beginning of the study, which would be around 20 miles/week. That same group had a lower incidence of osteoarthritis than the control group.
its far from crystal clear - each body is different, what builds one breaks another one (even if fitness levels are similar). genetics is not fair.
our bodies require challenge, otherwise they get weak and fragile. challenge too much, it will break. this point of diminished return is again different for each of us, and varies over time for same person.
BUT - if you give it enough time to fortify itself - I don't mean muscles, they grow faster than rest of the body. I mean when bones, tendons, ligaments and generally joints catch up (ie for climbing it takes years of gradual progression to train your fingers), they hold the body together better (knees, feet, spine etc.) and can manage stress put on it, even till high age. I have a friend who is 80 year old mountain guide and he still climbs easier stuff.
But to find the balance, the edge of benefits vs losses that is never stable and unique to each of us is very hard
I don't think you know anything about the cause and effect relationship considering you have no idea who I am let alone what is wrong with me knee.
I haven't been running like that since I was in college. I wore down cartilage in my knee while running through pain I had been having for a while. I wasn't taking care of myself the way I should have been. If you take the time and care to make sure you stay healthy, 20-30 miles a week is nothing. If your logic held than 'pay back time' should have happened for my peers a long time ago, they all ran more mileage than I did and some still run 100 plus miles per week. If there is some magic number of miles knees get, they would have hit it a long time ago. That is not how it works. People are different, bodies are different, you just need to make sure you take care of yourself and don't ignore the maintenance.
With only that tid bit of information you have about him, there is nothing crystal clear. There is not a single individual build the same way. Some people can run 7 marathon in 7 days, and they have been doing that for 20 years, others are going to have knee injury after a couple years of running. Some of it might be technique, but it is likely combined with different bone/joint/muscle architecture.
> I don't think you know anything about the cause and effect relationship considering you have no idea who I am let alone what is wrong with me knee.
Why are you getting aggressive? You have your opinion, I have my opinion, no need to snap.
> People are different, bodies are different
Ok, I agree. But why do you then generalize yourself few sentences before and tell us that '20-30 miles a week is nothing' and treating everybody the same? I think, I was more differentiating, I said 20-30 miles/week for a long period is already too much for the majority—not for all.
> I wore down cartilage in my knee while running through pain I had been having for a while
Ok, doesn't really make your stance better. Who says that every other runner is so wise and stops running while having a pain? Maybe most of them do the same mistake like you did? Maybe they just want to win, just want to outperform other runners, just fear loosing or just want to prove themselves that they can run more than last week—all while slowly crushing their knees. And maybe it's the dynamics or game mechanics of running itself—it's not that easy to stop.
Sorry, but the cause-effect-relationship is getting even clearer with your last comment. Extensive running can get quickly dangerous and the problem is that the runner might realize this too late.
> Why are you getting aggressive? You have your opinion, I have my opinion, no need to snap.
I hope you don't think that counts as aggression, hardly. And while you are certainly entitled to your opinion, considering you know nothing about me, my running history, or my medical history, it's pertinent that people know your opinion is based on zero knowledge of the situation.
> Ok, I agree. But why do you then generalize yourself...
I was not generalizing. The conversation is about distance running. For a distance runner, 20-30 miles per week would be nothing, considering the shortest distance race is 5 miles long.
I honestly don't know how to address your last comment. You jump wildly from conclusion to conclusion and then just dismiss everything outright. And your argument isn't based on anything other than the fact that I personally got hurt, which is a dumb reason for others not to run. I don't have a great singing voice, but just because my singing hurts my ears, it doesn't mean others shouldn't sing to their hearts content. Really, the only cause-effect relationship that is clear is ->
cause: be nbschulze for 25 years effect: need knee surgery.
Which people can take with and do what they want. Yeah, knee surgery is a bummer, but I've enjoyed my life other than that and will continue to enjoy it.
The only stance I've taken is 'If you're going to run, make sure you take care of yourself'. I was trying to help others learn from my mistakes. If you want to argue with that, feel free. We don't caution people from buying cars just because a select few choose not to get the oil changed and ruin their cars. And you should not be caution people from running just because I personally ignored persistent and intense knee pain and damaged my knee.
Except you still don't know what's the matter with his knee, and you definitely don't know what caused it. It seems a bit premature to assume that overtraining was the cause, and it's pretty ridiculous to imply that because some runners have hurt their knees, it is unsafe, or pointless.
Please avoid a harmful tone when replying here, there's no need for that :)
As for the 70 year-olds still running marathons, I've heard of plenty more 25 year-olds dying of heart attacks. Anecdotes are not enough here it seems.
In my experience the untrained people are the ones that gets problems early when they age. If you can't run when you are 50, don't expect to walk without problems when you are 70. If you are a decent runner when you are 60, you have a good chance of being in quite good shape when you are 85.
> [Lee concludes his data] "don't support that more is worse. But more may not be better." [Williams concludes] 40 miles a week [...] were 26 percent less likely to develop coronary heart disease than those running just 13 miles per week.
So to sum up, running is way way better than doing nothing. More than 40 miles a week may have not only diminishing returns, but negative consequences.
I'd guess most people here don't realize what a crazy time commitment running 40 miles a week actually is. Even if you can pull off 6 minute miles (4 hours/week), there's still a need for rest after the run, more sleep, more food, replacing shoes and clothes as they wear out. The extra time adds up.
> what a crazy time commitment running 40 miles a week actually is.
Absolutely.
52 yo here, averaging about 15 miles/week running + 4-7 miles/week hiking. It takes major dedication just to work that amount in, I have no idea how I'd spin up to do 40 mi/week.
And as far as I'm concerned: The cardio benefit is pretty minuscule compared to what it does for the head.
I'm 51, and I only run a little more than half that much. On the other hand, distance only affects the on-road time. When you factor in getting ready and cooling down and stretching and dealing with gear and everything else, I probably spend more than an hour a day on average.
Then again, it's something that just has to be done. Some form of exercise is necessary to stay healthy and sane. I need to sleep and bathe, I need to do housework and pay bills, I need to do all that other adult stuff . . . and I need to exercise. Any option will take time. Like every other obligatory thing, that means less time reading or surfing the web or playing video games or watching TV or whatever. Oh well. Life's like that.
> It takes major dedication just to work that amount in, I have no idea how I'd spin up to do 40 mi/week.
Slowly, and do a little every day. Or at least, that worked for me. I do 3-4 miles a day (longer on weekends) for 25-30 mi/week total. I've worked up to that from zero over 18-24 months.
If you measure how much time you spend watching TV or surfing the web it puts it in perspective... I used to run about 40 miles a week a few months ago. Usually ended up being between 5 and 6 hours a week. The long run is usually on the weekend when I'd imagine most people can find a few hours to spare. I am sadly injured right now and biking or inline skating instead. Now THAT takes some time and is so much less efficient time wise in maintaining my weight. I rode 22 miles in 1:20 and only burned 900 calories or so. Normally it would take me 1 hour to burn that running.
I agree wholeheartedly about TV or surfing the web.
Me personally, it takes about half an hour around every run, getting dressed, getting water, stretching before and after, showering and changing clothes. longer runs leave me lethargic for a while. A two hour run leaves me exhausted. A two hour run leaves me worthless for an hour or possibly three.
40 miles in 5 hours is amazing. My bare minimum around running time would be 15 minutes a run, and i can't run 10 6 minute miles 4 times a week. I could maybe do 4 10's@9:00. But if i put in the effort, that would come down.
40 miles at 5 hours/week is just phenomenal. You must have world class biomechanics. I can't imagine how fast you run. You are a stupendous badass. I hope you recover soon.
40 miles / 5 hours is 8 mph or a 7:30 pace (presumably "easy" for him/her). That's quick but not olympics level (they do more like 6:30 easy, I think).
(As a much slower runner, I can maintain 7:30 for a mile or two. Just not 40. :-))
I think those 40 miles were over multiple outings in a week, but let's compare with a 26 mile marathon:
A very good but not world-level time for the marathon is 2:20 or so for 26 miles. That's more like 5:30 per mile. World record pace is an even more insane 4:41.5 a mile (http://www.runnersworld.com/newswire/dennis-kimettos-maratho...). So yes, 6:30 should be easy, if you're at that level (must be, given that I could do 10k in 40 minutes, which is around that pace, when I was a lot younger, and I'm not a running talent)
Yeap, this was my average speed over all my weekly mileage. My long run would range from 7:00 to 7:30 pace and would top out at 13 to 15 miles. My easiest runs were about 8:00 and my fast pace (probably 6 or less miles per week) was from 6:10 to 6:30. I would say I did seem to run my overall mileage faster than people that would destroy me in races (which is probably why I'm injured).
The 7:30 pace had my heart rate at 145 on flat ground in cool weather at age 40 for a 13 mile run which from what I understand is the right pace.
Pulling 50 miles a week currently and plan on putting 10 more to that number.
I do it because my sanity needs it. Been through a very painful heartbreak after having the guts to fall in love again. Now back to square one again. But I want to get better and love again. and again.
Running is incredibly therapeutic, it's the perfect time to clear your head and get deep in thought. It's almost meditative in a way, I loved hitting the point just before I really started to push myself, where my body and mind seemed almost perfectly in-sync.
The article frames the question as a sort of strawman in some ways. Rather than ask "is running good or bad for you?" you could ask "is an alternative form of exercise, that has fewer damaging side effects, better?" For example, would you be just as well off walking, skiing, or biking? My understanding is the answer to that is even less clear.
I don't know about that. From a pure physical health perspective (i.e. discounting convenience, cost and supposed mental health benefits), there are a bunch of exercises that are strictly superior to running. They provide all of the cardio benefits of running, but without the prevalence of joint injury when you crank up the time investment. Some good examples are swimming, biking, or using a rowing machine.
I'm a big believer in the idea that motivation trumps all other considerations when it comes to exercise though, so you should run if you like running.
biking is one of the worst exercises out there. sure you save joints, but your back, neck and possibly erection will suffer instead. Got couple of colleagues/friends who have health issues exactly because of biking.
and if you do road biking, depending on location, you are at mercy of car drivers on narrow roads. even if 99,9% are good and paying attention all the time, sooner or later someone won't. if you do other types of biking, there are other safety issues.
by all means do it if that's your thing, but don't call it super healthy, or safe. take 2 steps back - most of us sit on our a__es all days, so you go and do sport where you... sit on your a__. right.
I think that's a false equivalency - sitting on the bike is not the same kind of sitting as in your office, unless you get a lot more cardio in at your desk than most of us. If you're worried about your erection (or labia), saddles with cutouts are easily available (I like Terry ones myself). And clearly cars are dangerous to runners too, who often rock reflective garments, LED blinkies, etc. much like cyclists.
It is kind of, and unfortunately it doesn't give a lot of background. For the past few years there have been a few studies suggesting that distance running (say anything past a 1/2 marathon) might actually be harmful for ones heart. As I runner I'm personally glad to have more reporting on this issue.
So, the question of "is an alternative form of exercise, that has fewer damaging side effects, better?" is an important one to ask, and better would need to have a definition around it. However, answering that question wasn't the goal of this article.
The article focuses on heart health (where on first look, I was expecting joint damage) so any high cardio exercise could lead to this, if taken to an extreme. Running probably engages this more easily since it works the whole body for longer periods.
Biking is my personal go-to exercise but it's not without its risks from traffic, pollution, or in the winter, black ice. Still, it's otherwise nonproductive commute time being made very useful.
It doesn't get below freezing where I live so I haven't had to contend with this personally, but when my friend lived in Boston and cycled throughout the winter, he got the Finnish studded snow tires for his bike:
He said it made him feel a lot safer. (That page mentions a concern that there are failure cases related to inappropriate tire pressure that may reduce traction compared to regular tires, but it seems like they normally increase traction by a huge amount.)
There is also the fact that running isn't the only form of exercise. Therefore, no one needs to be subjected to all the health problems caused by running just to try to improve their health.
Its disingenuous to claim that running is awesome because someone is willing to trade some major cardiovascular problems with other health problems. Running still triggers major health concerns that aren't associated with other forms of exercise.
Something I've tried to live by is to not say useless and vague things.
For example, you just implied you are not "moderate" in some things. So what are those things? Why did you choose to not be moderate in them? How is that better than not being moderate in running? And what is "moderate"?
There was a study a few years ago (posted below) that actually found running is fairly good for your joints as the stress encourages your body to build and repair cartilage.
If you are personally having joint issues and you want to continue to run I encourage you not to give up. Try different shoes, have your gait analyzed, even see a physical therapist who specializes in running. I obviously don't know if you are in this situation or if you have tried any of these things, but I know even a simple thing like changing the type of shoe you wear and a little rest can help resolve a lot of minor joint pain issues.
I switched from "heel strike" to "ball of foot strike" when running. (Just tilt the front of your foot down.) It took a couple weeks to adjust. After a couple months, my chronic knee pain faded away, to be replaced by chronic pain in the knuckles of my big toes.
Doing the ball strike puts an immediately noticeably less of an impact load on your knees/hips.
My experience as well. Started running last year at age 44, started getting bad knee pain within weeks. Switched to forefoot strike, knee pain practically disappeared, ran my first marathon last fall. Different people have different constraints, of course, but I would urge anyone interested in picking up running to at least try it out.
I'm 28, relatively thin, been running casually sometimes, and also got knee pain after a few months last time I got into running more seriously. I stopped for a while, did various strengthening exercises that I found on Youtube and most importantly adapted the to front-middle strike.
For this, I also got low drop (4mm) shoes, which made adapting the strike so so much easier.
The knee pain is now gone and I feel that my leg is in better shape--strength better distributed--because of the front strike.
I once went to a sports doctor about my knee pain. As I recall, he charged me $600 for an evaluation, and prescribed orthotics. The orthotics did not have any effect, despite my wearing them for years.
at some point in the beginning of the year, I did change my strike and it helped. I started leaning forward while running and it changed the strike to the forefoot one.
But recently I developed a new kind of pain... it happens when I bend my knees. The worse part it now hurts even if I cycle longer than 10 min! :(
I guess I will keep digging on this subject. Thanks for your advice anyway!
Don't lose heart. It takes time. In my 30s, I used to barely do 400m of relatively brisk running. And I'd mentally resigned to looking at running as a thing for the young. Until a wise friend told me about the book 'Born to run'. It was in 2009 Nov/Dec. The book is a fantastic & entertaining read, despite based on Scientific facts. So I recommend it to every body, whenever this topic comes up. Keep on gifting it to friends. Thought of giving it to random strangers in park, who I saw struggle with running, but restrained myself. But whenever any stranger in the park asks me about running, I always recommend the book. Okay, I digressed a lot, so let me get back to the point.
I try to remember the following from the book:
1) Easy then speed - A mistake all rookies make is they go for speed. A thumb rule for easy is, you should be able to breathe easily i.e. easy enough to have a conversation with a co-runner. Not easy, I keep lapsing into running fast, but time and again remind myself of this.
2) Be upright: In your comment you mention you lean forward. Thats a wrong posture. The weight should pass vertically through your body, right uptill the foot. As somebody above said, even the strikes should be below your body. Not too much forward. Head should be straight.
3) Barefoot: I am not fanatic about this. My wife runs with shoes and she does 30km every week, and she is fine with it. But before starting (in 2009) I did use to get some knee pain, perhaps because of trying to run fast. Perhaps it was longer stride (like teenagers run for short distances). Or perhaps it was just lack of belief & practice. Or perhaps it was the heel-strike. Once an old gentleman in the park, I'd developed friendship with, commented that I was heel striking. And I thought, what the heck, just some random old school & out-dated thought. My bad.
But anyway long story short, the book convinced me to run barefoot. And so I started, first with shoes itself, but very consciously toe striking, and it was quite difficult. I could definitely go upto 2-3 km, but my calf muscles used to pain like hell. But knees were perfectly fine. So it happened what the book predicted, and I was encouraged.
And I have been persistent with it. Fast forward to today. I do 41km per week (13, 13 & 15-17 on alternate days). Use a vibram for muddy trails. On concrete do bare foot.
Also I encouraged my wife to start running and after initial resistance, she started in 2013. Then she could barely do 200meters. But now as I said above, she is also a serious (albeit in amateur/recreational category) runner. Her pulse rate dropped from being 80/90 to now in the 60s.
So if you want to, keep at it, and it will happen.
Oh man, I can't even imagine how it would be in -25C. As I live just below tropic of cancer, so its always warm - 13-15C in winters (just for name sake!) and 35-37 in Summer - these are day time temperatures.
Try adding in regular strength training - doing squats properly can help immensely, and with a few other leg exercises, you might be surprised just how much of a difference it makes.
I've never had the best body for running. I'm not tall (good) but too heavy (bad) and I have flat feet (bad). However, I was able to start running at age 50 and by 55 qualify to run in the Boston Marathon without injury. I ran six marathons and probably a dozen half marathons in that time, eventually at a pace in the top 20% of my age group, not that great (or even that good) but I finished my marathons and was in fantastic shape.
Here are my recommendations:
Shoes -- keep experimenting until you find pairs that don't cause aches and pains. Some shoes caused knee pain in me, but others didn't. Find two different brands that work for you and use both pairs alternating between them. Each manufacturer's shoes feel a bit different and alternating you will lower the chances of overuse injury.
Form -- learn to feel like you are hitting the ground very lightly with your feet. Don't pound, land on your heels, or over stride. Thinking of contacting the ground directly under your body with your foot fall will keep you from landing too far in front and will reduce the strain on your legs.
Mileage -- limit long runs (over 5 miles) to one per week and once they get over 12 miles to once every two weeks. For most of my training I kept mileage to under 40 miles per week. Plan on taking over six months to build up to being able to run a marathon even if you start out in good shape. Build mileage slowly.
Frequency -- take days off to allow your body to recover. Most of my weeks I ran MWF about 3.5 miles each day, one day at the track doing intervals or hill training, and one long run on the weekend.
Run/Walk -- my first marathon was one of my fastest. Although the conditions were ideal that day, I also credit using Galloway's run/walk method [1]. During a race or long run I would walk through the water stops and walk for say 45 seconds to 1 minute during that time. This really gives your legs a nice break and I was surprised at how fast my overall times ended up being using this method.
Lose Weight -- I will never be a good weight for distance running (even in college as a gymnast with very low body fat I weighed about 150). However, distance running helps one lose weight and losing weight helps one with running. Being heavy greatly increases the stress on your body.
Finally, I would take aspirin or Advil for aches when needed to help keep inflammation down. Warm up before running, but don't stretch before running.
Please don't take Advil before long runs. Advil is taxing on your kidneys and so is endurance running. The combination of both can lead to a trip to the ER or even death if you're unlucky.
Whether it actually helps reduce injuries and pain is also somewhat questionable according to a recent 538 article[0].
see a physical therapist to figure out where you should increase strength in complementary muscle groups as well as fix flexibility issues. Also, making corrections to running form.
I've been running (well, fast jogging) 10-20 miles/week for over 10 years. I've had so many feet and knee problems over the years and ended up getting $250 custom-molded graphite orthotics. Those essentially acted as crutches as my arches, which made my feet very weak. Walking around barefoot caused my feet to collapse inwards, causing more pain.
Tried biking instead, but indoor biking is the most mind-numbing activity ever, and outdoor biking proved to be equally damaging (lots of falls) and far scarier (going downhill on a road with cars).
Basically I want an outdoor elliptical machine that moves at a reasonable 5-8mph.
Look at a male Olympian long distance runner's physique. Is that what you want to look like? You probably won't get there, but is that a worthwhile goal? Whereas a short or mid distance runner looks more normal and healthy. This tells me that I probably want to run shorter distances. In fact, I never run more than a mile, but do it quickly.
That's not at all how it works. One doesn't get that body type from running long distances, one runs long distances well because they are predisposed to that body type.
Consider, for example, a swim meet. If you look at the competitors in prelims, you'll see a variety of body types. By the semifinals, you'll see a smaller variety, and by the finals, you'll likely see a field of competitors with similar builds. Most look at that and assume a build like that of those in the finals is the result of an intense swimming regiment, when actually it's that body type that enabled swimming success. The entire field of competitors may have put in similar levels of effort, but the physiological advantages genetically granted to the better swimmers is what resulted in their relative success.
Distance running has no effect on ones weight...are you really saying that?
Exercise can change your physique dramatically. I've been a state-level bicycle racer (170 lb and skinny), master swimmer (195 lb brick shithouse), triathlete, road runner for decades.
Different distances lead to leaner or stockier builds.
The vast majority of the top runners in the Olympic and other world-class marathons are well under 6 feet tall, with most closer to 5 feet tall. Sprinters, on the other hand, are well over 6 feet. Are you suggesting distance running makes people shorter?
That is not the truth. While generally not over 6 feet tall, the Olympic distance runners had a very normal height distribution. One of the shorter, Hillary Bor, is still 5' 7".
Still not closer to 5 foot tall. I don't know how or why this is still an argument. Marathon runners are not 5' tall. That's tiny. And average height in the Netherlands is right at 6'.
Netherlands is an extreme outlier (world's tallest people). 5 foot 7 is actually standard in my country and even on the tall side for my continent, South America (although better diet is fixing that). It's also tall for Asia and Africa.
Yep, and the other two guys were both over 5'8". Actually, out of every distance event, 2/3 of the medal winners were over 5'8".
Feyisa Lilesa is 5'9"
Galen Rupp is 5'11"
Mo Farah is 5'9"
Bernard Lagat is 5'8"
Matt Centrowitz is 5'9"
Paul Chelimo is 5'11"
Tamirat Tola is 5'11"
Taoufik Makhloufi is 5'9"
Nick Willis is 6'
Evan Jager is 6'2"
Mahiedine Mekhissi-Benabbad is 6'3"
This is pretty far off. I'm 6'4" and weighed 165 when I ran cross country competitively. I didn't look like the type of runner you're describing, neither did 90% of my teammates. Running more than a mile at a time won't turn you into a stick thin marathoner. Olympians are hardly what people should be comparing themselves to if they're looking to get into running.
6'4" and 165lbs (193cm/74.8kg) seems quite thin though - I don't think you are necessarily providing the counterexample you think you are here? Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point. Internet BMI calculator says that would make you "underweight" and put you in the 7th percentile for your height and weight (as in, 93% of people as tall as you weigh more than you).
I'm not saying I wasn't thin. I definitely was. However, you wouldn't have been able to pick me out from a crowd as a 'cross country runner'. And to be competitive at that level, you can't be carrying around any extra weight. While BMI can be a helpful tool, it's pretty flawed. It doesn't take into account muscle/fat ratio. I really don't have much body fat, but am now only 5 pounds away from being 'overweight' accordingly to BMI.
Really, my point was that running 15-20 miles a week won't give you the body of a Kenyan Olympian. Running can be incredibly rewarding, I was simply trying to state that if I had to run 90 miles a week to be barely underweight, 15 miles a week shouldn't scare anyone off if they're just trying to be healthier.
interesting comment. i wonder though -- how much of this is cause vs effect (e.g., people with bodies naturally suited to shorter vs longer distances), and how much of "do i want to look like that" is your particular, perhaps arbitrary cultural associations of "this is good"?
Sprints/HIIT have been to shown to be more effective at what many people are trying to get out of running - in better shape and body composition changes.
Short and mid distance runners spend equal amount of time in a gym doing squads and upper body exercises as they do running, and the diet is completely different between two of them, that is why they have a more muscular look compared to their long distance runners.
How do I know they got their statistics right? It seems like a very easy mistake to make to look at health of people and see runners tend to be more healthy, not taking into account that health issues might prevent people from running in the first place. (So running would just be an indicator for health, not a cause).
When in really bad shape, I tried some physical activity to maintain a certain metabolism level. Biking wasn't effective (even though it's easier on your joints and mind), I was surprised at the difference with jogging. Somehow the spread of efforts and rhythm of running is a very very effective trigger for your cardiovascular system. Very quickly you find yourself a bit warmer, with a deeper breathing. Something I never achieved on a bike (it was either no sensations, or overheat and fatigue).
I find it enjoyable when people respond with answers that don't match the question. Often I find they provide an answer that would match if the question were cut short, e.g.
I'm a cross-country runner averaging 30+ miles a week. I don't see any harm. It's had a great impact on me. I feel healthier and more fit. Some articles just don't make sense.
The article clearly states the harm may be things like cardiomegaly which you wouldn't overtly see (until you have an MI at 55). In any case, your subjective experience doesn't outweigh actual science conducted on a significant group of people. The article does make sense, you just don't like the idea because it would mean you might not be as healthy as you think.
That doesn't mean you should stop running, just that it is a decision with consequences like any other.
Genetics has a huge role to play. Alberto Salazar had a heart attack at 48. Now, maybe running gave him a few years before his first incident as it sounds like he was already taking medication for high blood pressure and cholesterol.
The point being once you get into serious mileage like the 30+ miles per week, doing 15-20 mile training runs and racing 1/2 and full marathons its best to view them as personal performance goals vs health goals.
Also, as someone who has run long distance for about 10 years now, take it from me that rest is as important as the miles. Making sure you have rest build into your training plan and after your goal race. This will help you avoid burnout and injuries. Remember, all training really does is takes your body to a stressing point. Its the rest portion that allows your body to respond and adapt to the stress which in turn allows your body to perform at a higher level of performance.
For a very rough wedge, suppose there were some other activity which didn't have all the positive perceptions around running, which created painful and debilitating injuries requiring medical attention as a matter of course, whose participants could all expect to require specialized medical equipment to go about their lives for a period of weeks to months, several times in their careers in that activity. Imagine there were a whole cottage industry of doctors specialized in patching these people back up and sending them on their way to go get injured again, driving up insurance premiums for the rest of us in the process. Imagine that this activity, and this industry, primarily targeted children and adolescents.
We'd go apeshit. There would be immense moral panic.
A cross country runner at my high school was newly on crutches every other week, sometimes for the third time, and no one batted an eye. Orthopedic surgeons make their careers on relationships with the families of athletic teenagers, and no one bats an eye.
Coming from a background where painful, traumatic injuries are not just something that happens to everyone on a regular basis, statements like "I don't see any harm" are insane.
(Yes, I know it is possible to exercise in ways that mitigate this risk, and I do so. Still, if you really think about it, it's kind of crazy how much we tolerate sports injury).
Is that culture of injury actually normal? I went to a smaller but not tiny high school (~1000) and crutches were always notable, not a common thing for athletes.
I guess it is normal in that the people (especially the youngsters) who run or practice other sports have a much higher injury rate than people who just walk or basically do nothing.
Also, in my experience, a vast majority of pupils and students who were injured did it during a sport activity and not because of other kinds of accidents.
Saturated fats are not associated with all cause mortality, CVD, CHD, ischemic stroke, or type 2 diabetes.... [1]
The current available evidence found no significant difference in all-cause mortality or CHD mortality, resulting from the dietary fat interventions. [2]
[1] Intake of saturated and trans unsaturated fatty acids and risk of all cause mortality, cardiovascular disease, and type 2 diabetes: systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.
BMJ. 2015 Aug 11;351:h3978. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h3978.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26268692
[2] Evidence from randomised controlled trials does not support current dietary fat guidelines: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Open Heart. 2016 Aug 8;3(2):e000409. doi: 10.1136/openhrt-2016-000409.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27547428
This review is based on two observational studies that began in the 1980s -- long after health-conscious people had heard the official wisdom that saturated fat causes heart disease. So, although the researchers try hard to control for individual differences such as exercise level, it's very possible that the people who ate the least saturated fat are also the ones who engaged in all sorts of other health-promoting activities, which were not controlled for. Epidemiologists call this the "healthy user" bias.
All that said, though, I agree that the impact of saturated fat on health is hardly clear-cut. As someone else in the comments mentioned, the best advice is probably the oldest: Moderation in all things -- including moderation.
there's a lot of recent (& to many:) convincing arguments that saturated fats have been demonized w/o cause, for social dynamics reasons. arguably "good calories, bad calories" was the book that started this modern reexamining of nutritional orthodoxy, but see also many other recent articles and studies.
Running is a tool. There are plenty of fitness tools available, some better for the individual than others. Choose the right tool (!).
More importantly, fitness also helps the mental side of things. Kung fu and physical yoga (apocryphal or otherwise) helped monks/yogis to get fit enough so they could concentrate on the mental/spiritual side of their pursuits, and not to forget the various greek philosphers (I'm sure others will chime in with more examples).
Like many professional programmers and other folks whose jobs keep them relatively sedentary during long work hours, I began to really struggle with weight gain as I progressed into my 30s.
I tried various things: cycling, personal trainer for "big lifts", running, elliptical machine, rowing. I found running to be rather hard on my joints, so I never really got into it; but I put a lot of time into the other activities, mostly doing them on my own. And, frustratingly, I didn't get out of them what I hoped.
What ended up making a huge difference was regular attendance at a variety of group fitness classes: weights, diversified HIIT, circuit training, indoor cycling. What posed a bit of a mental hurdle, but only at first, was that most of the other participants were/are women in their 20s, which made me feel awkward. As a guy, it was a little frustrating for me to be in a room of women, many 10+ years younger, who were "kicking my butt" when it came to endurance, form, and intensity. But my fitness level eventually caught up, and I'm even going for my second certification as an instructor/coach of a couple of the formats I enjoy the most. I've lost and kept off over 30 lbs., and I'm constantly motivated by the dedication of other folks who take the classes with me. In addition to regular group exercise, I've found tracking calorie input-output to be helpful, both for weight loss and maintenance. Make sure you're eating enough protein, it's really important!
Some brands I can recommend, from personal experience: Les Mills BodyPump and Grit[1], Orangetheory Fitness[2], Spinning[3], myzone monitor[4], Fitbit (Charge HR and Blaze)[5].
I also recommend buying a high-density foam-roller[6] and some balls of various densities (tennis, racquet/squash, lacrosse). I've found huge relief from post-exercise aches and pains in spending about 20 minutes after each exercise session "rolling out" my muscles. It really hurts when you're not used to it (as in teeth-gnashing, grunting discomfort!), but it eventually starts to feel good and improves recovery.
I have experienced some of the described symptoms (irregular heartbeat and etc), but wouldn't have done much differently. Honestly, this article basically boils down to 'do what your body can handle'.
People are different. Bodies are different. Some people can handle 120 miles per week. Some people struggle to run one. Running is obviously good for your health, just don't over do it. And stretch and foam roll, that's as important as anything.