Contrary to the NBR article

Happy New Year everyone!  I was recently directed to an article that says the average woman has "No Business Running" and became very discouraged by it.  Today on CNN, there's a great news report based on a 20 year study of runners.  :o)  Hopefully this will motivate someone else like it motivated me! 

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/health/2008/ 12/31/gupta.run.good.health.cnn

The video won't load for me, but the article wasn't meant to discourage you from running- in fact, the author just completed a triathlon- it was meant to make the point that running is an advanced exercise that is incredibly hard on your body, and is best done accompanied by a specialized weight training program.

Best summed up by the article's quote: "If you're a woman who simply wants to be leaner, lose weight, and look more like a figure competitor, running doesn't have to be a part of your routine. On the other hand, if you have a goal of completing an endurance event or just enjoy running, you'll need to include an injury prevention strength training program."

With each step you take while running, you put a massive amount of force on your joints. Like the article says, I don't know a single runner who hasn't dealt with some chronic injury. After three months of running, I already have a foot injury that requires surgery. This isn't to say you shouldn't run- I still do- but that the best way to run and avoid injury is to take the necessary precautions, including specialized weight training.

Yes, distance running has many health benefits. But there are other ways to get the same calorie-burning results, such as interval training, that are less likely to injure you. And while you may lose weight running, running alone won't give you the "toned" look that women strive for- this requires weight training.

Good luck!

I am gonna say as well that the article is discouraging. She spends more time trying to divert you from running than anything else. Then in the very end she says if you're still determined to run then you need to strength train. To me though the strength training is common sense seeing as how running creates a natural muscle imbalance anyways. But if I hadn't already become one of those "joggers/runner" already then this article may have made me not want to start....

That's what I thought too.  Any exercise program needs to be entered into with common sense and the patience to listen to your body when it's telling you you're doing too much.  It's unlikely that anyone can begin any sort of physical program and go 'balls to the wall' and not end up hurt.  I've been running for 3 months, have eased my way up to 3 miles a day and have no injuries.  I've done my homework, not upped my mileage or my speed more than the recommended amounts and have been fine.  The news report on CNN said that runners live a longer, healthier life (no brainer) but are less prone to disabilities AND...(drumroll please) injury.  IMO, I thought the NBR article tried to scare new runners out of the idea when in fact it's the most practical form of exercise.  All you need is information, common sense, good sneakers and motivation.

Yeah, I didn't particularly care for that article myself. The point, I think, is actually more in the line attacking the conventional wisdom that women shouldn't lift weights. Like many attacks on heterodoxy, it makes its own position just as absurdly one-sided.

I mean, running is what your body was designed to do. It's not evil. You run the risk of injury with anything, especially if you're not doing it right. If weight training has a better record like that, it's because people enter assuming they don't know, rather than just taking off.

That so, the other part, that you don't have to run to lose weight, is solid advice. But I think there are better ways to communicate that then scare tactics.

Original Post by freedomfrom:

I mean, running is what your body was designed to do. It's not evil.

 Your body was designed to sprint all out over short distances, and walk long distances, not to go jogging.

 Actually, no - running isn't what your body was evolutionarily designed to do.

Walking is.

 If youy study the biomechanics of nature's runners' - horses, cheetas and so on, you'll see that their tendons and bone structures are constructed to absorb impacts and rebound like a mechanical spring, with elongated lower leg structures and almost no musculature on the lowest part of the leg, and an ankle joint that's designed to act as a spring. Consequently they're most energy-efficient mode of locomotion is a run.

 Humans in contrast are most energy-efficient at a walking speed of about 3.5 mph, have muscular lower legs, lack the springy tendons and shock absorbers of nature's runners, and have the wrong kind of energy usage profile to be really designed for long-distance running.

 Our evolutionary heritage predisposes us to walk long distances and sprint short ones. Most running programs assume that we're naturally capable of long-distance running as well, but that's just not the case, at least without extensive training and preparation.

  That population study is decidedly flawed compared to the medical data the Army has based their new running program on, for example - it naturally excludes the populations that have hopelessly screwed up their ankles and knees beyond repair from running from the studied populations. Which is of course a natural outcome of a study designed to highlight the researcher's desired result.

  Don't get me wrong, you can run, and stay healthy. It's just not as easy as the Runner's World crowd would like you to believe, and takes a lot more care and forethought in your approach to training for distance than "just common sense".

I disagree. Here's a summation, which provides a list of counter-examples:

http://www.biology.utah.edu/bionews2.php?stor y=bramble111704.txt

It is not, admittedly, writ in stone and might be wrong. You can find studies critical of the idea. Then again, that's science. I find it persuasive, though. However, I doubt it will prove terribly persuasive here, for much of the same reasons why I have trouble with the tone of the inital article.

The injuries that most new runners face is not because of running itself, it's because they have muscle inbalances or weaknesses in key spots that cause overuse injuries. For example, most women runners have IT issues because of weak abductor muscles (outer hip/butt area) - this weakness causes the hips to sway slightly when running which pulls the IT a little further and tighter. Foot/shin problems are most often caused by an inbalance in strenght between the front and the back calf muscle. Most often these problems go away after a couple of years of running.

If a running program is started correctly (ie C25K) and the guidelines are followed on not increasing more than 10% per week, injuries can be avoided. Also, if a new runner holds steady at 3x per week at about 5K and doesn't increase for a year or more they will build a sufficient base to avoid injury. (you can cross train on the bike the other days if you want a workout) The key is listening to your body - if it hurts,  go to a doctor/physiotherapist.

Mmm, yes, that's one novel theory. I find it unpersuasive however, since all of those adaptations are also favourable to walking, and running depends on a regular source of carbohydrate fuel to replrenish stored muscle glycogen, something humans did not in fact have until the advent of agriculture. They most definitely did not have that as cursorial hunter/gatherers on the savannah, which is where the hypothesis falls to pieces.

 Our closest food pyramid competitors with what appears to be a superficially similar endurace hunter ecological niche is the wolf and wolf-analogues. However, they have bone/tendon/muscle adaptations that favour a higher speed over longer distances than humans due to the much lower muscle mass on the calf/lower leg and springier tendons with a markedly more favourable adaptation for both long-and short-distance running. A wolf will expend much less energy per pound of mass covering the same distance as a human and at a higher average speed, while using mostly free fatty acids for energy - as opposed to us who tend to run out of energy for high-speed endurance runing after 1-3 hours (avg. 2.5) without additional supplies of carbohydrates; and no, there were no Gatorade or energy gels available on the tropical or subtropical savannah.

 However, speculating about that is kinda besides the point - while we didn't evolve to run (we couldn't have, endurance running couldn't possibly have become a factor in human evolution until the advent of regular, reliable carbohydrate sources with the introduction of agriculture) humans are remarkably adaptable, and with a sane training schedule that takes into account the experiences of previous generations of endurance sports trainees such as the ones you can design for yourself using the Runner's World smartcoach program and the Army's Fit To run or the No business Running (without this) workout to prepare your body for the impact of running you can train yourself to run triple-ultramarathons.

 Well, eventually anyway, if that's your goal. You just have to be smart about how you go about getting there, is all.

Original Post by melkor:

 That population study is decidedly flawed compared to the medical data the Army has based their new running program on, for example - it naturally excludes the populations that have hopelessly screwed up their ankles and knees beyond repair from running from the studied populations.

 The more I think about the study in the CNN report, the more I don't like it. A group of people who have been running for 20 years is a group of people who are mentally and physically capable of running for 20 years. Of course they would be less prone to injuries than the general population- if they were as prone or more prone to injury, they wouldn't have been able to run for 20 years. I would go so far as to say that these people would healthier than the general population, even if they never ran a step. That is to say, correlation does not equal causation- you absolutely cannot say from this study that the running CAUSED them to be healthier, live longer, and be less injury prone- it makes more sense for the causation to go in the opposite direction (i.e., preexisting good health causing the ability to run for 20 years), if there is causation at all.

This is just more of the fear, uncertainty, and doubt that people like to spread about running.  I agree whole heartedly that if you want to trim down and have less chance of being injured, then Pilates, Yoga, or strength training maybe a safer route for you.

I came off the couch after 20 something years and started running and then triathlons.  I have yet to suffer an injury after three years (knock on wood).  What do I attribute that to?  Never pushing myself to go too hard, too fast, and too far before I am ready.  A balanced program, which includes strength training besides swimming, biking, and running.  A lot of hip and knee problems are the result of muscle imbalances, and yes, listening to my body.  I know when a workout is just not going well, and stopping.

I won't get into the debate about what the body is and is not built for.  I just know that if you love to run, then run.  Just do it smartly.  If not, then there are 6000 other forms of exercise out there from which you can choose.  Just don't sit on the couch eating bon bons and crying about how flacid your body is.

I don't know whether or not the human body was designed for distance running but making the argumentthat one shouldn't run because it is not what we were designed to do is ridiculous in my opinion.  I suppose we were designed to drive cars, fly planes, type on keyboards, ride bicycles, or lift barbells?  The beauty of the human body is adaptability. 

Original Post by trhawley:

I don't know whether or not the human body was designed for distance running but making the argumentthat one shouldn't run because it is not what we were designed to do is ridiculous in my opinion.  I suppose we were designed to drive cars, fly planes, type on keyboards, ride bicycles, or lift barbells?  The beauty of the human body is adaptability. 

 That's not how I interpreted that argument- I think they're saying that if the premise that we're not designed for distance running is true, than we need to take special precautions to fill in the gaps, such as supplemental weight training and a carefully designed program. Just like we're not designed to withstand car crashes, so we wear seatbelts and follow traffic laws.

Original Post by trhawley:

I suppose we were designed to drive cars, fly planes, type on keyboards, ride bicycles, or lift barbells? 

 And once people started sitting down while driving cars, sitting on planes and typing on keyboards all of a sudden their backs and knees started to hurt.

Original Post by floggingsully:

Original Post by trhawley:

I suppose we were designed to drive cars, fly planes, type on keyboards, ride bicycles, or lift barbells? 

 And once people started sitting down while driving cars, sitting on planes and typing on keyboards all of a sudden their backs and knees started to hurt.

 And of course the back and knee pain has nothing to do with whether or not they are over weight.

video wont load for me either. bottom line, if you run do some strength training & use some common sense on how fast you should progress for your body. ive read other articles like that, they are just using the usual sensationalism, taking out of the book  "10,000 ways to provoke the public's interest"

I had no idea my post would cause such a ruckus!    The CNN article was inspiring to me and I just wanted to share it with others who might be tired of always hearing the negative side of running.  I am very new to running but have made my way from couch to 3 miles a day in less than 3 months.  I haven't experienced any injuries at all and don't think that's because I'm designed for running or have a natural runner's body or whatever.  I'm 35 years old and have never run a day in my life until recently.  I'd like to think I'm injury free and will stay that way because I've gone into the sport well informed and with the patience to listen to my body and know when I'm doing too much.  I agree that weight training is extremely important in general, but especially to anyone involved in high impact exercise.  But, I do plan to be one of the success stories in the next 20 year study! 

Original Post by trhawley:

Original Post by floggingsully:

Original Post by trhawley:

I suppose we were designed to drive cars, fly planes, type on keyboards, ride bicycles, or lift barbells? 

 And once people started sitting down while driving cars, sitting on planes and typing on keyboards all of a sudden their backs and knees started to hurt.

 And of course the back and knee pain has nothing to do with whether or not they are over weight.

Who said it had nothing to do with being overweight? Being over weight can lead to joint pain, sitting in a chair all day causes tight hips which also leads to joint pain. 

Original Post by floggingsully:

Original Post by trhawley:

Original Post by floggingsully:

Original Post by trhawley:

I suppose we were designed to drive cars, fly planes, type on keyboards, ride bicycles, or lift barbells? 

 And once people started sitting down while driving cars, sitting on planes and typing on keyboards all of a sudden their backs and knees started to hurt.

 And of course the back and knee pain has nothing to do with whether or not they are over weight.

Who said it had nothing to do with being overweight? Being over weight can lead to joint pain, sitting in a chair all day causes tight hips which also leads to joint pain. 

 Ah ha!

You know trhawley, you bring up some good points.  I mean, on people flying planes there's this whole thing with the eye.  As good as the eye is it's very limited in distance focusing, limited area possible to focus on, and even with good perpheral vision we are susceptable to objects from the side (like other planes).  It's amazing people built machines to fly and actually were able to pilot them before modern aviation instrumentation.  Add to that the amount of G's fighter pilots need to endure... it's just amazing how the body can do these things that it really shouldn't be able to do.   Like floating in space with out gravity.  WE were not designed for that yet we can survive without gravity... with certain exercises and whatnot added in.

I think the no-gravity side of things is probably the most convincing thing we aren't designed to do.  We were more designed to run than to float around in space.