11 ms·

There are plenty of compelling arguments against excessive running: 1) It is destructive to your joints and tendons. Injury rates are very high among runners.

• theobold 10y ago
  What qualifies as "excessive", though? Excessive anything is harmful almost by definition.
  • klodolph 10y ago
    This comment replies to the wording of the parent comment, not the content. We know what the parent comment means.
    • notacoward 10y ago
      No, we don't. I'm not sure even the author has a clear definition of "excessive" in mind, so we might not know even if we were all telepathic. The validity or applicability of their complaints about running is very closely tied to that definition, so it's entirely reasonable to seek clarification.
• samirillian 10y ago
  Pretty sure there have been studies positively correlating running a certain amount with dying younger. I can't imagine sucking in city pollution can be that healthy either. Anecdotally, it helps my anxiety.
  • AJ007 10y ago
    There is a tendency, from what I've observed, to use running as a way to have a really bad diet and still stay thin. There is a lot of pressure for people in their 20s and 30s who live in urban areas to both look fit and drink heavily. Not a good recipe for long term health.
    • projektir 10y ago
      Running is not great for losing weight, so I'm having doubts about this one...
      • echelon 10y ago
        It's been pretty effective for me. What are better ways of losing weight?
        • sanswork 10y ago
          Restricting calorie intake.
        • hueving 10y ago
          It takes hours of running to offset a couple of beers worth of calories. If you're eating unhealthy and drinking a lot, there is no amount of running to undo it.
          • dajohnson89 10y ago
            A beer is, say, 150 calories. A mile of running burns about 100 calories. When I ran, cruising speed was 7 minutes per mile. So a light 6 mile (10k) run would be about 45 minutes, 600 calories, or 6 miles.
            • tempestn 10y ago
              And that doesn't even take into account the increased metabolism after the run is finished, nor the increased resting burn rate (over time) due to increased muscle mass.
              • dajohnson89 10y ago
                Very true. Again this is anecdata, but when I ran my metabolism was insanely high. Runners are notorious for basically being pigs. One of the marathons I ran had a "carbo-loading" event. Basically huge vats of spaghetti were cooked, and runners would absolutely gorge. It's totally unnecessary, IMHO. It's good to eat enough and cleanly before a big run, but stuffing yourself just weighs you down. And come mile 20 or so, you're not going to be worried about how much energy you have to burn, but rather how much everything hurts.
  • mannykannot 10y ago
    Running has served me as an early warning of health problems.
  • monkmartinez 10y ago
    Well, where are the studies? While we are talking about dying; Personally, I would rather die young than die in a "home" shitting myself unable to remember who I am. I see this more than I care to and it is horrible.
  • notacoward 10y ago
    I'll try to clarify. According to the studies I've seen, mortality is decreased for all runners compared to non-runners. However, the greatest benefit was for people who ran a moderate amount. People who ran a lot regressed somewhat vs. the moderate runners, but still not to the level of the non-running population. There are also some serious methodological questions about the studies involved. The best analysis I've seen is here: http://www.runnersworld.com/sweat-science/will-running-too-much-kill-you http://www.runnersworld.com/sweat-science/will-running-too-m... So no, there's no solid evidence that any amount of running is harmful. Maybe if someone did a study in a place where pollution was extra bad (e.g. Beijing) they would find such an effect, but I'm not aware of any such efforts.
• notacoward 10y ago
  Anything done excessively can be unhealthy, by definition, but there's only a grain of truth to what you're saying. To your point 1: done properly, running isn't particularly harmful to joints and tendons, and some studies even seem to show that running can be beneficial in that regard[1]. The rapid changes in direction that cause the most stress are less prevalent in running than just about any other sport, not even considering the impacts that can occur e.g. in contact sports. Injury rates are not particularly high in running compared to other sports, and even if that were so you should be careful about confusing correlation with causation. A lot of people get injured while running mostly because it's an incredibly popular form of exercise. Do you seriously think there would be fewer injuries e.g. among the same number of people playing rugby? To your point 3: I know a lot of weight-training addicts like to make that claim, but it's just not true for any reasonable definition of fitness. Running isn't particularly good for weight loss, but weight loss has little to do with fitness. Ditto for weight gain, even in the form of muscle. When it comes to the kind of fitness that actually matters - i.e. developing one's heart and lungs to prevent the chronic problems that kill millions every year - only a few kinds of exercise are better than running. Swimming, rowing, and cross-country skiing come to mind. There are probably a few more, but lifting weights is certainly not on the list. You personally don't like running? Fine. No exercise is ideal for everyone. But spreading FUD that discourages others from pursuing a healthy habit doesn't seem very constructive. P.S. Instead of getting your friends to downvote, how about suggesting an actually-healthy alternative? [1] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/12/161209100236.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/12/161209100236.h...
  • hueving 10y ago
    Biking, swimming, and rowing are all better on the joints than the impact from running. >P.S. Instead of getting your friends to downvote, how about suggesting an actually-healthy alternative? Don't complain about downvotes, it makes for boring conversation.
    • monkmartinez 10y ago
      I had 2 herniated discs (L4-L5, L5-S1) in 2014 due to swinging an axe over my head for an extended period of time on a large structure fire. I say that to say this; running is way better for my back than cycling. My left leg, mostly my foot, still haven't completely recovered from the nerve impingement, but I am running 30 to 40 miles a week with no problems (lots of trail running too, check my Strava :) ) I can't cycle like I used to on any "normal" bicycles. This position, bent at 90 degrees or more, that one is required to sit while cycling is actually pretty terrible for the lower back. Also, being male and being part of a large male dominated industry - firefighting, I see lots of male cancers. That is, testicular and prostate cancers. My department is participating in a massive testicular and prostate study; We are being asked to change our chonies often and wash hands before going to the bathroom as the scrotum is a sponge for anything it touches... smashing that region when cycling for extended periods of time seems like a bad idea (and it hurts).
• mhb 10y ago
  This data still isn’t perfect, but it adds another brick to the growing pile suggesting that running will not ruin your knees.[1] New study explores how exercise may fight joint inflammation[2] [1]http://www.runnersworld.com/sweat-science/run-for-your-knees http://www.runnersworld.com/sweat-science/run-for-your-knees [2]http://www.runnersworld.com/sweat-science/is-running-actually-good-for-your-knees http://www.runnersworld.com/sweat-science/is-running-actuall...
• transposed 10y ago
  2) Your premise is true but your conclusion is wrong: while cardiovascular induces an aroused state and increases cortisol levels, it is also conditioning the body to be able to quickly return to a resting state, so when it is aroused at a later time (from a stressful encounter with a coworker for example), it will spend less time in that state because it recovers faster.
• nabla9 10y ago
  1) The idea that running is bad for your knees and joints is a popular fitness myth. According to several studies runners, even those who have run competitively for many years, do not have an increased prevalence of osteoarthritis. 2) Chronically elevated cortisol levels are result of overtraining. If you do that, you are doing it wrong. Overtraining happens when a person experiences stress and physical trauma from exercise faster than their body can repair it. Overtraining is not same as training a lot. Gradually increasing the running time and having enough rest days prevents that while the running distances grow. 3) You get runners high and it's not boring. Of course there are people with conditions that get worse with running. Fat people should start slowly.
  • CJefferson 10y ago
    The knees is still out. One problem with studying long term runners, I'd often people who get knee pain drop out. That's me -- went to various physios, they all agree I've messed up my knees, and won't ever recover enough to take up running again.
    • dspillett 10y ago
      Like the back problems sometimes associated with rowing, a lot of knee issues from running are due mainly to bad form. If you over-stride, particularly down-hill (and going "too fast" down hill instead of managing your pace/stride is a recipe for over-striding) the knees will be too straight during impact and so experience excessive impact force (and therefor potential damage) that would otherwise be absorbed by muscles/tendons/elsewhere.
      • CJefferson 10y ago
        While form is important, it doesn't fix fundamental joint problems unfortunately. I was checked fairly carefully by a couple of NHS physios, who both agreed it was joint problems, not bad form.
        • dspillett 10y ago
• WalterBright 10y ago
  > It is time consuming and boring Not for me. Mentally, it's the most productive part of my day. I "zone out" and work on problems that I haven't solved yet. Most design issues I work out while running, I write papers while running, I put together presentations while running. Many, many perplexing bugs I've solved while out for a run. Of course, I've been running for decades. When I started out, it was time consuming, painful, and boring. It took maybe 5 years for that to change into what it is now - I look forward to it, I enjoy it, and it works for me. Also, switching from a heel-strike gait to a ball-strike one has eliminated the knee pain.
  • Humdeee 10y ago
    I will never argue it's not time-consuming. Last year, I trained for 4 marathons and logged over 2000km of mileage. I don't want to think of the time that went into it, but I had a great time. The lonely "boring" runs I interpret for myself as a way to disconnect from the world and just zone out. Running with a group or with music curbs this greatly. All sports have a bit of injuries, but those who last are those who take care. Changing shoes every 500km or so, foam-rolling muscles and joints, not running through pain, etc. Proper nutrition (during longer runs AND as a lifestyle) also helps immensely. Slowly optimizing your gait, cadence, and varying your weekly training so you have those back-off weeks for recovery. These are what keep you on your feet. Here's my kicker that throws people off. I would rather watch a marathon on TV with full commentary than any other sporting event. I love it and follow the scene pretty closely. And this is coming from a guy who played professional soccer in his early 20's.
• paulddraper 10y ago
  #1 and #2 seem reasonable points, but > very inefficient at improving fitness Efficiency relative to what? Time? Joules? Cost? I'm skeptical running is "inefficient" at improving fitness.
  • theparanoid 10y ago
    Body weight exercises such as pull-ups, sit-ups, and push-ups are the best for fitness.
    • tempestn 10y ago
      Again, this depends on how you define both "best" and "fitness". What's best depends a lot on what someone enjoys. I would rather do an activity I enjoy for 40 minutes than get the same benefit doing something I hate for 20. Likewise, fitness means different things to different people and at different times. You may be focusing on cardio-vascular fitness, or on strength, or speed, or weight loss, or performance in a particular sport...
      • throwanem 10y ago
        Or, you know, "do something". Throwing a bunch of complexity and equipment cost at someone who doesn't currently exercise at all isn't likely to help anything much. Pushups and situps require only a clear stretch of floor.
        • tempestn 10y ago
          Sure! If you're just getting started and can stick with that, maybe that's best for you! Just not for everyone.
    • paulddraper 10y ago
      I think calisthenics are great, but they focus more on muscular strength than cardiovascular. There are only so many push-ups you can do before your muscles are fatigued. Running, swimming, and cycling are better for cardio because you can do them for great lengths of time.
• FrancoDiaz 10y ago
  #2 is something that can affect your mood, energy, focus, work productivity levels...
• return0 10y ago
  what about strength training/weightlifting?
• dspillett 10y ago
  >* It is time consuming and boring (of course this is subjective)* Very very subjective... > and very inefficient at improving fitness Depends on what your fitness goals are. It is pretty effective at maintaining cardiovascular capability but doesn't do much for overall strength or, on its own, weight management. Anecdotal data point: as a regular runner, 10K in <42m, half marathon in <1h50, I have a cracking set of legs and lungs but my upper body is pretty weak, my core strength "fair-to-middling", and I still carry a little more than I might like around the waist. The trick to overall fitness, and something I could benefit from addressing, is to not concentrate on just one thing. Mixing running with body-weight exercises (push-ups, pull-ups, crunches, dips, ...) is generally considered a good minimal-equipment combination. For "bulking" or faster muscle strength gains add in some weights. For weight loss: eat less (or, for a more nuanced approach, eat better).
• agumonkey 10y ago
  3) is extremely subjective. I have a love for running. You can say it's repetitive, dull, hurtful .. and I'd agree totally. I was extremely ill last year, couldn't even jog; the first time I could sustain mild jogging I cried of happiness. I love all kinds of sports, biking, skating, soccer, tennis, badminton you name it. Yet running has a special wire in my spine. When you're in flow, you feel like flying, it's a bit surreal. I'm not a regular runner anymore and I can't have long periods like these but still.
• chrisan 10y ago
  > 3) It is time consuming and boring (of course this is subjective), and very inefficient at improving fitness. Whether you run, bike, hike, swim, row, or whatever it doesn't have to be boring. Running/biking on a rural Midwest road IS insanely boring alone. I frequently listen to audiobooks or podcasts either educational or entertainment and that boring road becomes something I look forward to. The times I elect no audio I use it to think on hard problems I am trying to solve or plan for These eliminate your counters of time consuming and boring. Regarding the inefficiency, you can do cardio that isn't running if you believe running is bad for you. I listen to the same thing during strength training