7 ms·

It's not really that healthy though. The continuous impact can really mess your joints up long term.

Liuser 9y ago
This is often parroted. Comparing long time runners with those that have not run has shown that runner's joints / knees are actually better than those that do not run. Run with proper form, don't ramp mileage and intensity too fast. Humans are built for long distance running.
- rorykoehler 9y ago
  Watching the world record marathon in Berlin in person I would agree about form being the decisive factor. There is a huge middle ground between long time runners and people who don't run at all. That said I know multiple successful long time long distance runners who severely damaged themselves. I prefer cycling. Running has wrecked me multiple times (100m & 200m training). I'm not built for long distance which is a shame because I could hold pace with the best amateurs over middle distances when fit (sub 3 min kms).
- baddox 9y ago
  Did the group of long time runners include people who ran for a long time then had to stop because of injuries?
helloworld 9y ago
Running May Be Good for Your Knees https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/18/well/move/running-may-be-good-for-your-knees.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/18/well/move/running-may-be-...
nl 9y ago
Why? Humans evolved on the plains of Africa, hunting animals by running them down to exhaustion[1]. I think some of the bare foot running purists become cult-like in their views, but I think Chris Mcdougall's "Born to Run"[2] book is worth reading and thinking about. It's an easy, well written and entertaining read too. [1] Watch the amazing Attenborough clip of them running an healthy, fully grown male antelope down. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=826HMLoiE_o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=826HMLoiE_o [2] http://www.chrismcdougall.com/born-to-run/the-barefoot-running-debate/ http://www.chrismcdougall.com/born-to-run/the-barefoot-runni...
- baddox 9y ago
  As far as I can tell, the endurance running hypothesis is not considered a settled matter, but even if it is true, it doesn’t mean that subsequent adaptations in all or some groups of humans hasn’t compromised this ability. Moreover, perhaps the environment when humans evolved on the plains of Africa didn’t provide much selective pressure for joints to last as many years as modern humans expect their joints to last.
  - nl 9y ago
    Yes I agree it's not settled. But nor is it settled that running causes damage, and I think the endurance running hypothesis provides an interesting reason to consider the counter-case.
- evandijk70 9y ago
  Even though I am not convinced running is necessarily bad for joints, and I am a runner myself, the argument that humans are evolved to run seems to fall flat for me. For one, AFAIK humans rarely aged beyond 40 in those times, so it is entirely feasible that the accumulated wear and tear starts to hurt the joints after that age.

This is often parroted. Comparing long time runners with those that have not run has shown that runner's joints / knees are actually better than those that do not run. Run with proper form, don't ramp mileage and intensity too fast. Humans are built for long distance running.

rorykoehler 9y ago
Watching the world record marathon in Berlin in person I would agree about form being the decisive factor. There is a huge middle ground between long time runners and people who don't run at all. That said I know multiple successful long time long distance runners who severely damaged themselves. I prefer cycling. Running has wrecked me multiple times (100m & 200m training). I'm not built for long distance which is a shame because I could hold pace with the best amateurs over middle distances when fit (sub 3 min kms).
baddox 9y ago
Did the group of long time runners include people who ran for a long time then had to stop because of injuries?

helloworld 9y ago

Running May Be Good for Your Knees https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/18/well/move/running-may-be-good-for-your-knees.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/18/well/move/running-may-be-...

nl 9y ago

Why? Humans evolved on the plains of Africa, hunting animals by running them down to exhaustion[1]. I think some of the bare foot running purists become cult-like in their views, but I think Chris Mcdougall's "Born to Run"[2] book is worth reading and thinking about. It's an easy, well written and entertaining read too. [1] Watch the amazing Attenborough clip of them running an healthy, fully grown male antelope down. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=826HMLoiE_o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=826HMLoiE_o [2] http://www.chrismcdougall.com/born-to-run/the-barefoot-running-debate/ http://www.chrismcdougall.com/born-to-run/the-barefoot-runni...

baddox 9y ago
As far as I can tell, the endurance running hypothesis is not considered a settled matter, but even if it is true, it doesn’t mean that subsequent adaptations in all or some groups of humans hasn’t compromised this ability. Moreover, perhaps the environment when humans evolved on the plains of Africa didn’t provide much selective pressure for joints to last as many years as modern humans expect their joints to last.
- nl 9y ago
  Yes I agree it's not settled. But nor is it settled that running causes damage, and I think the endurance running hypothesis provides an interesting reason to consider the counter-case.
evandijk70 9y ago
Even though I am not convinced running is necessarily bad for joints, and I am a runner myself, the argument that humans are evolved to run seems to fall flat for me. For one, AFAIK humans rarely aged beyond 40 in those times, so it is entirely feasible that the accumulated wear and tear starts to hurt the joints after that age.