7 ms·

I find it fascinating that popular knowledge seems to hold that people are not supposed to run. That we need heavily cushioned shoes, joint braces, bizarre stre

I find it fascinating that popular knowledge seems to hold that people are not supposed to run. That we need heavily cushioned shoes, joint braces, bizarre stretching routines, and more just to keep us from destroying ourselves. One of my friends has a shirt that says "Yes, I know you don't even like to drive that far. No, my knees are fine." I take some issue with the way some of the claims are presented in the Atlantic article, but unfortunately the citations are review papers with many citations that are proving hard to track down. I want to read more before taking any stance. Also, this probably needs a (2014) in the title.

Cougher 7y ago
It doesn't seem all that much of a stretch to assume that the repetitive pounding of running results in wear and tear on the body. Your data point of one, who more than likely doesn't have a personal MRI/xray machine for monitoring, notwithstanding.
- ultrarunner 7y ago
  Of course most aspects of life are stressful in some way. That doesn't seem to be a very interesting point. Sitting is probably bad for us, many of the foods we eat cause some damage, etc. What I meant was that popular knowledge seems to suggest that running is ultimately inappropriate in some fundamental way, and that humans try to avoid it. The trope is that running "hurts your knees" while studies suggest that running generally strengthens knee joints and obesity actually hurts one's knees.
- notacoward 7y ago
  > repetitive pounding of running results in wear and tear on the body It can result in wear and tear, it can also result in strengthening. The relationship between enhancement and degradation, and associated outcomes, is far from simple.
  - Cougher 7y ago
    The fact that it isn't simple doesn't mean that it doesn't happen. How much of that strengthening occurs, does it occur in the same areas as the potential damage, and can it outpace the damage and if so, for how many people? The body may be fascinating, but it sin't miraculous.
    - notacoward 7y ago
      > The fact that it isn't simple doesn't mean that it doesn't happen. Never claimed otherwise. > The body may be fascinating, but it sin't miraculous. It's not miraculous, nor is it especially fragile. It's the latter implication I was addressing. "Bad things happen" is only half the story. Alone, it represents and encourages a skewed perspective.
casion 7y ago
Is it really "popular knowledge that people are not supposed to run"? I've only heard this claim made by people that don't agree with it as some sort of strawman. Almost everyone I know thinks running is good, and all of my fit acquaintances run or jog daily. I honestly can't think of anyone that thinks we aren't supposed to run except the occasional article where most commenters disagree with the article.
- erlich 7y ago
  Oh they're out there. I spend a lot of time trying to convince people to try running. There are so many excuses I hear: it's bad for my knees, bad for my back, upsets my stomach, gives me a headache.
  - casion 7y ago
    Sure, but that doesn't mean they think running is bad in general. Excuses don't equate to an opinion. If someone told me to run, I'd tell them that I can't because I pass out when I run (medical condition). Doesn't mean that I think running is bad... I just can't do it.
sys_64738 7y ago
Bruce Springsteen said we were Born To Run.
rpr1234 7y ago
It's an especially dumb argument because humans are the some of the best distance runners in the animal kingdom. We are born to run!
- lolc 7y ago
  I read somewhere that our jog is just as efficient as our walk. Clearly we've evolved to run long-distance. Still we can accumulate damage when doing it. Being hardened against something doesn't mean it's risk-free. Example where the data are clear: We've evolved to resist carcinogens from smoke. But that only means we're less likely to die of smoke compared to other animals. It's still sensible to reduce exposure.
gshdg 7y ago
We evolved to run, but not on surfaces as hard as concrete and asphalt. They’re far more brutal on the joints than even hard-packed clay, which would be the extreme in most natural environments.
- ultrarunner 7y ago
  Do you have a citation for your assertion that hard surfaces are far more damaging to joints? The last I had read indicated that proprioception lead people to land harder on e.g. a gym mat as they sought a stable surface. Less physical feedback caused more impact force.
  - gshdg 7y ago
    What does it mean to "land harder", given that you're propelling the same amount of weight (and presumably forward velocity) onto the limb?

Cougher 7y ago

It doesn't seem all that much of a stretch to assume that the repetitive pounding of running results in wear and tear on the body. Your data point of one, who more than likely doesn't have a personal MRI/xray machine for monitoring, notwithstanding.

ultrarunner 7y ago
Of course most aspects of life are stressful in some way. That doesn't seem to be a very interesting point. Sitting is probably bad for us, many of the foods we eat cause some damage, etc. What I meant was that popular knowledge seems to suggest that running is ultimately inappropriate in some fundamental way, and that humans try to avoid it. The trope is that running "hurts your knees" while studies suggest that running generally strengthens knee joints and obesity actually hurts one's knees.
notacoward 7y ago
> repetitive pounding of running results in wear and tear on the body It can result in wear and tear, it can also result in strengthening. The relationship between enhancement and degradation, and associated outcomes, is far from simple.
- Cougher 7y ago
  The fact that it isn't simple doesn't mean that it doesn't happen. How much of that strengthening occurs, does it occur in the same areas as the potential damage, and can it outpace the damage and if so, for how many people? The body may be fascinating, but it sin't miraculous.
  - notacoward 7y ago
    > The fact that it isn't simple doesn't mean that it doesn't happen. Never claimed otherwise. > The body may be fascinating, but it sin't miraculous. It's not miraculous, nor is it especially fragile. It's the latter implication I was addressing. "Bad things happen" is only half the story. Alone, it represents and encourages a skewed perspective.

casion 7y ago

Is it really "popular knowledge that people are not supposed to run"? I've only heard this claim made by people that don't agree with it as some sort of strawman. Almost everyone I know thinks running is good, and all of my fit acquaintances run or jog daily. I honestly can't think of anyone that thinks we aren't supposed to run except the occasional article where most commenters disagree with the article.

erlich 7y ago
Oh they're out there. I spend a lot of time trying to convince people to try running. There are so many excuses I hear: it's bad for my knees, bad for my back, upsets my stomach, gives me a headache.
- casion 7y ago
  Sure, but that doesn't mean they think running is bad in general. Excuses don't equate to an opinion. If someone told me to run, I'd tell them that I can't because I pass out when I run (medical condition). Doesn't mean that I think running is bad... I just can't do it.

sys_64738 7y ago

Bruce Springsteen said we were Born To Run.

rpr1234 7y ago

It's an especially dumb argument because humans are the some of the best distance runners in the animal kingdom. We are born to run!

lolc 7y ago
I read somewhere that our jog is just as efficient as our walk. Clearly we've evolved to run long-distance. Still we can accumulate damage when doing it. Being hardened against something doesn't mean it's risk-free. Example where the data are clear: We've evolved to resist carcinogens from smoke. But that only means we're less likely to die of smoke compared to other animals. It's still sensible to reduce exposure.

gshdg 7y ago

We evolved to run, but not on surfaces as hard as concrete and asphalt. They’re far more brutal on the joints than even hard-packed clay, which would be the extreme in most natural environments.

ultrarunner 7y ago
Do you have a citation for your assertion that hard surfaces are far more damaging to joints? The last I had read indicated that proprioception lead people to land harder on e.g. a gym mat as they sought a stable surface. Less physical feedback caused more impact force.
- gshdg 7y ago
  What does it mean to "land harder", given that you're propelling the same amount of weight (and presumably forward velocity) onto the limb?