5 ms·

Running is better than sitting on the coach. But strength training is better than running. Why you should not be running, by Mark Rippetoe: https://startings

by lottin 4y ago

Running is better than sitting on the coach. But strength training is better than running. Why you should not be running, by Mark Rippetoe: https://startingstrength.com/article/why-you-should-not-be-running https://startingstrength.com/article/why-you-should-not-be-r...

mnky9800n 4y ago
Best to do both.
- f311a 4y ago
  Exactly, but it's hard to combine them. Ideally, you want to have at least 3 running and 3 weightlifting sessions per week to keep improving. For an average person, it's too much.
  - iamacyborg 4y ago
    To improve what? Trying to min/max everything in your life isn’t how this stuff works
    - saiya-jin 4y ago
      Obviously all stats :) Jokes aside, running is great, but people with tens of kilos overweight should probably start with something much less destructive to joints than run. You can gain muscles much faster than connective tissues like tendons and ligaments manage to build/strengthen. Ie start with swimming or elliptic trainer
    - mnky9800n 4y ago
      Depends on your goals. My goals is to be active most days doing outdoor activities I like. Running and lifting and mobility exercises make it more comfortable to do the things I like. That being said, I think sometimes people have this idea that maybe if they run enough one day running won't be hard (or whatever physical activity). But actually, it will always be hard. You will always breathe hard. You will always sweat. You will always be out of breath at some point if you push yourself. You will always have some maximum weight you can lift. But that's the point. Doing the hard thing is the point. That's what you have to realize it the fun interesting part. Otherwise exercise always feels like work.
      - iamacyborg 4y ago
        I mean, at some point running does get easy. That’s assuming you do your easy runs at an actual easy pace though. You’ll also find your easy pace gets faster and faster. The hard thing is not really the point with most running and entirely misses the point. You run easy most of the time so that you can run hard when it’s necessary.
      - jeltz 4y ago
        Nope, that is just a matter of personal preference. Once you have ran enough you reach a level where you can just slow down a bit and running will be easy. I like the hard runs but I also like the easy relaxed runs. I recently did a casual very long run, 70 km, and the group of us ran at a relaxed pace, talked shit, stopped to eat several times and just chilled. I only started to get tired at around 62 km. It is like a hike but a bit faster (9 km/h while running) and running motion instead of walking. Obviously if you do not want to plateau in your training you have to run hard some of the time, but not every run has to be hard.
    - f311a 4y ago
      To improve your fitness level, otherwise it's mostly a waste of time.
      - t-writescode 4y ago
        Sigh, "Some exercise beats none; more is better" https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/exercise-beats-none-better-201501237653 https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/exercise-beats-none-bett...
t-writescode 4y ago
This kind of comment sounds helpful at first; but, the people who are going to get the most out of the couch->5k system are more likely to be put off of all exercise all together if they're confused by saying "this is better instead, do this".
iamacyborg 4y ago
Nonsense. You should do both aerobic and strength training.
bee_rider 4y ago
This is some pretty atypical advice. But even if it is correct, a 5k isn’t exactly a marathon.
djhope99 4y ago
Broadly agree with this. I was once a runner and I loved it!! The problem is I always had pain in my legs, joints, knees etc cycling, hiking, strength training. There are better forms of exercise, still, running is better than sitting on the couch and getting started with some sort of exercise is a great idea for your health.
- capitainenemo 4y ago
  Agreed same. My knee is too screwed up for running anymore. I stick with cycling, swimming, hiking and the "7 minute workout" morning and evening to keep to something regular.
- jfengel 4y ago
  As I understand it, running does not cause bad knees and can even help by building up muscles. However, if you have bad joints to start with, running can be hard or impossible. In which case, pick another exercise. There are lots. My favorite thing about running is that it requires little equipment and can be done any time at all. (My second favorite thing is that it's easy to listen to podcasts or music.) Check with a doctor if you have any pain. There may be something they can do to enable that very convenient form of exercise. And listen to your body. If it hurts, especially in a new way, stop.
  - wintermutestwin 4y ago
    "Couch" pretty much = bad posture = bad joints.
    - jeltz 4y ago
      That is way too strong assertion. Not all couch potatoes have that bad posture, especially those who used to exercise in the past and stopped and bad posture does not necessarily mean bad joints. Very few of my friends who are around 40 have bad joints, including the couch potatoes. The bad joints will probably catch up with them in time but e.g. my dad was a couch potato from 45 to 67 without any issue. It was only during covid where he want from barely moving to sitting in front of his computer all the time his joints start to hurt. And, yes, his posture has always been terrible.
googlryas 4y ago
I generally agree with the advice, but anyone in good health should be able to run a 5k. It's literally 20ish minutes of exercise. Beyond that is when the negative effects of running start to come into play.
- krona 4y ago
  I think more like 30-35 minutes at the 50th percentile for the general population (ignoring warmup, stretching etc.)
- wintermutestwin 4y ago
  The negative effects of running are about body mechanics, not aerobic fitness.
- jeltz 4y ago
  20ish minutes? Nope, it is 25-35 minutes for most people. When I could run a 20:30 5k I was in pretty good shape and that was an all out effort which left my legs tired for days. Running a 21-22 minute 5k is a great time for an amateur and nothing anyone not fit could just run, much less so during normal training.
- igouy 4y ago
  Average finish time: 00:29:02 Finishes: 44,009,780 https://www.parkrun.org.uk/ https://www.parkrun.org.uk/
  - googlryas 4y ago
    Yeah, I typed 20 instead of 30 and just checked the replies to my comment now:(
rainsford 4y ago
That article makes a good argument, but I feel like it misses the potentially more significant issue that running is an actively bad choice of exercise for a lot of people even if they want to focus on cardio. It's harder on the body than a lot of other cardio exercises, particularly for the target audience of things like "couch to 5k". It's definitely better for you than sitting on the couch, but only if you stick with it. And trying to get couch potatoes into running seems like a good way to ensure they don't stick with exercise. Anecdotally, I know a couple of people who did couch to 5k and ended up actually doing a 5k. They looked like they were going to die at the end of the race and basically stopped exercising after. Running has the advantage of needing minimal equipment and being something you can do everywhere, and I know it works for a lot of people. But as an exercise for people who would otherwise just sit on the couch, I'm not sure it's a good choice.
- DoughnutHole 4y ago
  Running has the advantage of cost and simplicity. A pair of running shoes and a very simple free programme like couch to 5k and you're set. The only exercise I can think of with a lower barrier to entry is walking. Every able-bodied person knows how to run, even if they can't go very fast or far. Strength training has a higher barrier to entry - weight training requires a gym membership or your own weight room, and you have to learn to perform specific movements correctly and safely, which requires research or paying a personal trainer. Bodyweight strength training also requires learning many not necessarily intuitive movements. Other forms of cardio also usually require an investment in expensive equipment (eg. cycling) or a membership (eg. swimming). Running isn't recommended to sedentary people because it's an optimal exercise - it's suggested because anyone can pick it up with minimal cost and learning. And it's more time-efficient than walking.
  - rainsford 4y ago
    That's a fair point...running does have a fairly low barrier to entry, which is definitely an advantage in picking it up as an exercise. I'd still lean towards walking as a better choice for sedentary people though, at least as a "get off the couch" goal. It takes longer, but the lower potential for injury and less strenuous nature of the activity might make it a better exercise habit for some folks.
nxmnxm99 4y ago
Says Ripptoe, who believes nothing is more important than low volume squats. Strength training is good. Cardio is good. Do both and focus on doing it properly.
- thefz 4y ago
  TBH Rippetoe's program is solid and gives good results.
Mistletoe 4y ago
I’m sorry I don’t want to look like this, I think I’ll stick with running. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Rippetoe#/media/File%3AMark_Rippetoe_teaching.jpg https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Rippetoe#/media/File%3A...
- lottin 4y ago
  If your concern is looking healthy and athletic, you need a decent amount of muscle mass and a low percentage of body fat. Running helps with none of that.
  - iamacyborg 4y ago
    Doing hill strides will build some serious legs and running every day (while maintaining an appropriate diet) will be more than enough to reduce your body fat.
    - lottin 4y ago
      Reducing body fat requires careful dieting and exercise. First, you need to be in a caloric deficit, which involves eating less calories than usual. Second, when you're in a caloric deficit, you'll lose both fat and muscle. Lifting weights becomes absolutely crucial, otherwise you will lose a lot of muscle. Hill strides don't build strong legs. I did a lot of cycling in my youth, and I thought I had strong legs—since they seemed slightly larger than average—but I didn't. When I had to do something that required actual strength, such as kicking a ball, it turned out I was rubbish.
      - iamacyborg 4y ago
        Or pop some HMB or any other method of maintaining muscle mass while in a calorie deficit. It’s not rocket science and lifting weights is not the only method or even the thing that you might strictly want to do to achieve whatever your goals may be. Since when is kicking a ball a measure of leg strength? How are you even measuring something that’s so relative to the desired goal?
infamousclyde 4y ago
I hope members of this community can recognize that fitness is not this binary. I will acknowledge my bias here-- my partner recently represented our country in the Olympics as a track athlete, and I believe I have achieved intermediate results in both running (sub-35 minute 10k) and lifting (the 1000 lbs club) which hopefully affords me some perspective from both sides of the track. We scrolled through this article this morning together and had a good laugh. This entire article reads as an ode to muscle mass, which is not everyone's goal. Regardless, here were some zingers that stood out: "Quite literally, the more you run, the better you are at running and the worse you are at being strong." -- I mean... And? With a more developed aerobic system, you recover faster between bursts of intense effort. You can play with your kids longer, run with your dog more, hike further... I could go on. "Excessive amounts of endurance activity can, and almost always does produce adverse physical effects. Look at competitive marathon runners: the people who win the big races are skinny, just like the typical 80-year-old." Outrageous. Again, Mark Rippetoe has demonstrated some misplaced association between muscle size and health. I guess you can wave your hand at an elite runner and make an asinine comment like, "Thank goodness I don't look like that!", but keep in mind that running below 3:00 min/km (4:48 min/mi) for 42.2 kilometres requires extraordinary fitness, and the contrast to "the typical 80 year old" is as silly as it is rude. I digress. Running is magical-- put a pause on it if you're prioritizing muscle mass, but to write it off entirely is a mistake.
chucksmash 4y ago
+1 to the sentiment. I tended to treat jogging as synonymous with getting fit and thought of everything else as specialization you could do once you were fit if you had some other goal. When I didn't see the progress I wanted from jogging, my take was "well, next year I guess I just need to actually get serious about my running and my eating." When this "common sense" approach wasn't working after N years I decided to try something different. A year doing 3x weekly mix of circuit training and HIIT classes with zero other exercise and no particular diet plan was drastically more effective than jogging. When I reincorporated running about nine months in, I was pleasantly surprised to find that I had improved my all-time best mile from college by 30 seconds, basically for free. I am positive that if I'd spent those nine months jogging, it would not have made me better at burpees or pull-ups, but the reverse seems to have been true. In the four years since then, I've also found it much easier to maintain my weight, feel improved well-being, etc. Running is better than not running, but it's not the end all, be all, and it might not even be what you need so if you aren't seeing progress from running, don't get discouraged or decide you just need MORE running.
igouy 4y ago
What a strange article! Seems to start with a strawman argument where "running" means nothing but "long slow distance exercise". Running can mean 4x4 minutes at 90% maximum heart rate. https://www.ntnu.edu/cerg/advice https://www.ntnu.edu/cerg/advice

by lottin 4y ago

mnky9800n 4y ago

Best to do both.

f311a 4y ago
Exactly, but it's hard to combine them. Ideally, you want to have at least 3 running and 3 weightlifting sessions per week to keep improving. For an average person, it's too much.
- iamacyborg 4y ago
  To improve what? Trying to min/max everything in your life isn’t how this stuff works
  - saiya-jin 4y ago
    Obviously all stats :) Jokes aside, running is great, but people with tens of kilos overweight should probably start with something much less destructive to joints than run. You can gain muscles much faster than connective tissues like tendons and ligaments manage to build/strengthen. Ie start with swimming or elliptic trainer
  - mnky9800n 4y ago
    Depends on your goals. My goals is to be active most days doing outdoor activities I like. Running and lifting and mobility exercises make it more comfortable to do the things I like. That being said, I think sometimes people have this idea that maybe if they run enough one day running won't be hard (or whatever physical activity). But actually, it will always be hard. You will always breathe hard. You will always sweat. You will always be out of breath at some point if you push yourself. You will always have some maximum weight you can lift. But that's the point. Doing the hard thing is the point. That's what you have to realize it the fun interesting part. Otherwise exercise always feels like work.
    - iamacyborg 4y ago
      I mean, at some point running does get easy. That’s assuming you do your easy runs at an actual easy pace though. You’ll also find your easy pace gets faster and faster. The hard thing is not really the point with most running and entirely misses the point. You run easy most of the time so that you can run hard when it’s necessary.
    - jeltz 4y ago
      Nope, that is just a matter of personal preference. Once you have ran enough you reach a level where you can just slow down a bit and running will be easy. I like the hard runs but I also like the easy relaxed runs. I recently did a casual very long run, 70 km, and the group of us ran at a relaxed pace, talked shit, stopped to eat several times and just chilled. I only started to get tired at around 62 km. It is like a hike but a bit faster (9 km/h while running) and running motion instead of walking. Obviously if you do not want to plateau in your training you have to run hard some of the time, but not every run has to be hard.
  - f311a 4y ago
    To improve your fitness level, otherwise it's mostly a waste of time.
    - t-writescode 4y ago
      Sigh, "Some exercise beats none; more is better" https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/exercise-beats-none-better-201501237653 https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/exercise-beats-none-bett...

t-writescode 4y ago

This kind of comment sounds helpful at first; but, the people who are going to get the most out of the couch->5k system are more likely to be put off of all exercise all together if they're confused by saying "this is better instead, do this".

iamacyborg 4y ago

Nonsense. You should do both aerobic and strength training.

bee_rider 4y ago

This is some pretty atypical advice. But even if it is correct, a 5k isn’t exactly a marathon.

djhope99 4y ago

Broadly agree with this. I was once a runner and I loved it!! The problem is I always had pain in my legs, joints, knees etc cycling, hiking, strength training. There are better forms of exercise, still, running is better than sitting on the couch and getting started with some sort of exercise is a great idea for your health.

capitainenemo 4y ago
Agreed same. My knee is too screwed up for running anymore. I stick with cycling, swimming, hiking and the "7 minute workout" morning and evening to keep to something regular.
jfengel 4y ago
As I understand it, running does not cause bad knees and can even help by building up muscles. However, if you have bad joints to start with, running can be hard or impossible. In which case, pick another exercise. There are lots. My favorite thing about running is that it requires little equipment and can be done any time at all. (My second favorite thing is that it's easy to listen to podcasts or music.) Check with a doctor if you have any pain. There may be something they can do to enable that very convenient form of exercise. And listen to your body. If it hurts, especially in a new way, stop.
- wintermutestwin 4y ago
  "Couch" pretty much = bad posture = bad joints.
  - jeltz 4y ago
    That is way too strong assertion. Not all couch potatoes have that bad posture, especially those who used to exercise in the past and stopped and bad posture does not necessarily mean bad joints. Very few of my friends who are around 40 have bad joints, including the couch potatoes. The bad joints will probably catch up with them in time but e.g. my dad was a couch potato from 45 to 67 without any issue. It was only during covid where he want from barely moving to sitting in front of his computer all the time his joints start to hurt. And, yes, his posture has always been terrible.

googlryas 4y ago

I generally agree with the advice, but anyone in good health should be able to run a 5k. It's literally 20ish minutes of exercise. Beyond that is when the negative effects of running start to come into play.

krona 4y ago
I think more like 30-35 minutes at the 50th percentile for the general population (ignoring warmup, stretching etc.)
wintermutestwin 4y ago
The negative effects of running are about body mechanics, not aerobic fitness.
jeltz 4y ago
20ish minutes? Nope, it is 25-35 minutes for most people. When I could run a 20:30 5k I was in pretty good shape and that was an all out effort which left my legs tired for days. Running a 21-22 minute 5k is a great time for an amateur and nothing anyone not fit could just run, much less so during normal training.
igouy 4y ago
Average finish time: 00:29:02 Finishes: 44,009,780 https://www.parkrun.org.uk/ https://www.parkrun.org.uk/
- googlryas 4y ago
  Yeah, I typed 20 instead of 30 and just checked the replies to my comment now:(

rainsford 4y ago

That article makes a good argument, but I feel like it misses the potentially more significant issue that running is an actively bad choice of exercise for a lot of people even if they want to focus on cardio. It's harder on the body than a lot of other cardio exercises, particularly for the target audience of things like "couch to 5k". It's definitely better for you than sitting on the couch, but only if you stick with it. And trying to get couch potatoes into running seems like a good way to ensure they don't stick with exercise. Anecdotally, I know a couple of people who did couch to 5k and ended up actually doing a 5k. They looked like they were going to die at the end of the race and basically stopped exercising after. Running has the advantage of needing minimal equipment and being something you can do everywhere, and I know it works for a lot of people. But as an exercise for people who would otherwise just sit on the couch, I'm not sure it's a good choice.

DoughnutHole 4y ago
Running has the advantage of cost and simplicity. A pair of running shoes and a very simple free programme like couch to 5k and you're set. The only exercise I can think of with a lower barrier to entry is walking. Every able-bodied person knows how to run, even if they can't go very fast or far. Strength training has a higher barrier to entry - weight training requires a gym membership or your own weight room, and you have to learn to perform specific movements correctly and safely, which requires research or paying a personal trainer. Bodyweight strength training also requires learning many not necessarily intuitive movements. Other forms of cardio also usually require an investment in expensive equipment (eg. cycling) or a membership (eg. swimming). Running isn't recommended to sedentary people because it's an optimal exercise - it's suggested because anyone can pick it up with minimal cost and learning. And it's more time-efficient than walking.
- rainsford 4y ago
  That's a fair point...running does have a fairly low barrier to entry, which is definitely an advantage in picking it up as an exercise. I'd still lean towards walking as a better choice for sedentary people though, at least as a "get off the couch" goal. It takes longer, but the lower potential for injury and less strenuous nature of the activity might make it a better exercise habit for some folks.

nxmnxm99 4y ago

Says Ripptoe, who believes nothing is more important than low volume squats. Strength training is good. Cardio is good. Do both and focus on doing it properly.

thefz 4y ago
TBH Rippetoe's program is solid and gives good results.

Mistletoe 4y ago

I’m sorry I don’t want to look like this, I think I’ll stick with running. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Rippetoe#/media/File%3AMark_Rippetoe_teaching.jpg https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Rippetoe#/media/File%3A...

lottin 4y ago
If your concern is looking healthy and athletic, you need a decent amount of muscle mass and a low percentage of body fat. Running helps with none of that.
- iamacyborg 4y ago
  Doing hill strides will build some serious legs and running every day (while maintaining an appropriate diet) will be more than enough to reduce your body fat.
  - lottin 4y ago
    Reducing body fat requires careful dieting and exercise. First, you need to be in a caloric deficit, which involves eating less calories than usual. Second, when you're in a caloric deficit, you'll lose both fat and muscle. Lifting weights becomes absolutely crucial, otherwise you will lose a lot of muscle. Hill strides don't build strong legs. I did a lot of cycling in my youth, and I thought I had strong legs—since they seemed slightly larger than average—but I didn't. When I had to do something that required actual strength, such as kicking a ball, it turned out I was rubbish.
    - iamacyborg 4y ago
      Or pop some HMB or any other method of maintaining muscle mass while in a calorie deficit. It’s not rocket science and lifting weights is not the only method or even the thing that you might strictly want to do to achieve whatever your goals may be. Since when is kicking a ball a measure of leg strength? How are you even measuring something that’s so relative to the desired goal?

infamousclyde 4y ago

I hope members of this community can recognize that fitness is not this binary. I will acknowledge my bias here-- my partner recently represented our country in the Olympics as a track athlete, and I believe I have achieved intermediate results in both running (sub-35 minute 10k) and lifting (the 1000 lbs club) which hopefully affords me some perspective from both sides of the track. We scrolled through this article this morning together and had a good laugh. This entire article reads as an ode to muscle mass, which is not everyone's goal. Regardless, here were some zingers that stood out: "Quite literally, the more you run, the better you are at running and the worse you are at being strong." -- I mean... And? With a more developed aerobic system, you recover faster between bursts of intense effort. You can play with your kids longer, run with your dog more, hike further... I could go on. "Excessive amounts of endurance activity can, and almost always does produce adverse physical effects. Look at competitive marathon runners: the people who win the big races are skinny, just like the typical 80-year-old." Outrageous. Again, Mark Rippetoe has demonstrated some misplaced association between muscle size and health. I guess you can wave your hand at an elite runner and make an asinine comment like, "Thank goodness I don't look like that!", but keep in mind that running below 3:00 min/km (4:48 min/mi) for 42.2 kilometres requires extraordinary fitness, and the contrast to "the typical 80 year old" is as silly as it is rude. I digress. Running is magical-- put a pause on it if you're prioritizing muscle mass, but to write it off entirely is a mistake.

chucksmash 4y ago

+1 to the sentiment. I tended to treat jogging as synonymous with getting fit and thought of everything else as specialization you could do once you were fit if you had some other goal. When I didn't see the progress I wanted from jogging, my take was "well, next year I guess I just need to actually get serious about my running and my eating." When this "common sense" approach wasn't working after N years I decided to try something different. A year doing 3x weekly mix of circuit training and HIIT classes with zero other exercise and no particular diet plan was drastically more effective than jogging. When I reincorporated running about nine months in, I was pleasantly surprised to find that I had improved my all-time best mile from college by 30 seconds, basically for free. I am positive that if I'd spent those nine months jogging, it would not have made me better at burpees or pull-ups, but the reverse seems to have been true. In the four years since then, I've also found it much easier to maintain my weight, feel improved well-being, etc. Running is better than not running, but it's not the end all, be all, and it might not even be what you need so if you aren't seeing progress from running, don't get discouraged or decide you just need MORE running.

igouy 4y ago

What a strange article! Seems to start with a strawman argument where "running" means nothing but "long slow distance exercise". Running can mean 4x4 minutes at 90% maximum heart rate. https://www.ntnu.edu/cerg/advice https://www.ntnu.edu/cerg/advice