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 i

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.