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-r...
Why you should not be running, by Mark Rippetoe:
https://startingstrength.com/article/why-you-should-not-be-r...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You do make a good point about prior athleticism as it can promote good joint health.
Strength training is good. Cardio is good. Do both and focus on doing it properly.
You should do both aerobic and strength training.
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.
Trying to min/max everything in your life isn’t how this stuff works
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
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.
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.
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.
"Some exercise beats none; more is better" https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/exercise-beats-none-bett...
Finishes: 44,009,780
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Rippetoe#/media/File%3A...
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.
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?