Running, is it beneficial or not?

[airlocksniffer]

Yes, many of us read Born to Run. The problem is the companies marketed this as the next big thing, every Joe Schmo thought they needed Five Fingers and tons of people got hurt. Not one thing is perfect for everybody-that's just what the corps want you to believe so you can spend your money. See the whole gluten-free mess.

The simple thing to remember is burn more than you take in and you will lose weight. If that's running in pillow shoes, Crossfit or just hiking with a loaded pack, so be it.

 

[jmez]

Yes, many of us read Born to Run. The problem is the companies marketed this as the next big thing, every Joe Schmo thought they needed Five Fingers and tons of people got hurt. Not one thing is perfect for everybody-that's just what the corps want you to believe so you can spend your money. See the whole gluten-free mess.

The simple thing to remember is burn more than you take in and you will lose weight. If that's running in pillow shoes, Crossfit or just hiking with a loaded pack, so be it.

Agree. It is a lot more simple than we often times try to make it. Marketing in personal fitness works.

 

[Pendleton]

Change your shoes every 300 miles. Don't run more than 3 or 4 times a week and not for more than an hour regardless of whether than's 6 miles or 8. Benefits deminish as you push into real long distances. Allow recovery between runs. If you aren't wiped when your done running you're missing the point.

I run a little, use the stair master, master with pack as season appraoches and weight work for the legs. Plenty of rest in between. I'm not 25. I'm doing 8 minute miles now for 6. I'll be sub 7:30's by the time season roles around but I won't increase the length of the runs.

 

[Take-a-knee]

I'm doing 8 minute miles now for 6. I'll be sub 7:30's by the time season roles around but I won't increase the length of the runs.

Impressive. Deadlift and back-squat?

 

[airlocksniffer]

Change your shoes every 300 miles.

Not a hard and fast number. Depending on how much you weigh and how your strike your foot, this may be sooner or later. If they look/feel worn out, get new ones.

Don't run more than 3 or 4 times a week and not for more than an hour regardless of whether than's 6 miles or 8.

Run 7 days a week if you like to and your body is adapted to that. Everybody is different. I run 4-5 times per week, my weekdays are 10 miles and Saturday from 10-20+. Works for me, never had a major running-related injury (stress fracture running barefoot but that was my own damn fault)

Benefits deminish as you push into real long distances.

Not sure what you mean here. The biggest benefit for LSD running is endurance/fat-burning. You cannot comfortably run 20 miles if you don't build up to that distance.

Allow recovery between runs.

Agree but that's different for everybody. Simple refueling/stretching is enough recovery for many people. Do what works for you.

If you aren't wiped when your done running you're missing the point.

Disagree. You shouldn't feel like you got your butt kicked after every run. That's how you over-train and get hurt. 80%+ of your weekly miles should be easy.

 

[Pendleton]

TAK, I don't do vetical squats or deadlift because of my back. I'm using leg press so that I have my back protected. Most can, I'll throw mine out so it's machines almost exclusively.

Airlock, I weigh 195 and 5-9. Running is a ton of impact and it kills my shoes. Lighter guys can get on longer than 300 miles. I say to limit length only within the hunting utility, not running for running's sake. I'm not trying to train up to an ultramarthon with no weight on my back. I'm training up to a ultra trudge with upwards of 100 on my back when successful. Most of the literature I've read on increaed length of running is that it's detrimental to muscle mass/strength. I used to run much, much longer and more frequently. I've had both kinds of pre-seasons. Ones with very high durration and distance of running when I was younger. And those with intense but more brief running and then added weight/pack work. The latter has produced a more enduring person in the field. No doubt, mileage will vary by person. By wiped I'm not shooting for some cross fit fall on your face and be carted off result. I see far too many people trying to make progress who can easilly carry on a conversation while running, or read a book on the treadmil. Someplace in between is what I'm getting at. If the goal is better than average cardio and weight bearing endurrance, reduce the overall miles spent running, make them count, do the weight work. Opinions and experience will vary.

 

[Jason Snyder]

If you aren't wiped when your done running you're missing the point.

I disagree here also, because it depends on what you are using your runs for. If you are doing tempo runs, intervals, or hill repeats then I would agree with you. However, if you do a lot of HIIT work and use your runs as an active recovery day or an endurance day, then I think you're off base here.

Also, the other hard and fast parameters you list are certainly not absolutes. There are DIMINISHING returns on longer runs, but that certainly doesn't mean you don't benefit from them.

 

[Poser]

To circle back to the OP, it really depends on what kind of "benefits" you are looking for.

First of all, I think you should definitely run that 10k you have been planning to do and you should up the ante set a time goal, say sub 60 minutes, which is respectable.

Beyond that, what is your primary goal? If it is to lose weight (you mentioned the scale), then steady state cardio is not the most efficient way to achieve that ends. As other have stated, doing more interval training, be it running exclusively or other exercises that include running. Particularly for fat loss, the Tabata method has been demonstrated to be highly effective. If you are new to interval training, you have to get past the notion of only burning 100, 200 or 300 calories in a workout in favor of having your body efficiently burning fat for the next 12-36 hours vs workouts that involve burning 600,700, 800+ calories running several miles.

In the end, is it your goal to be a runner or to be generally fit? Running can certainly be a beneficial part of being fit, but its not necessarily the most direct and singular path to that goal. Even if you are intending to be a dedicated "runner", you'd have a hard time arguing that your running performance would not benefit from strength and conditioning supplementation.

 

[Take-a-knee]

There are DIMINISHING returns on longer runs, but that certainly doesn't mean you don't benefit from them.

By "benefit", you mean increased cardiorespiratory endurance I assume? That constitutes one out of ten of the parameters of fitness. As noted, this comes at a price if you persist, decreased muscle mass (which happens with age anyway, being a hard-headed "endurance guy" just speeds the process).

Like I said earlier, more that 15mi/wk won't make you live a day longer most likely, and it just might shorten your life from a stroke or cancer (several types of which endurance athletes get at a much higher rate over the norm. IE, Lance Armstrong).

Everybody has an age and genetic dependent capacity for exercise, beyond which, is such that they cannot recover from. IE, BUDS, SFAS, Ranger School, etc. Those who've experienced this first hand don't need it explained to them. Do enough "stupid" workouts over 20+ years and the same thing will gradually happen to you.

 

[Jason Snyder]

That constitutes one out of ten of the parameters of fitness. As noted, this comes at a price if you persist, decreased muscle mass (which happens with age anyway, being a hard-headed "endurance guy" just speeds the process).

Everything comes at a price. Want more endurance? You'll likely lose muscle mass doing so. Want more strength and muscle mass? You'll likely lose endurance doing so.

Can too much running be bad for you? Absolutely. Just like too much lifting, too much crossfit, or anything else can be bad for you.

Is a two hour or three hour trail run once a week going to kill you early? Or is it going to better prepare you for the mountains?

Edit: As an aside, the 15 mile per week threshold seems pretty nebulous. One could pretty easily argue that they could run 20 miles per week and expend less effort and subject your heart to less stress that someone who does Crossfit or some other equivalent 5 days per week. My mountain bike rides are the equivalent of a 60-90 minute interval/tempo workout, and on occasion more. My trail runs are used as recovery and are a cake walk compared to other workouts. There has to be a much better baseline for gauging dangerous levels of physical activity besides a generic miles per week output. I realize you are just the messenger here.

 

[Take-a-knee]

Is a two hour or three hour trail run once a week going to kill you early? Or is it going to better prepare you for the mountains?

Likely not, but trying to maintain that capacity year-round, just might. Periodization in your training is the answer here, IMO.

 

[Take-a-knee]

Edit: As an aside, the 15 mile per week threshold seems pretty nebulous.

You can dig into Dr Ken Cooper's writings on this. He has reams of data on thousands of men (most of whom are now deceased) that he supervised conditioning programs for. He was an Air Force MD who oversaw the early fitness program for the US space program, got out and started doing the same for Fortune 500 executives. There are few, if any, bodies of data comparable to his.

You may have heard of a term he coined, "aerobic-excercise". No such term until he used it.

 

[Take-a-knee]

TAK, I don't do vetical squats or deadlift because of my back. I'm using leg press so that I have my back protected. Most can, I'll throw mine out so it's machines almost exclusively.
.

If you are incapable of doing squats or deads with 100#, I'd argue you are most likely incapable of carrying a 100# pack. You might be incapable of safely doing either lift very heavy. You can still benefit from doing high rep strength/endurance workouts with the same movements though. My wife has a bulging disc. She 53/130#. She can do high rep deadlift or squat workouts with 75-95#. Another ten pounds and she gets pain going down her leg. If she STOPS doing these workouts.....she gets pain going down her leg. Get some coaching and learn to do it safely

 

[Jason Snyder]

You can dig into Dr Ken Cooper's writings on this. He has reams of data on thousands of men (most of whom are now deceased) that he supervised conditioning programs for. He was an Air Force MD who oversaw the early fitness program for the US space program, got out and started doing the same for Fortune 500 executives. There are few, if any, bodies of data comparable to his.

You may have heard of a term he coined, "aerobic-excercise". No such term until he used it.

I think you're missing my point. How does he translate this to training volume?

As I said, not all 15 miles are created equally, nor is the aerobic expenditure any different for 15 miles of running than it is relative to the same volume of other training, be it biking, metcon, swimming, etc.

 

[Pendleton]

When I have done the bar on the shoulders style squats my egonomics are out of whack. My heels don't ever get on the floor and I'm way front leaning. it's mechanics vs my body and my stiffness rather than strength or inherrent back trouble. I likely could do dead lift with less trouble. I can and do carry outsized loads over very long jaunts with lots of elevation. I use a leg press, mostly. 260 to 300 lbs. I don't try to continually improve a max lift on low reps. I try to build up a high rep count. Right now it's 3 sets at 30 reps with one last of just holding the weight for as long as possilbe. That'll grow toward my hunting sesaon to 4-5 sets closer to 50 reps. I used to climb up into the low 400's with low reps but I don't think that's acommplishing anything in particular and risks injury. If I can't get to the gym, I'll just do regular old squats in place, no weight.

 

[Matt Cashell]

Way more people shorten their life by running too little than running too much.

 

[Jason Snyder]

When I have done the bar on the shoulders style squats my egonomics are out of whack. My heels don't ever get on the floor and I'm way front leaning. it's mechanics vs my body and my stiffness rather than strength or inherrent back trouble. I likely could do dead lift with less trouble. I can and do carry outsized loads over very long jaunts with lots of elevation. I use a leg press, mostly. 260 to 300 lbs. I don't try to continually improve a max lift on low reps. I try to build up a high rep count. Right now it's 3 sets at 30 reps with one last of just holding the weight for as long as possilbe. That'll grow toward my hunting sesaon to 4-5 sets closer to 50 reps. I used to climb up into the low 400's with low reps but I don't think that's acommplishing anything in particular and risks injury. If I can't get to the gym, I'll just do regular old squats in place, no weight.

Sounds like a visit to a physical therapist might be in order.

 

[Take-a-knee]

The problem with using a leg press is it turns into a quad excercise. Over developed quads, along with under developed hamstrings, equals a knee injury for sure. Another option that will build your "posterior-chain" (hamstrings/back), is a kettlebell. Start with swings, stay light at first and build volume before you use a heavier KB. When swings are easy, then learn to do snatches. Don't overdo it at first.

 

[PMcGee]

Way more people shorten their life by running too little than running too much.

^This

 

[Take-a-knee]

I think you're missing my point. How does he translate this to training volume?

As I said, not all 15 miles are created equally, nor is the aerobic expenditure any different for 15 miles of running than it is relative to the same volume of other training, be it biking, metcon, swimming, etc.

You should obtain his data and do a longitudinal study for us all. You know as well as I do that the overwhelming majority of recreational runners run at a pace that is somewhat comfortable for THEM.

Also consider what I posted about life-long Scandanavian X-Country skiers showing a positive correlation between skiing fitness level (and duration of that level) and atrial fibrillation. A synopsis of this is available at Medscape.

If you are not familiar with Dr Barry Sear's writings on inflammation at the cellular level, you should check it out.