Run to Stay Young(well.blogs.nytimes.com)
well.blogs.nytimes.com
Run to Stay Young
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/12/03/run-to-stay-young/
119 comments
The conclusions drawn in the article don't seem to match the study in question. The participants were not experimentally assigned to be either walkers or runners; rather, they had themselves already selected whether or not to be walkers or runners. This implies that the large proportion of older adults who are neither walkers nor runners are not represented in this study. It also makes it impossible to determine the direction of causality in the correlations discovered. Did people's running cause them to be healthier? Or did people's being healthier cause them to be runners?
Or neither; people who run regularly tend to practice other healthy habits. Or maybe it's mostly genetics.
Good call---confounders lurk!
Even if the study had been conducted properly, this only addresses walking vs running. That running is better than walking doesn't necessarily mean that people should go and start running. How about running vs lifting weights, running vs yoga, or running vs tai chi?
A much more interesting question indeed.
There's been numerous (human and animal) studies showing benefits of strength training for elderly. Ergo-log covers [1] those [2] all [3] the time [4].
Then there's evidence [5] suggesting that higher calorie burning is directly associated with reduced death rate.
And a specific quote on muscle mass:
"A recent theory suggests that developed muscle mass results in considerable emissions of anti-inflammatory and life-extending signal substances. That's why muscular strength is believed to protect against cancer and why strong men are thought to live longer."
(links to studies confirming those claims are in the article)
The thing about running (if we're talking about traditional jogging) is that it does poor job at burning calories. It's a movement that becomes "familiar" very quick (and so becomes easier, according to Principle of Adaptation) and the one in which it's difficult to increase intensity. You also don't develop muscle mass when jogging, which would contribute to higher metabolic rate and reduced chance of injury.
Everything suggests that strength training (whether it's bodyweight, yoga, suspension trainer, or barbells and kettlebells) combined with proper supplementation is the best bang for your buck.
[1] http://www.ergo-log.com/over-seventies-benefit-more-from-pow...
[2] http://www.ergo-log.com/combination-strength-training-green-...
[3] http://www.ergo-log.com/over-nineties-still-react-to-strengt...
[4] http://www.ergo-log.com/cholesterolmuscles.html
[5] http://www.ergo-log.com/caloriemortality.html
There's been numerous (human and animal) studies showing benefits of strength training for elderly. Ergo-log covers [1] those [2] all [3] the time [4].
Then there's evidence [5] suggesting that higher calorie burning is directly associated with reduced death rate.
And a specific quote on muscle mass:
"A recent theory suggests that developed muscle mass results in considerable emissions of anti-inflammatory and life-extending signal substances. That's why muscular strength is believed to protect against cancer and why strong men are thought to live longer."
(links to studies confirming those claims are in the article)
The thing about running (if we're talking about traditional jogging) is that it does poor job at burning calories. It's a movement that becomes "familiar" very quick (and so becomes easier, according to Principle of Adaptation) and the one in which it's difficult to increase intensity. You also don't develop muscle mass when jogging, which would contribute to higher metabolic rate and reduced chance of injury.
Everything suggests that strength training (whether it's bodyweight, yoga, suspension trainer, or barbells and kettlebells) combined with proper supplementation is the best bang for your buck.
[1] http://www.ergo-log.com/over-seventies-benefit-more-from-pow...
[2] http://www.ergo-log.com/combination-strength-training-green-...
[3] http://www.ergo-log.com/over-nineties-still-react-to-strengt...
[4] http://www.ergo-log.com/cholesterolmuscles.html
[5] http://www.ergo-log.com/caloriemortality.html
>Or did people's being healthier cause them to be runners?
There was another study that showed that people who take up mixed martial arts in their late 40s are healthier than people of the same age who only walk [1]. No word on whether genetics plays a role.
[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herschel_Walker
There was another study that showed that people who take up mixed martial arts in their late 40s are healthier than people of the same age who only walk [1]. No word on whether genetics plays a role.
[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herschel_Walker
Martial arts are 1) interval training in disguise and 2) strength endurance training in disguise.
Kata practicing is an exercise in explosive power over long period (several minutes), thus strength endurance training.
All MA training I attended interspersed action with rest. Thus interval training.
Kata practicing is an exercise in explosive power over long period (several minutes), thus strength endurance training.
All MA training I attended interspersed action with rest. Thus interval training.
In 1977 Jim Fixx published the best-selling book "The Complete Book of Running" which popularized running for sport, and purported to demonstrate its health benefits - including increased longevity.
7 years later he died of a heart attack while jogging at the age of 52.
His death doesn't mean running is a bad idea - a single anecdote is statistically insignificant - but perhaps it can remind us that nothing we do can guarantee a long and healthy life.
All too often we take a mildly correlated statistic, give it a hand-wavy air of "science", and then pronounce it as a set-in-stone moral absolute. How much of the received wisdom about healthy lifestyles that you were taught has been shown to be completely wrong? I don't doubt that in 3 years there will be another New York times article, demonstrating why running is actually terrible for you, and you should never do it no matter what age you are.
Growing up in a secular society ancient religions can seem awful strange: why did people worship stone statues and sacrifice to them? Did they really believe all that effort did anything?
But perhaps our modern obsession with "healthiness" reflects the same underlying human motivation: incapable of accepting the reality of our own deaths we grasp at anything to try and give ourselves the illusion of control. Is eating an organic strawberry in the hopes of living longer really any different than performing a ritualistic dance in the hopes of bringing rain?
7 years later he died of a heart attack while jogging at the age of 52.
His death doesn't mean running is a bad idea - a single anecdote is statistically insignificant - but perhaps it can remind us that nothing we do can guarantee a long and healthy life.
All too often we take a mildly correlated statistic, give it a hand-wavy air of "science", and then pronounce it as a set-in-stone moral absolute. How much of the received wisdom about healthy lifestyles that you were taught has been shown to be completely wrong? I don't doubt that in 3 years there will be another New York times article, demonstrating why running is actually terrible for you, and you should never do it no matter what age you are.
Growing up in a secular society ancient religions can seem awful strange: why did people worship stone statues and sacrifice to them? Did they really believe all that effort did anything?
But perhaps our modern obsession with "healthiness" reflects the same underlying human motivation: incapable of accepting the reality of our own deaths we grasp at anything to try and give ourselves the illusion of control. Is eating an organic strawberry in the hopes of living longer really any different than performing a ritualistic dance in the hopes of bringing rain?
>How much of the received wisdom about healthy lifestyles that you were taught has been shown to be completely wrong?
Virtually none of it.
>I don't doubt that in 3 years there will be another New York times article, demonstrating why running is actually terrible for you, and you should never do it no matter what age you are.
I do doubt that. I doubt it very much.
>Is eating an organic strawberry in the hopes of living longer really any different than performing a ritualistic dance in the hopes of bringing rain?
That seems like really desperately grasping at ways to dismiss things you don't like. Exercise is good, even if you don't want it to be.
Virtually none of it.
>I don't doubt that in 3 years there will be another New York times article, demonstrating why running is actually terrible for you, and you should never do it no matter what age you are.
I do doubt that. I doubt it very much.
>Is eating an organic strawberry in the hopes of living longer really any different than performing a ritualistic dance in the hopes of bringing rain?
That seems like really desperately grasping at ways to dismiss things you don't like. Exercise is good, even if you don't want it to be.
>> Virtually none of it.
What? Milk? Multi-vitamins? Stretching? This stuff is discussed heavily; I do not know enough about these things to weigh in on validity, but if nothing else, these discussions might be very symptomatic.
What? Milk? Multi-vitamins? Stretching? This stuff is discussed heavily; I do not know enough about these things to weigh in on validity, but if nothing else, these discussions might be very symptomatic.
The received wisdom you get from your doctor is mostly pretty good. The received wisdom you get from the TV news is mostly useless.
No. Doctors do not follow the field.
Most doctors I know still advise not eating after 6pm, while it has been shown to be either worthless or even plain ineffective.
Most doctors I know still advise not eating after 6pm, while it has been shown to be either worthless or even plain ineffective.
>Most doctors I know still advise not eating after 6pm
That sounds pretty sketchy. Do you mean "for people with acid reflux"? Because that's perfectly valid. I've never even heard of a doctor recommending that in general.
That sounds pretty sketchy. Do you mean "for people with acid reflux"? Because that's perfectly valid. I've never even heard of a doctor recommending that in general.
Media misrepresentation of science does not invalidate science. What about milk, or vitamins or stretching?
A little bit of searching shows that "healthiness" does in fact lead to longer lives.
Also, not all religious people do ritualistic rain dances. Newton, Godel etc were all completely rational creatures.
I have a feeling that you are just saying "these grapes are sour".
No matter how sore you feel things like yoga, meditation, good living and exercise contribute to better quality of life and longer lifespans. Just go to scholar.google.com and spend some time researching.
Also, not all religious people do ritualistic rain dances. Newton, Godel etc were all completely rational creatures.
I have a feeling that you are just saying "these grapes are sour".
No matter how sore you feel things like yoga, meditation, good living and exercise contribute to better quality of life and longer lifespans. Just go to scholar.google.com and spend some time researching.
>nothing we do can guarantee a long and healthy life.
I don't think anybody who works out is under the assumption that they will live to be 130+ years old.
We're all very well aware of babies with Cancer these days. Anything can happen.
But one thing's for certain, being active certainly prolongs life. That much I think we can all be sure of at this point.
How many true couch potatoes do you know that have made it past the ripe old age of 90? 80 even?
I don't think anybody who works out is under the assumption that they will live to be 130+ years old.
We're all very well aware of babies with Cancer these days. Anything can happen.
But one thing's for certain, being active certainly prolongs life. That much I think we can all be sure of at this point.
How many true couch potatoes do you know that have made it past the ripe old age of 90? 80 even?
> But one thing's for certain, being active certainly prolongs life. That much I think we can all be sure of at this point.
what we can be sure of is that being active improves the quality of life. Hell is not being able to move.
what we can be sure of is that being active improves the quality of life. Hell is not being able to move.
> But one thing's for certain, being active certainly prolongs life.
you forgot to say "on average" here.
you forgot to say "on average" here.
Eat your organic strawberry because it tastes good, and because you don't have to envision farm workers being sprayed by pesticides from planes when you take a nice big bite. Run because you enjoy it (and maybe it's good for you). Use that handwavy statistic for dinner-party justification of things you like anyway, like red wine, chocolate, butter, and broccoli.
You're right that nothing we can do will guarantee a long and healthy life. If nothing else, we could be hit by a drunk or texting driver while crossing the street. So enjoy the strawberry for the taste.
You're right that nothing we can do will guarantee a long and healthy life. If nothing else, we could be hit by a drunk or texting driver while crossing the street. So enjoy the strawberry for the taste.
"Nothing we do can guarantee a long and healthy life" it true, and shit happens. But running (or swimming, hiking or <insert your favorite non-violent sport here>) are not just a fad, and none made this promise. Their only promise is to exercise some vital functions, in a form of body maintenance, and maybe/even pleasure. You without a doubt believe exercising your brain (through reading, coding, etc.) is a sound occupation, why not your body?
Truth is, you aren't much without it. Stephen Hawkins might be able to think and write wonderful essays while occupying a severely diminished body, but you might not. I've seen people sinking into their growing disabilities due to lack of exercise, and I myself suffered from physical traumas (severe back pain, hernia), which seriously impacted my psychological stability and self-confidence.
Take care of your body, it will take care of you. Haruki Murakami has a wonderful book about body and mind, and their equilibrium, called What I Talk About When I Talk About Running [1], I very much recommend it.
[1] http://www.amazon.ca/What-Talk-About-When-Running/dp/0385681...
Truth is, you aren't much without it. Stephen Hawkins might be able to think and write wonderful essays while occupying a severely diminished body, but you might not. I've seen people sinking into their growing disabilities due to lack of exercise, and I myself suffered from physical traumas (severe back pain, hernia), which seriously impacted my psychological stability and self-confidence.
Take care of your body, it will take care of you. Haruki Murakami has a wonderful book about body and mind, and their equilibrium, called What I Talk About When I Talk About Running [1], I very much recommend it.
[1] http://www.amazon.ca/What-Talk-About-When-Running/dp/0385681...
Agree. Jim Fixx's example is particularly bad. Mr. Fixx did have a genetic condition affecting his heart, he was a heavy smoker and he was severely overweight before starting his running revolution.
I think crediting Fixx with the running revolution is a mistake. Instead, look to Frank Shorter winning a gold, on TV, in the '72 Olympic Marathon.
> Growing up in a secular society ancient religions can seem awful strange: why did people worship stone statues and sacrifice to them? Did they really believe all that effort did anything?
I don't know, do you really believe there is anything that suggests mathematics exists in reality outside of the maintenance of symbols, structure, and meaning in the mind of man?
Some things exist to teach patterns, to maintain a style of thinking. There are tons of things we don't understand about culture socially - in maintaining peace, individuality AND unity with ourselves as individuals and ourselves in society, that might have been intelligently dealt with in a very real way in cultures you consider primitive, intelligible, irrational, unscientific, archaic, and non-secular.
You can't judge a book by it's cover, so to speak. The superficial observation of ritual does not mean it serves no purpose. The meaning of things change over time, as these things are interpreted and understood by different cultures that come from different backgrounds with different ways of representing and interpreting information about the world. Math does not always represent what it says it represents. Neither do dancing statues. There are certainly TONS of things people rely on, things they assume about how existence functions, that we can't even begin to touch the tip of, because we are blinded by the complexity of our own minds.
I don't know, do you really believe there is anything that suggests mathematics exists in reality outside of the maintenance of symbols, structure, and meaning in the mind of man?
Some things exist to teach patterns, to maintain a style of thinking. There are tons of things we don't understand about culture socially - in maintaining peace, individuality AND unity with ourselves as individuals and ourselves in society, that might have been intelligently dealt with in a very real way in cultures you consider primitive, intelligible, irrational, unscientific, archaic, and non-secular.
You can't judge a book by it's cover, so to speak. The superficial observation of ritual does not mean it serves no purpose. The meaning of things change over time, as these things are interpreted and understood by different cultures that come from different backgrounds with different ways of representing and interpreting information about the world. Math does not always represent what it says it represents. Neither do dancing statues. There are certainly TONS of things people rely on, things they assume about how existence functions, that we can't even begin to touch the tip of, because we are blinded by the complexity of our own minds.
> 7 years later he died of a heart attack while jogging at the age of 52.
> His death doesn't mean running is a bad idea - a single anecdote is statistically insignificant - but perhaps it can remind us that nothing we do can guarantee a long and healthy life.
Or one could see it this way: His father had a heart attack at 35 and died of another heart attack at 42. Jim Fixx, who had a genetic condition, was a heavy smoker until age 36, etc., might very well have bought himself an extra ten years or so.
> His death doesn't mean running is a bad idea - a single anecdote is statistically insignificant - but perhaps it can remind us that nothing we do can guarantee a long and healthy life.
Or one could see it this way: His father had a heart attack at 35 and died of another heart attack at 42. Jim Fixx, who had a genetic condition, was a heavy smoker until age 36, etc., might very well have bought himself an extra ten years or so.
I found regular running increases not only health but quality of my life as well. The article states that in an overt way efficency of walking compared to youth - you won't get tired when you get there. Honestly day without running for me - not to say wasted but lost in some way as my attention is dulled, body feels less alive.
You may get hooked on endocannabinoids, if you run intensively for prolonged time (>1hr).
Running can and will mess with your endocrine system.
Running can and will mess with your endocrine system.
[deleted]
>but perhaps it can remind us that nothing we do can guarantee a long and healthy life.
Except advances in biotech...or at least I'm drastically hoping so.
Except advances in biotech...or at least I'm drastically hoping so.
As the article referenced here is rather light, here is
the actual paper of the mentioned study (open access):
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjourna...,
and a slightly more informative report by the University of Colorado Boulder,
http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2014/11/20/running-rea....
Conclusion from the paper:
Conclusion from the paper:
Running mitigates the age-related deterioration of walking
economy whereas walking for exercise appears to have
minimal effect on the age-related deterioration in walking
economy.This is great if you're older and have the physical ability to run. I suspect that some of the non-runners can't run.
I tried jogging over the summer for the first time in years, but my feet started hurting. It would take days to recover. I gave up after 2 months. It feels good but I seem prone to injury.
Try running barefoot on grass (or, if you live near a beach, sand) instead of concrete -- much better on the joints!
Barefoot running is mostly just a trade off of one type of injuries for another. And it's not just "use no/special shoes". It requires learning a different way to run. If you run "normally" you're going to severely hurt yourself.
Avoiding road/sidewalk can make a huge difference for beginners.
Try a couch-to-5k program that will ease you into things without getting you hurt: http://www.reddit.com/r/c25k
Almost everyone has problems when they first start running, and these become worse the older you get. The good thing, though, is that most people can work through the initial period if they do it right.
I was a runner on cross county and track teams in high school, but basically went thirty years after that without running regularly. I would often start up for a few weeks in the summers, then peter out. As I aged into mid 40's, found that I was getting injuries when starting out, and they didn't go away. I tore my calf muscle at age 45 (trying to imitate Usain Bolt), and that injury stuck with me for several years; I thought I'd probably never be able to run pain-free again.
Then a few years ago (2011) I started running and took everything more slowly, both mileage and pace. I actually started out just doing hikes in nearby mountains, since my calf injury made running painful but hiking/walking was fine. I ran a little bit later that year, things went okay but I still caused myself some injuries because I always wanted to try and run faster. The same thing happened in 2012, although I ended up running my first marathon late that year. It was painful and my persisting Achilles/calf injury was always present, at least in a small degree.
In early 2013 I started running again and threw all thoughts of fast pace out the window, and paid close attention to pains, backing off and sometimes taking time off until some niggling pain went away. I started running more often, five or six days a week, which paradoxically helped. Yes, you generally need more recovery time as you age, but if you keep your runs on the slow side and don't tax your body as much, running every day can be easier and more injury-free than running just a few times a week. I have talked to others with same experience.
I ended up qualifying for Boston Marathon last fall, proving that you don't need to train fast or hard to race fast (in fact best training for marathon is much slower than most people think). And this year I've run the Boston Maraton, a 50 mile mountain trail race, and I'll be logging well over 2,000 miles for the year (i.e., averaging 45 miles per week).
I have heard similar stories from many runners I know. "Injury prone" is very often a tag that attaches to any person who tries to start running too many miles or who tries to run them too fast. Since most people try to start running that way -- trying to do too much too soon -- most people end up being "injury prone".
Instead, start out slow, walking most of the miles if you want, and ramp up very slowly. I've gone from being injury prone to being injury free, mostly because I know the sorts of things that would cause me injury and I avoid doing them. The good thing is that once you've slowly ramped your body up to a given level, say for me 50 miles/week at pace around 9:00 to 10:00 per mile, my body is rock solid. I'd have to be careful if I wanted to increase mileage or speed, but if I just want to keep running at level my body is acclimated to the odds of injury are very low. And the pleasure when running is very high.
I was a runner on cross county and track teams in high school, but basically went thirty years after that without running regularly. I would often start up for a few weeks in the summers, then peter out. As I aged into mid 40's, found that I was getting injuries when starting out, and they didn't go away. I tore my calf muscle at age 45 (trying to imitate Usain Bolt), and that injury stuck with me for several years; I thought I'd probably never be able to run pain-free again.
Then a few years ago (2011) I started running and took everything more slowly, both mileage and pace. I actually started out just doing hikes in nearby mountains, since my calf injury made running painful but hiking/walking was fine. I ran a little bit later that year, things went okay but I still caused myself some injuries because I always wanted to try and run faster. The same thing happened in 2012, although I ended up running my first marathon late that year. It was painful and my persisting Achilles/calf injury was always present, at least in a small degree.
In early 2013 I started running again and threw all thoughts of fast pace out the window, and paid close attention to pains, backing off and sometimes taking time off until some niggling pain went away. I started running more often, five or six days a week, which paradoxically helped. Yes, you generally need more recovery time as you age, but if you keep your runs on the slow side and don't tax your body as much, running every day can be easier and more injury-free than running just a few times a week. I have talked to others with same experience.
I ended up qualifying for Boston Marathon last fall, proving that you don't need to train fast or hard to race fast (in fact best training for marathon is much slower than most people think). And this year I've run the Boston Maraton, a 50 mile mountain trail race, and I'll be logging well over 2,000 miles for the year (i.e., averaging 45 miles per week).
I have heard similar stories from many runners I know. "Injury prone" is very often a tag that attaches to any person who tries to start running too many miles or who tries to run them too fast. Since most people try to start running that way -- trying to do too much too soon -- most people end up being "injury prone".
Instead, start out slow, walking most of the miles if you want, and ramp up very slowly. I've gone from being injury prone to being injury free, mostly because I know the sorts of things that would cause me injury and I avoid doing them. The good thing is that once you've slowly ramped your body up to a given level, say for me 50 miles/week at pace around 9:00 to 10:00 per mile, my body is rock solid. I'd have to be careful if I wanted to increase mileage or speed, but if I just want to keep running at level my body is acclimated to the odds of injury are very low. And the pleasure when running is very high.
Can I ask what kind of shoes you were wearing, and if you tried other shoes? Have you ever tried running barefoot?
When I started running, I wore shoes, and my feet hurt all the time. I stopped wearing shoes, and the foot pain stopped, too. I've since found shoes I can wear when it's cold/wet that don't hurt, but running barefoot is still my go-to style.
I think normal running shoes are probably fine for most people, but I benefited quite a lot from running without shoes at all.
When I started running, I wore shoes, and my feet hurt all the time. I stopped wearing shoes, and the foot pain stopped, too. I've since found shoes I can wear when it's cold/wet that don't hurt, but running barefoot is still my go-to style.
I think normal running shoes are probably fine for most people, but I benefited quite a lot from running without shoes at all.
Not to nitpick, but a couple of comments:
The ounce of truth is that feet (in general) need to be strengthened. YOu can do fun stuf like walking on the beach, on gravel roads, or proper rock climbing, or balance beam work. All of which iwll work to strenghten your feet. What's funny is once your feet are strong, shoes have little to do with it.[1] The inverse is not true - weak feet in barefoot shoes - is likely to create a problem.
Barefoot style shoes may be useful for some people with strong feet, but they are a poor substitute for developing strong feet in the first-place. And they can be outright dangerous for people with weak feet and poor balance, or people subjecting themselves to long-distance or endurance situations. Whereas a trail-running shoe used in a hiking application is a better, safer, and more useful piece of gear.
Lastly, one nice feature that has come out in the recent years is the ability to get the right (so called) drop, in a variety of styles of shoe. And shoes that are either too angled or too 'flat' will present additional challenges, but expecially people with weak feet. The footbed angle needs to be selected based on application.
[1] They can still hurt you, but strong feet in good shoes tend to be fine.
The ounce of truth is that feet (in general) need to be strengthened. YOu can do fun stuf like walking on the beach, on gravel roads, or proper rock climbing, or balance beam work. All of which iwll work to strenghten your feet. What's funny is once your feet are strong, shoes have little to do with it.[1] The inverse is not true - weak feet in barefoot shoes - is likely to create a problem.
Barefoot style shoes may be useful for some people with strong feet, but they are a poor substitute for developing strong feet in the first-place. And they can be outright dangerous for people with weak feet and poor balance, or people subjecting themselves to long-distance or endurance situations. Whereas a trail-running shoe used in a hiking application is a better, safer, and more useful piece of gear.
Lastly, one nice feature that has come out in the recent years is the ability to get the right (so called) drop, in a variety of styles of shoe. And shoes that are either too angled or too 'flat' will present additional challenges, but expecially people with weak feet. The footbed angle needs to be selected based on application.
[1] They can still hurt you, but strong feet in good shoes tend to be fine.
Random guess from some clown on the other side of the internet, but if I had to guess, one of the following was bothering you:
* too quick of ramp up or not enough recovery (it can take a long time to ease into this stuff)
* you were running incorrectly, either directly because of bad technique or you had bad technique because of bad posture/stride. many people land hard on their feet or turn one foot out when they run.
* you have actual medical problems with your feet or legs that would cause this
if you enjoyed it you should really look at different running techniques and make sure your stride is good so you can get back to it! if your posture is bad your stride will almost definitely be bad; you may need to start there.
* too quick of ramp up or not enough recovery (it can take a long time to ease into this stuff)
* you were running incorrectly, either directly because of bad technique or you had bad technique because of bad posture/stride. many people land hard on their feet or turn one foot out when they run.
* you have actual medical problems with your feet or legs that would cause this
if you enjoyed it you should really look at different running techniques and make sure your stride is good so you can get back to it! if your posture is bad your stride will almost definitely be bad; you may need to start there.
Keep doing it, otherwise the recovery period will swing back up high and the health benefits will fall by the wayside.
Diet also plays a major role in consistently reducing your recovery time and increasing the quality of life.
Diet also plays a major role in consistently reducing your recovery time and increasing the quality of life.
What kind of shoes did you have? What kind of surface did you run on? Did you get your stride checked? Did work up to any distance or go all out day 1?
Because running looks easy as opposed to say weight lifting, people often do it without thinking. Running is just like any other exercise in that you have to start slow and work up to more. You also have to do some research for proper technique and equipment.
Because running looks easy as opposed to say weight lifting, people often do it without thinking. Running is just like any other exercise in that you have to start slow and work up to more. You also have to do some research for proper technique and equipment.
New Balance 990. I started with C25k but had to repeat many days. I'm quite out of jogging shape. I run on the sidewalk or road.
You probably need a different brand of shoes. For instance, New Balance works great for me, but I can't ever wear Nike or Avia. Both of those brands really hurt my feet, even though I run all the time. Keep trying different brands, or go to one of those fancy shoe places that can fit your feet properly.
You probably know this, but soft surfaces are a lot better than hard ones, and be careful when running downhill.
If you go to a decent running store, they'll record you running on a treadmill. They should show you what your ankles are doing so you can pick shoes to support your feet. Most people aren't biomechanically sound, the ankles roll in or out a bit, this can be mitigated with shoes and inserts.
My ankles roll in a lot, with out a fair bit of support, my knees kill me.
Also, muscles recover quick but tendons take forever to heal - you're not running from a lion, so you can take your time and experiment with what works for you in a safe way. (it sounds like you are, so good for you)
My ankles roll in a lot, with out a fair bit of support, my knees kill me.
Also, muscles recover quick but tendons take forever to heal - you're not running from a lion, so you can take your time and experiment with what works for you in a safe way. (it sounds like you are, so good for you)
I would check on the shoes and then have a running store look at your stride. I used to hate running because in general it hurt. I tried a bunch of different shoes, settled on Brooks Ghosts, and running is actually a pleasure. I also focus on my stride and work on foot strike, length of stride, etc...
Since you're doing the C25K I'm assuming you are not super athletic to start. If you are overweight, you may want do some other cardio until you get your weight down a bit. If it hurts obviously don't do it and find some professional advice. Re-doing days in a training program is fine, everyone has their own pace.
Good luck!
Since you're doing the C25K I'm assuming you are not super athletic to start. If you are overweight, you may want do some other cardio until you get your weight down a bit. If it hurts obviously don't do it and find some professional advice. Re-doing days in a training program is fine, everyone has their own pace.
Good luck!
This helped me alot with pain in shins and calfs:
http://www.prevention.com/fitness/strength-training/foam-rol...
http://www.prevention.com/fitness/strength-training/foam-rol...
What kind of shoes were you using? People have unique feet, so you may need to be fitted. Find a running store and sit down with an employee to find running shoes that will best suit your feet.
it can be related to diet at least it was for me. increase in protein and fruits and getting rid of starchy foods gave me a leg up on it - not right away after adjusting your diet it can take some time to feel better. Gradual acceleration too can help. Speed walking may be the next step, at least it was for my dad.
According to Wikipedia, 10% of all people get what's called "Plantar Fasciitis" at some point.
In my late teens, I began to have very bad bouts of this syndrome, whenever I sprinted. The more I ignored the pain, the longer it would take to heal.
In my early 20's, I suddenly took up running--eventually ratcheting up my route to 7 miles--after being somewhat sedentary for a couple years. The result of this was perhaps the worst case of Plantar Fasciitis I'd ever developed.
Shortly after, I visited an expensive shoe store downtown, and explained my problem to the salesman. He recommended a pair of high-end Asics, in the price range of $80-$120. I believe the pair had the title "gel evolution" in it somewhere. He also laced them up a special way. Whenever I use them, I maintain this special lacing, and always have to carefully tighten them just enough so that my feet still have enough flexibility to bend my foot without constricting it or cutting of circulation.
These shoes provided incredible arch support, being manufactured with a great deal of material surrounding the ankle and the sole, but while also being made of flexible material in the rest of the shoe. (Note that the shoes I'd been wearing when I injured myself were incredibly cheap, and had virtually no arch support).
To further enhance the arch support, I also replaced the soles with some fairly thick "Superfeet" soles, which are rather stiff and are curved to rise where your arches are.
Since then, for the last 5 years, I've been running on a daily (or at least weekly) basis--the problem has never come back, even though I seem genetically predisposed to the syndrome. Having excellent shoes makes all the difference.
Later on, I picked up a pair of Asics from Nordstrom Rack, at a great price (under $50). These were much cheaper (instead of having "Gel Evolution" in the title, they were just called "Oasis"). These have worked just as well for me, although I suspect that my continuing foot health can also partially be attributed to the muscle strengthening of my feet, as well as good form. (When you are still in pain, be very careful not to continue running if you feel like you need to modify your gait in order to avoid the pain ("limping"). This can result in injuring yourself in a new, different way, such as your knees!)
By the way, I highly recommend jogging or running, in general. I wouldn't be the person I am today without it, since it is often when I am outside, running, when I come up with the best ideas. I suspect this has something to do with the time-scale of the activity (lasting long enough for sustained thought), the freedom for the mind to roam (since exercising is not mentally taxing), and not the least due to the increased oxygen in your system. If you run often enough, you begin to become addicted, to the point where you feel "high".
In my late teens, I began to have very bad bouts of this syndrome, whenever I sprinted. The more I ignored the pain, the longer it would take to heal.
In my early 20's, I suddenly took up running--eventually ratcheting up my route to 7 miles--after being somewhat sedentary for a couple years. The result of this was perhaps the worst case of Plantar Fasciitis I'd ever developed.
Shortly after, I visited an expensive shoe store downtown, and explained my problem to the salesman. He recommended a pair of high-end Asics, in the price range of $80-$120. I believe the pair had the title "gel evolution" in it somewhere. He also laced them up a special way. Whenever I use them, I maintain this special lacing, and always have to carefully tighten them just enough so that my feet still have enough flexibility to bend my foot without constricting it or cutting of circulation.
These shoes provided incredible arch support, being manufactured with a great deal of material surrounding the ankle and the sole, but while also being made of flexible material in the rest of the shoe. (Note that the shoes I'd been wearing when I injured myself were incredibly cheap, and had virtually no arch support).
To further enhance the arch support, I also replaced the soles with some fairly thick "Superfeet" soles, which are rather stiff and are curved to rise where your arches are.
Since then, for the last 5 years, I've been running on a daily (or at least weekly) basis--the problem has never come back, even though I seem genetically predisposed to the syndrome. Having excellent shoes makes all the difference.
Later on, I picked up a pair of Asics from Nordstrom Rack, at a great price (under $50). These were much cheaper (instead of having "Gel Evolution" in the title, they were just called "Oasis"). These have worked just as well for me, although I suspect that my continuing foot health can also partially be attributed to the muscle strengthening of my feet, as well as good form. (When you are still in pain, be very careful not to continue running if you feel like you need to modify your gait in order to avoid the pain ("limping"). This can result in injuring yourself in a new, different way, such as your knees!)
By the way, I highly recommend jogging or running, in general. I wouldn't be the person I am today without it, since it is often when I am outside, running, when I come up with the best ideas. I suspect this has something to do with the time-scale of the activity (lasting long enough for sustained thought), the freedom for the mind to roam (since exercising is not mentally taxing), and not the least due to the increased oxygen in your system. If you run often enough, you begin to become addicted, to the point where you feel "high".
Plantar Fasciitis is actually a fairly simple thing to fix if you're on top of things early. It's very possible you were wearing sprinting spikes that had a negative heel-to-toe drop and lengthened the fascia more than you were ready for.
For me just changing shoes with a 6mm difference in heel-to-toe drop was enough to create the same problem. I woke up one morning with a pain that felt like a nail being driven up into my heel. I spent about an hour doing deep tissue massage on my arch and calves - did a workout the same day and didn't have any issues the next morning.
You probably don't need quite as much support as you might think if you were willing to slowly remove support which would strengthen/stretch the muscles around the heel.
For me just changing shoes with a 6mm difference in heel-to-toe drop was enough to create the same problem. I woke up one morning with a pain that felt like a nail being driven up into my heel. I spent about an hour doing deep tissue massage on my arch and calves - did a workout the same day and didn't have any issues the next morning.
You probably don't need quite as much support as you might think if you were willing to slowly remove support which would strengthen/stretch the muscles around the heel.
I had the exact opposite experience. I have no idea what model my asics were, but some super awesome gel nonsense. And I was in constant pain and kept giving up. Someone convinced me to try minimalist shoes and in two weeks everything was better.
>since it is often when I am outside, running, when I come up with the best ideas.
There's quite a lot of support for the idea that walking helps people think better.
>since it is often when I am outside, running, when I come up with the best ideas.
There's quite a lot of support for the idea that walking helps people think better.
I have worn Asics shoes for most of the time since 1981. However, shoe preference is very individual--friends have preferred Nike or New Balance or Brooks. Feet are shaped differently, and strides are not the same. And one's feet change over time; somewhere along the way I went from size 9.5 to 11.
I can also recommend Asics. Even after going to high-end running stores with video profiling, Asics are still the best running shoe for me. With every other brand, I get shin splints shortly after running.
It seems like the distinguishing factor is intensity, so it's likely you could substitute in some other higher-intensity workout that may be easier on the joints, like swimming.
Interesting... I am approaching 50 and have noticed a slight reduction in mobility. I have recently read articles about certain markers of mortality (or is morbitity the word here?) - like the ability to get up from the ground without using arms... or trying not to sit too much during the day. or trying to walk 10,000 steps (according to that dubious android app).
Particularly the 'idea of getting up from the floor without use of arms' made me think of certain simple motions that are hard for me. There is a Korean buddhist practice of 108 bows - I recently tried and got to about 25. (not just Korean - I should have said I learned it in a Korean context)
I am disturbed by the idea that there will come a day where I cant do "x" anymore, where x is running, drinking guinness or some other such activity.
Recently bought a block of training sessions at a gym and discovered stretching with the aid of hard plastic tubes or rollers that help stretch out areas of the body that are a bit hard to stretch otherwise. Hip flexors, trapezius (sp?), etc. This has greatly improved my mobility and has helped me do things which were hard to do before (shoulder presses, running) without pain.
Reading this article it made me think of how walking alone might not stretch out muscles in the same way as running (or swimming, rowing, etc).
"But researchers and older people themselves also have noted that walking ability tends to decline with age. Older people whose primary exercise is walking often start walking more slowly and with greater difficulty as the years pass, fatiguing more easily."
They don't explicitly talk about flexibilty and running but some form of stretching is somewhat implied. It might be interesting to see those possible correlations.
And I thought of the octo- (and maybe nono-) genarian Koreans who would briskly walk by me on the small mountains in Seoul on their way to a temple to throw down a few bows...
Particularly the 'idea of getting up from the floor without use of arms' made me think of certain simple motions that are hard for me. There is a Korean buddhist practice of 108 bows - I recently tried and got to about 25. (not just Korean - I should have said I learned it in a Korean context)
I am disturbed by the idea that there will come a day where I cant do "x" anymore, where x is running, drinking guinness or some other such activity.
Recently bought a block of training sessions at a gym and discovered stretching with the aid of hard plastic tubes or rollers that help stretch out areas of the body that are a bit hard to stretch otherwise. Hip flexors, trapezius (sp?), etc. This has greatly improved my mobility and has helped me do things which were hard to do before (shoulder presses, running) without pain.
Reading this article it made me think of how walking alone might not stretch out muscles in the same way as running (or swimming, rowing, etc).
"But researchers and older people themselves also have noted that walking ability tends to decline with age. Older people whose primary exercise is walking often start walking more slowly and with greater difficulty as the years pass, fatiguing more easily."
They don't explicitly talk about flexibilty and running but some form of stretching is somewhat implied. It might be interesting to see those possible correlations.
And I thought of the octo- (and maybe nono-) genarian Koreans who would briskly walk by me on the small mountains in Seoul on their way to a temple to throw down a few bows...
If anyone wants a quick mobility routine...
http://phraktured.net/molding-mobility.html
I do a full round of the mobility work (15 reps and not the warmup section) every morning within 15 minutes of getting out of bed. It has done wonders for my mobility, and my attitude in the morning (not a morning person and doing this makes me less grumpy).
http://phraktured.net/molding-mobility.html
I do a full round of the mobility work (15 reps and not the warmup section) every morning within 15 minutes of getting out of bed. It has done wonders for my mobility, and my attitude in the morning (not a morning person and doing this makes me less grumpy).
Another exercise that is in vogue these days is foam rolling. I'm trying to see how it helps, but I'm not sure what kinds of changes I'd notice and after how many sessions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myofascial_release
I always stretched after every workout, but it was half-hearted because I was tired.
Only in the past 3 months have I gotten serious about it. And part of my stretching routine is foam rolling. I'll stretch, feel some tightness, roll the area, and re-stretch. Usually on the second stretch, I can go deeper into the stretch.
but it is the most painful part of my workout. I've probably cursed a little more than I should when I roll my IT bands.
I always stretched after every workout, but it was half-hearted because I was tired.
Only in the past 3 months have I gotten serious about it. And part of my stretching routine is foam rolling. I'll stretch, feel some tightness, roll the area, and re-stretch. Usually on the second stretch, I can go deeper into the stretch.
but it is the most painful part of my workout. I've probably cursed a little more than I should when I roll my IT bands.
Always after the workout?
There lots of examples of older people still managing to be active. There's Fauja Singh, who ran a 10K at an age of 101: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/24/fauja-singh-last-ra...
And the world record holder for a pole vault (90+ years of age): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pX9h5PVNGaY
And the world record holder for a pole vault (90+ years of age): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pX9h5PVNGaY
77 year old grandma deadlifting 215 pounds:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2014/11/29/inspiration-na...
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2014/11/29/inspiration-na...
Last week I went mountain climbing (a 19,900 feet mountain) and one of the people there was a 71 years old man.
After 30 years of running, I can attest to the irreversible damage caused to knees, shins, and other joints and ligaments due to running on paved and other man made surfaces. A good alternative as you get up in years is swimming and/or cycling or recumbent biking.
I ran 4 years of D1 cross country. Can confirm. The oft-repeated trope is "concrete is 12x harder than soft surface grass." Not sure how true that is or how the physics work, but stay away from roads. Run on the dirt on the side of them.
Do you (or anybody) have evidence to support this? Genuinely curious since everything I've read shows that surface doesn't matter. I understand this result is counter-intuitive but I was under the impression its a well documented result.
Nothing beyond personal experience and knowing my own body. After you run every day for 8 years of your life you tend to notice little differences in how you feel day-to-day. For example, it's not a coincidence that after three months in Houston running on only pavement, I had far more ankle/knee/plantar pains than after a season of running on trails. Also, trails have the added benefit of activating a greater diversity of muscles in your feet, because you need to "dance around the roots."
I would rather run on a level surface even if it is harder. You can hurt your knee or ankle rather quickly running through some fields; but that's part of the experience I guess.
Running on an uneven running surface isn't bad for you at all. Most people run primarily on the roads - so if they encounter a long path with uneven terrain - the ancillary muscles that control stabilization generally tire more quickly. It's all about transitioning slowly and letting the muscles, that haven't been used very often, strengthen.
[deleted]
And also avoid running downhill.
Yes, running uphill is a better workout and it feels better on the knees.
why? downhills are free.
Not on your knees. Downhill running (and hiking) is also more anaerobic (stopping your self from falling) than aerobic (working to move up).
If you're stopping yourself from falling when running downhill, you're doing it wrong. You should be "leaning into" the hill, which is counterintuitive and feels like you're going to fall, but is way better for your knees and also faster than stopping yourself.
That only works for some grades. The grades in the Bay Area are pretty steep. If you leaned into the downward slope, you would be on your face in a few seconds.
That's why you should only run down Lombard Street!
You may have just misspoken but it'd be almost impossible to get any anaerobic training out of downhill running. You might be doing some muscle strengthening though.
You can definitely get an anaerobic workout from downhill hiking. Running on pavement not so much, but you do use muscles to keep from falling down.
I've always heard a lot of this is due to improper running technique, since shoe technology shifted to a heavily-padded heel. This in turn made people more likely to land on the heel, which sends the shock right up the leg, into the knee.
Barefoot running, and less padded shoes, promote landing on the balls of your feet (as otherwise it's incredibly painful!). Landing on the balls of your feet allows your foot to reduce the force that gets shot up the leg.
Barefoot running, and less padded shoes, promote landing on the balls of your feet (as otherwise it's incredibly painful!). Landing on the balls of your feet allows your foot to reduce the force that gets shot up the leg.
Running barefoot on pavement in the city doesn't work very well. Every time I try it for a significant journey, I can barely walk for a week due to blisters and small glass fragments. Also, people, rightly, stare at me like I'm insane.
Just get some "barefoot" shoes. I use merrell trail glove.
Agreed, merrell trail gloves are great shoes. I run 60-70km per week in them.
I highly recommend barefoot style shoes in general, but you do have to acclimate to them slowly while you build up your foot strength.
After building foot strength in 'barefoot' shoes, I can now run much faster in any kind of shoe.
I highly recommend barefoot style shoes in general, but you do have to acclimate to them slowly while you build up your foot strength.
After building foot strength in 'barefoot' shoes, I can now run much faster in any kind of shoe.
How do they compare to Vibrams? I tried to get a pair of KSO or Bikila last time I was in the USA, but all the shops have stopped stocking them since the company settled a lawsuit.
Some years ago I did a bunch of barefoot running on rubber running tracks. I had some blistering from that, but otherwise it's okay. It feels great. I wouldn't go on roads and trails; that's just asking for a nasty cut and infection. With time, you probably build up some thick skin from that which protects you.
If you want an almost barefoot like experience, just get very light shoes, like middle-distance spikes, and train on tracks some of the time. Then do your long, easy miles in cushioned road shoes like a normal person.
By the way, my father recalls seeing Abebe Bikila win the 1961 Košice Peace Marathon, barefoot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ko%C5%A1ice_Peace_Marathon
If you want an almost barefoot like experience, just get very light shoes, like middle-distance spikes, and train on tracks some of the time. Then do your long, easy miles in cushioned road shoes like a normal person.
By the way, my father recalls seeing Abebe Bikila win the 1961 Košice Peace Marathon, barefoot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ko%C5%A1ice_Peace_Marathon
My first attempt at barefoot running on cement was a 5k -- the blisters are killer. Couldn't even stand without fairly extreme pain.
I think the notion is to work your way up a lot slower than I did, but I haven't made the same attempt again.
I think the notion is to work your way up a lot slower than I did, but I haven't made the same attempt again.
That's it. Learn to run on the balls of your feet. It reduces the shock to the knees by such an amount that I can't run in any other way now.
All sports have complications. Swimmers can get shoulder issues and tendinitis (http://physioworks.com.au/Injuries-Conditions/Activities/swi...). Cyclists can suffer overuse injury, but also seem at risk of getting mown down by traffic (admittedly a general risk, but it seems a higher one for regular bike users) http://physioworks.com.au/Injuries-Conditions/Activities/cyc...
I suspect it's a matter of cross-training, of trying to do some compensating weight training, and luck.
I suspect it's a matter of cross-training, of trying to do some compensating weight training, and luck.
I run and visit the gym without gym, gym gives me great posture. Working at the desk most of the day it is hard to keep muscles on your back to support yourself while running at least it is the case for me. Everyone has different diet, genetics...
I ran pain-free for years on concrete in vibram toe shoes. I ended up convincing myself that one needs to re-learn how to run, but that it is indeed possible to run even on hard surfaces if your technique is efficient enough.
edit: An excellent video showing the subtleties of perfect form: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTMgIViinuQ
edit: An excellent video showing the subtleties of perfect form: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTMgIViinuQ
It's not clear that running makes joint problems any more likely, in general, see:
http://www.npr.org/2011/03/28/134861448/put-those-shoes-on-r...
For example, keeping joints active with weight bearing exercise reduces the likelihood of developing arthritis. As other comments have mentioned, a common problem is overtraining, and especially starting out too fast. Patience is required to build up the strength and technique required to maximise benefits while minimising the risk of injury.
http://www.npr.org/2011/03/28/134861448/put-those-shoes-on-r...
For example, keeping joints active with weight bearing exercise reduces the likelihood of developing arthritis. As other comments have mentioned, a common problem is overtraining, and especially starting out too fast. Patience is required to build up the strength and technique required to maximise benefits while minimising the risk of injury.
I got this when I got hurt. I love it.
http://www.elliptigo.com/
http://www.elliptigo.com/
We need to be wary of drawing the conclusions drawn here - the big tip-off is this sentence from the paper:
"...Runners self-reported running for exercise three or more times per week for at least 30 minutes per bout and for at least six months prior to the study. "
A self-reported group of old runners can apparently walk more efficiently than a self-reported group of old walkers...but the runners were fit enough to run and sustain running to begin with!!
So older people who were fit enough to sustainably run for 6+ months were fitter than older folks who (were possibly not as fit) but choose to walk?
Horrible study...randomly assign fit older people to one or other group, let them run or walk for 6+ months - measure. Reverse the groups again measure.
A self-reported group of old runners can apparently walk more efficiently than a self-reported group of old walkers...but the runners were fit enough to run and sustain running to begin with!!
So older people who were fit enough to sustainably run for 6+ months were fitter than older folks who (were possibly not as fit) but choose to walk?
Horrible study...randomly assign fit older people to one or other group, let them run or walk for 6+ months - measure. Reverse the groups again measure.
I think the study is assigning health benefits to "being a runner" rather than just "running". It's likely that the selected group of runners who had been running regularly for 6 months had been running regularly for much much longer, perhaps 10+ years. I'm definitely not an expert on the subject, but I don't know how many people are in good enough shape at age 60+ to start running, and I imagine most people running at age 60+ started running no later than their mid 50's.
The real thing you want to control for is the health of the runners and the walkers at the time the runners started running.
The real thing you want to control for is the health of the runners and the walkers at the time the runners started running.
I am 27 years old and after few months of intensive running I got a spinal disc herniation. It took me about a half a year to recover from it. So my advice is not to rush into running without learning proper techniques and getting guidance from professionals.
I'm certainly no scientist nor statistician, but studies like this bother me because of their tiny sample size. They studied 30 people. My understanding was always that you needed more samples than that to reach any kind of statistical significance.
Can anyone in the know comment on how realistic or significant it is for a study of this nature to reach any kind of conclusion from a sample size of 30?
Can anyone in the know comment on how realistic or significant it is for a study of this nature to reach any kind of conclusion from a sample size of 30?
Alan Turing ran to stay calm. He said: "I have such a stressful job that the only way I can get it out of my mind is by running hard."
Running also has an effect similar to rope skipping - all the inner organs receive a "free massage". It might be that simple.
isn't running absolutely horrible for one's joints (e.g. knees)?
not to mention the bowel issues
not to mention the bowel issues
Cartilage is one of the few tissues that is not known to regenerate.
The joints issue was my first thought too. Could you explain the bowel point though? How does running effect this?
Runner's diarrhea [0].
[0] http://www.mayoclinic.org/runners-diarrhea/expert-answers/fa...
[0] http://www.mayoclinic.org/runners-diarrhea/expert-answers/fa...
Interesting, thanks.
AFAIK there is no evidence that running is bad for the knees. There is not enough research to draw firm conclusions, but a Stanford study (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2556152/) didn't find a higher incidence of osteoarthritis in runners (20%) vs non-runners (32%) after 18 years of running. There is selection bias in this study since the runners were self-selected.
The book 'Which comes first, cardio or weights' from A. Hutchinson offers one hypothesis in which running might protect the knees: by limiting weight gain with advancing age. Less weight means less stress on the joints.
The book 'Which comes first, cardio or weights' from A. Hutchinson offers one hypothesis in which running might protect the knees: by limiting weight gain with advancing age. Less weight means less stress on the joints.
I think "Stay Young to Run" is a much more truthful.
Didn't know that Sardinians and Okinawans were all runners...
lot of the comments sound fatalistic, almost seems like they are invalidating and refuting healthy lifestyles.