Health is more than body size. Don't use the scale to measure health.
Replies
-
Your article is from 2002, and more aptly:Results: Age played an important part in injury in women: being over 50 years old was a risk factor for overall injury, and being less than 31 years was protective against new injury. Running only one day a week showed a non-significant trend for injury risk in men and was a significant risk factor in women and overall injury. A BMI of > 26 kg/m2 was reported as protective for men. Running shoe age also significantly contributed to the injury model. Half of the participants who reported an injury had had a previous injury; 42% of these reported that they were not completely rehabilitated on starting the 13 week training programme. An injury rate of 29.5% was recorded across all training clinics surveyed. The knee was the most commonly injured site.
Conclusions: Although age, BMI, running frequency (days a week), and running shoe age were associated with injury, these results do not take into account an adequate measure of exposure time to injury, running experience, or previous injury and should thus be viewed accordingly. In addition, the reason for the discrepancy in injury rate between these 17 clinics requires further study.
Where in the results and conclusions is there support that you are not supposed to run if you are overweight?
There are many factors that can lead to running injury. In fact, someone who is fit and running can get injured.
0 -
hmmm.... I agree that, whatever weight you are, exercising is better than not exercising. But HAES goes a little too far with it. When a person goes over slightly overweight into obese, bad things *are* going to start happening even if it waits 'til middle age. I found this out the hard way. A mere 30 lb and my joints started breaking down and I became prediabetic even though I was walking 3 miles a day every day. Losing the weight made my joints and blood sugar get much better. I feel like there's a certain element of denial in the HAES way of thinking. I don't believe in persecuting people for being fat, but I also don't believe in pretending it will make no difference in a person's health. The current backlash of fat acceptance is because people are sick of being denigrated and treated as second class citizens, but it's going overboard into the notion that it is just as healthy as being normal sized... that, unfortunately, is false.0
-
quintoespada wrote: »genetics???????
yes exactly, genetic variation, that is what i meant, there is genetic variation in biomechanics (and connective tissue health and blah blah blah). and you just don't actually know what your genetics will incline your body to do when you run, until you do it (and it is too late).
the rates of injury for runners range from 25 to 85%. yes there are many factors (recreational vs. competitive, age ect) , but e.g. in this study of 844 new runners, who all participated in a 12-week intro to running clinic, fully 30% of them were injured. http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/37/3/239.full . high bmi was a risk factor. shoes may or may not make a difference, there are studies on that too, all of that is controversial bc ppl love running (i even did for a while) - all i'm saying is that if you have some reason to think you will be crappy at running, my advice is to try something less risky, if you would like to have better odds of enjoying long periods of injury-free or injury-minimal activity and health.
very few people hurt themselves walking, and although obviously running burns ^ calories, the % difference in terms of burn rate isn't a lot, and it isn't worth the risk (IN MY OPINION, obviously opinions vary).
Damn, it's too bad that I read this too late. Alas, I am now injured. A month ago I twisted my ankle and broke off the tip of my fibula. But, hang on, I am confused? I didn't do this running, in fact, in the past several years of running I've not injured myself during that activity. Even when I started and was 75 pounds heavier than I am now. And I'm still pretty damn heavy. This injury happened while I was walking on a gravel road. So, maybe I should give up walking. Based on my experience, it's a much more dangerous activity than running is.
BTW - I know TONS of people who hurt themselves walking. We walk a lot, and sometimes take a misstep and end up injured. It happens. But, it's better to be active and risk occasional injury than it is to be sedentary and have all of the major health risks that inactivity brings.
You....I like.
0 -
BTW - I know TONS of people who hurt themselves walking. We walk a lot, and sometimes take a misstep and end up injured. It happens. But, it's better to be active and risk occasional injury than it is to be sedentary and have all of the major health risks that inactivity brings.
sure but the rates for walking are much lower than for running. it's a risk calculation, agreed, and 100% agree that some activity is better than no activity.0 -
It's hard to predict injury rates in people. I was young and slender and practicing martial arts, back in the day. I had excellent instruction and was very careful in my form. However... my knees turned out to be subpar. I ended up in surgery rather than taking my green belt test and the doctor told me very firmly that I had best find another method of exercise that didn't include torque on the knees *or* more than minimal impact. Some of us are going to find out too late that we weren't made for a particular sport. Luck of the draw I figure. I was upset, but I just had to be realistic and readjust what I was doing. mehh... life is like that.0
-
Your article is from 2002, and more aptly:Results: Age played an important part in injury in women: being over 50 years old was a risk factor for overall injury, and being less than 31 years was protective against new injury. Running only one day a week showed a non-significant trend for injury risk in men and was a significant risk factor in women and overall injury. A BMI of > 26 kg/m2 was reported as protective for men. Running shoe age also significantly contributed to the injury model. Half of the participants who reported an injury had had a previous injury; 42% of these reported that they were not completely rehabilitated on starting the 13 week training programme. An injury rate of 29.5% was recorded across all training clinics surveyed. The knee was the most commonly injured site.
Conclusions: Although age, BMI, running frequency (days a week), and running shoe age were associated with injury, these results do not take into account an adequate measure of exposure time to injury, running experience, or previous injury and should thus be viewed accordingly. In addition, the reason for the discrepancy in injury rate between these 17 clinics requires further study.
Where in the results and conclusions is there support that you are not supposed to run if you are overweight?
There are many factors that can lead to running injury. In fact, someone who is fit and running can get injured.
Yes, there are many factors, various studies implicate BMI eg this one
http://ojs.sagepub.com/content/1/1/2325967113487316.shortIt's hard to predict injury rates in people. I was young and slender and practicing martial arts, back in the day. I had excellent instruction and was very careful in my form. However... my knees turned out to be subpar. I ended up in surgery rather than taking my green belt test and the doctor told me very firmly that I had best find another method of exercise that didn't include torque on the knees *or* more than minimal impact. Some of us are going to find out too late that we weren't made for a particular sport. Luck of the draw I figure. I was upset, but I just had to be realistic and readjust what I was doing. mehh... life is like that.
true
totally luck of the draw. sorry about your knees 
0 -
Yes, there are many factors, various studies implicate BMI eg this one
http://ojs.sagepub.com/content/1/1/2325967113487316.short
Did you read this from your most recent study?Conclusion: The findings of the present study suggest BMI >30 kg/m2, age between 45 and 65 years, noncompetitive behavior, and previous injuries not related to running are associated with increased risk of injury among novice runners, while BMI <20 kg/m2 was protective. Still, the role of the risk factors in the causal mechanism leading to injury needs to be investigated.
BMI is only one factor, and the results of the study are basically inconclusive.
When I was fat and running I did not have an injury one single time. In fact, I've never had a running injury.0 -
The issue is not whether a fat person can run or not. I see the issue and have a problem with that in out society everybody has to get a gold star, even for sub-par behavior, just not to offend a person, and we all have to be politically correct. They find one overweight person who can run and it is publicly glorified. Of course, there are exceptions to every rule. Yes, you may be one of those who are overweight - even obese - and still can run. But being overweight is darn unhealthy and sooner or later you are going to pay the piper. Just look around you. How many obese 70-80 years olds do you know? Probably not many...they are gone before their time.0
-
Yes, there are many factors, various studies implicate BMI eg this one
http://ojs.sagepub.com/content/1/1/2325967113487316.short
Did you read this from your most recent study?Conclusion: The findings of the present study suggest BMI >30 kg/m2, age between 45 and 65 years, noncompetitive behavior, and previous injuries not related to running are associated with increased risk of injury among novice runners, while BMI <20 kg/m2 was protective. Still, the role of the risk factors in the causal mechanism leading to injury needs to be investigated.
BMI is only one factor, and the results of the study are basically inconclusive.
When I was fat and running I did not have an injury one single time. In fact, I've never had a running injury.
Yes, I said there are multiple factors that go into it.
It's good that you haven't been injured. You probably have decent biomechanics. (Seriously, if you've done it for years with not a single injury, you're pretty unusual.) But you are not everyone. n=1 is a pretty unacceptable sample size from which to generalize. I am not everyone either, also an n=1. But the fact remains that the risk is high for many. What I initially said was that my OPINION was that overweight people and people of any weight who suck at running would do better to not run. I am pretty much done explaining that.The issue is not whether a fat person can run or not.
Thank you
0 -
farren_talon wrote: »Generally, I agree that weight isn't necessarily what's needed to determine how healthy/fit you are. I'm overweight (but slimming down), and I know I can out walk/run some of my skinnier friends. They don't eat well or exercise like I do now. I have more energy then them.
Yes, in that people can be more or less healthy at any weight, people can certainly be more or less fit at any weight (although once you get to a certain level of obesity your absolute fitness is certainly more limited), and you can be technically overweight (BMI 26, say) and really quite fit and healthy.
I would consider it a positive message to encourage people at any weight to try to improve their fitness and NOT tell people to wait to lose weight before focusing on fitness or exercise.That being said, it's nice to see someone who's that overweight exercising, but I would think that if she continues running, and actually eats healthy, she won't stay that way for long. While it said she's been a runner for 10yrs, I'm wondering about her other habits if she's still that large.
I agree with this too.0 -
UltimateRBF wrote: »
What?
How do you know if you're good at something until you actually do it? Furthermore, how do you get better at something unless you keep doing it.
Truly, I don't understand.
+1
And also I guess I knew I was "good at running" (whatever that means) in that I'd done it in the past, but I started running again at about 200 lbs, and I'm quite happy I did. (Of course, what I really wish is that I'd never stopped.)0 -
They're pandering to the absurd notions of the new majority.This is just rewarmed unhealth-acceptance. Ridiculous.
I pity anybody falling for this instead of striving to become his or her best. Rolling around this big is not an ideal to strive toward or a condition I would ever accept in myself.
To each his own though....
0 -
I started running when I was overweight. I also wasn't particularly great at it. I have since completely C25K, many 5Ks, 9Ks, 10Ks and now am training for a half marathon, but by what you said...I should just quit. I am still not a naturally great runner, but I work gosh darn hard at it. I guess I suck.
I ran a 5K last year when I was still obese. I can't remember if I was obese or still overweight when I ran my 10K. I was definitely still overweight (but not obese) when I did my first half (not my first ever, but my first after getting back into running). Perhaps some thought I was a poor role model when running that first half, as I was still overweight, but you have to know the back story, and mine was that I'd lost about 60 lbs and was both reasonably fit and working hard at both getting fitter and losing weight (which running helped me with).
And more generally aimed at the OP and some of the comments on that: There's also a photo of me on my profile doing a 30 bike ride while quite obese--a ride that while nothing that amazing is something some of my thin friends would never do (nor would they run even 3 miles). So I wouldn't say being fat means you can't work on fitness or even be fit in some senses.
Obviously, if you focus on fitness and are significantly overweight you will tend to lose weight, though (and focusing on fitness includes eating appropriately, not overeating, IMO).
I wasn't delusional, but I was proud of myself (and some of the other fatties out there for the first time) when I finished my 5K, and I was proud of the fitness advances I'd made when I finished my 10K and half and when I just exercised regularly every week and kept making improvements. I don't see the benefit of claiming that fitness is irrelevant if you are overweight. Getting fit is part of improving health and changing one's weight.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
This is just rewarmed unhealth-acceptance. Ridiculous.
Encouraging fat people to exercise rather than be inactive is not unhealth acceptance. It's encouragement of healthier behaviors (and an acknowledgement that lots of fat people feel embarrassed to or like they can't exercise). I'm happy I started being active again when still obese and I got a lot more comments about inspiring people then than I get now.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »This is just rewarmed unhealth-acceptance. Ridiculous.
Encouraging fat people to exercise rather than be inactive is not unhealth acceptance. It's encouragement of healthier behaviors (and an acknowledgement that lots of fat people feel embarrassed to or like they can't exercise). I'm happy I started being active again when still obese and I got a lot more comments about inspiring people then than I get now.
+1.
+2.
0 -
I used to not be able to run for a minute without having to stop. I told myself....I am never going to be able to run.
I worked hard at it and increased my fitness. I focused on my cardio fitness and my form. I ran 8 miles this morning.
If I had said that I am not meant to run (which is such BS) then I never would have been able to accomplish any of the goals I have with running.
As for joint stress. For sure it has been easier for me to run in the last few months because I have dropped 55 lbs. However it is also a chicken and the egg thing for me. I also lost 55 lbs because I ate at a deficit...and I spent a lot of time out and running. I am also seeing definition in my legs I haven't seen in decades.
I am so glad I didn't listen to the opinions of "you are too fat to run." While weight is for sure a factor....I believe that training and cardio fitness is a much bigger factor. I am glad I have gotten my body conditioned to run.
And this.
0 -
TheOwlhouseDesigns wrote: »And there is a huge difference between not being good at something and doing it for the fun and get fit.
And some professional and/or serious running
Yeah there is. But for some people, it doesn't take much to trip them into the danger zone
Some people, C25K = the danger zone
For some people, that may be true. And if one is really struggling with such a program, it is a good idea to cut the app times in half. Work at a pace that is best for you (general use).
Just because someone may not be the best runner to have ever put on running shoes, that doesn't necessarily mean that running should be avoided. Who cares if snotty strangers don't approve of the form or speed, especially when they weren't asked? What does matter, is the person taking the initiative to be healthier and more fit in a responsible manner.0 -
Yes, there are many factors, various studies implicate BMI eg this one
http://ojs.sagepub.com/content/1/1/2325967113487316.short
Did you read this from your most recent study?Conclusion: The findings of the present study suggest BMI >30 kg/m2, age between 45 and 65 years, noncompetitive behavior, and previous injuries not related to running are associated with increased risk of injury among novice runners, while BMI <20 kg/m2 was protective. Still, the role of the risk factors in the causal mechanism leading to injury needs to be investigated.
BMI is only one factor, and the results of the study are basically inconclusive.
When I was fat and running I did not have an injury one single time. In fact, I've never had a running injury.
Yes, I said there are multiple factors that go into it.
It's good that you haven't been injured. You probably have decent biomechanics. (Seriously, if you've done it for years with not a single injury, you're pretty unusual.) But you are not everyone. n=1 is a pretty unacceptable sample size from which to generalize. I am not everyone either, also an n=1. But the fact remains that the risk is high for many. What I initially said was that my OPINION was that overweight people and people of any weight who suck at running would do better to not run. I am pretty much done explaining that.The issue is not whether a fat person can run or not.
Thank you
No, this is what you said:Yeah actually I am not so keen on overweight people running. Or on anyone at any weight who doesn't *already know they're good at running* running. Ftr.0 -
SarcasmIsMyLoveLanguage wrote: »http://www.vancouversun.com/health/Health+more+than+body+size+Dont+scale+measure+health+experts/11257544/story.html
Pasted from the article in case you don't want to click:
Erica Schenk has been a runner for 10 years, but a single snapshot of the curvy athlete may represent her most significant strides yet.
The plus-size model is captured mid-sprint as she covers the August issue of Women's Running. The latest edition is focused on body positivity and highlighting that runners' bodies don't all fit one specific mould.
Both the model and the magazine have made international headlines and earned widespread praise, with editor-in-chief Jessica Sebor calling the reaction "completely unanticipated."
Coupled with the kudos, she said they've also received emotional responses from women with larger bodies who said they hadn't felt accepted as runners, but can now "see themselves" on the cover because Schenk was showcased.
"We're such an image-driven culture," Sebor said from San Diego, Calif. "We assume we know everything about someone by looking at their picture and that's just not true.
"Health is about what you do — not about what you look like."
What's more, the "obsession" about body weight and composition has little to do with actual health, said Dr. Arya Sharma, chair in obesity research and management at the University of Alberta.
"We live in a society where people who happen to carry a few extra pounds are looked down upon and face a lot of bias and discrimination — especially as you come to higher BMIs — and that makes their lives miserable. It's not that they actually have health problems."
While many are quick to use weight as a key measure of fitness, Sharma said there are many misconceptions about what the numbers actually indicate.
"Stepping on a scale is not a measure of health. It can be a measure of risk for health problems," said Sharma.
"We do know some health problems become more common in people as they gain weight. But we've also learned that perfect health is also possible across a wide range of BMIs or body weights."
Determining whether excess weight will be a factor also can be related to genetic predisposition, such as diabetes or other weight-related health problems, he noted.
Sharma also notes on his website that abdominal fat is different than the fat accumulating on the hips or buttocks. Abdominal fat can be a major risk factor for diabetes, high blood pressure and abnormal cholesterol levels, and can lead to heart disease and stroke.
"We also know that health behaviours are much more important than the weight on the scale," said Sharma, founder and scientific director of the Canadian Obesity Network.
"What will determine your health ultimately is going to be your fitness level, the amount of sleep that you get, how you feel about yourself, the quality of your diet.
"You could be doing all of those things right with no impact on your body weight and still be a lot healthier than you are now."
Michelle Pitman is vice-president international for the Association of Size Diversity and Health. The professional organization is committed to the Health At Every Size principles, which support acceptance of people regardless of size or shape.
"Health is more than just body size," said Pitman, wellness coach with Define Me Wellness.
Pitman said if she's seeing a new client who wants to lose weight to be healthier, she seeks to help them reframe what health means to them.
"Think about weight in terms of an outcome as opposed to a behaviour. Things like: 'I want to have improved energy,' 'I want to have a better sex life,' 'I want to complete this 10K race for a sense of personal accomplishment' — and taking weight out of the equation."
Thoughts?
Sounds like something a Fat Person (who is not inclined to put down the fork) would say.0 -
UltimateRBF wrote: »
What does that even mean?
How do you know you're good at running before you decide to try running?
I feel like almost no one has not had the opportunity to run (unlike say SCUBA diving or pole dancing) but admit this may not be true for everyone.
The following is my opinion (albeit one shared by at least two of my past physiotherapists):
Some people are built to run. Great biomechanics for running. They're like gazelles, beautiful to watch. They know they can run because when they do it, it's easy and feels good (vs bad).
Some people are ok at running. Medium biomechanics for running, maybe not perfect but they can make it work without hurting themselves.
Some people SUCK at running and will almost certainly hurt themselves if they do it long enough bc their mechanics for it are terrible.
The issue is when people THINK they're in group 2 but are actually in group 3. That can be long term bad news bears (it happened to me).
Many people who are ACTUALLY in group 2 will probably be fine, but there's no real way to know until you've already hurt yourself, possibly permanently
Fairly sure that as bipedal creatures, humans as a whole are in fact born to run.
Now whether they're good at it or whether it's safe or whether they enjoy it or not is an individual matter.
That's a weird argument, obviously we're bipedal and human and not e.g. fish and humans generally run. Obviously I'm talking about the variation in whatever underlies biomechanics that's expressed in individuals.
Huh? What does this even mean?
It means they said a few harsh mean things that are indefensible. Won't admit wrong and nobody lets them off the hook for it.
Now begins a Bill Clintonesque sort of
"What is the defenition of the word is"
Sort of back pedaling
0 -
farren_talon wrote: »That being said, it's nice to see someone who's that overweight exercising, but I would think that if she continues running, and actually eats healthy, she won't stay that way for long. While it said she's been a runner for 10yrs, I'm wondering about her other habits if she's still that large.lemurcat12 wrote: »I agree with this too.
Maybe I'm a terrible person, but I don't believe she's been running for 10 years. At least not in the way most people would mean "running for 10 years." First of all, no female runner would EVER let their boobs do that during a run. Even for a photo shoot. Flop flop flop OW. Second, her calves are tiny. Most people who grew up athletic have TREE TRUNK CALVES. I'm pretty thin, and my calves could generate their own gravitational field. Overweight people who work out seriously, doubly so. My dad is a Clydesdale cyclist, and *his* calves could be the parodoxical rock an omnipotent being can/can't move.
Oh, you say, but she started later in life and didn't grow up athletic? Chick is eighteen. If she's been "running" for ten years, it's bits and spurts in gym class.
I'm the biggest cheerleader out there for anyone exercising to the extent their current and future health allows, but I really wish WR had picked an actual overweight runner.0 -
cheshirecatastrophe wrote: »farren_talon wrote: »That being said, it's nice to see someone who's that overweight exercising, but I would think that if she continues running, and actually eats healthy, she won't stay that way for long. While it said she's been a runner for 10yrs, I'm wondering about her other habits if she's still that large.lemurcat12 wrote: »I agree with this too.
Maybe I'm a terrible person, but I don't believe she's been running for 10 years. At least not in the way most people would mean "running for 10 years." First of all, no female runner would EVER let their boobs do that during a run. Even for a photo shoot. Flop flop flop OW. Second, her calves are tiny. Most people who grew up athletic have TREE TRUNK CALVES. I'm pretty thin, and my calves could generate their own gravitational field. Overweight people who work out seriously, doubly so. My dad is a Clydesdale cyclist, and *his* calves could be the parodoxical rock an omnipotent being can/can't move.
Oh, you say, but she started later in life and didn't grow up athletic? Chick is eighteen. If she's been "running" for ten years, it's bits and spurts in gym class.
I'm the biggest cheerleader out there for anyone exercising to the extent their current and future health allows, but I really wish WR had picked an actual overweight runner.
I never thought of that. I have very large calves. I weight 139/140 pounds on a 5 ft 5 frame and I can't go into any shoe store and buy boots up to my knees because I can't zip those boots up.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
KittensMaster wrote: »UltimateRBF wrote: »
What does that even mean?
How do you know you're good at running before you decide to try running?
I feel like almost no one has not had the opportunity to run (unlike say SCUBA diving or pole dancing) but admit this may not be true for everyone.
The following is my opinion (albeit one shared by at least two of my past physiotherapists):
Some people are built to run. Great biomechanics for running. They're like gazelles, beautiful to watch. They know they can run because when they do it, it's easy and feels good (vs bad).
Some people are ok at running. Medium biomechanics for running, maybe not perfect but they can make it work without hurting themselves.
Some people SUCK at running and will almost certainly hurt themselves if they do it long enough bc their mechanics for it are terrible.
The issue is when people THINK they're in group 2 but are actually in group 3. That can be long term bad news bears (it happened to me).
Many people who are ACTUALLY in group 2 will probably be fine, but there's no real way to know until you've already hurt yourself, possibly permanently
Fairly sure that as bipedal creatures, humans as a whole are in fact born to run.
Now whether they're good at it or whether it's safe or whether they enjoy it or not is an individual matter.
That's a weird argument, obviously we're bipedal and human and not e.g. fish and humans generally run. Obviously I'm talking about the variation in whatever underlies biomechanics that's expressed in individuals.
Huh? What does this even mean?
It means they said a few harsh mean things that are indefensible. Won't admit wrong and nobody lets them off the hook for it.
Now begins a Bill Clintonesque sort of
"What is the defenition of the word is"
Sort of back pedaling
Zero back pedalling, I've been consistent.Yes, there are many factors, various studies implicate BMI eg this one
http://ojs.sagepub.com/content/1/1/2325967113487316.short
Did you read this from your most recent study?Conclusion: The findings of the present study suggest BMI >30 kg/m2, age between 45 and 65 years, noncompetitive behavior, and previous injuries not related to running are associated with increased risk of injury among novice runners, while BMI <20 kg/m2 was protective. Still, the role of the risk factors in the causal mechanism leading to injury needs to be investigated.
BMI is only one factor, and the results of the study are basically inconclusive.
When I was fat and running I did not have an injury one single time. In fact, I've never had a running injury.
Yes, I said there are multiple factors that go into it.
It's good that you haven't been injured. You probably have decent biomechanics. (Seriously, if you've done it for years with not a single injury, you're pretty unusual.) But you are not everyone. n=1 is a pretty unacceptable sample size from which to generalize. I am not everyone either, also an n=1. But the fact remains that the risk is high for many. What I initially said was that my OPINION was that overweight people and people of any weight who suck at running would do better to not run. I am pretty much done explaining that.The issue is not whether a fat person can run or not.
Thank you
No, this is what you said:Yeah actually I am not so keen on overweight people running. Or on anyone at any weight who doesn't *already know they're good at running* running. Ftr.
Yes, I said *I* am *not so keen* etc. Read those bits again and tell me what else that could possibly mean in English.
***
Also, you all are welcome to my
- plantar fasciitis x 2 episodes (I tried running more than once!)
- completely fallen arch
- patellofemoral syndrome
- chronic peroneal tendonitis that left me unable to walk for longer than 5 minutes at a time for a full year and with continuing pain and neuropathy to this day (4 years later) and cost me tremendous mental strain (due in part to difficulties even getting it diagnosed) and lots of $$$ to treat - oh yeah, if you run, you'd better be able to afford physiotherapy. LOL to ppl saying running is "free"
I have other foot issues that have emerged since but can't as clearly link to the running. I have other knee issues that are definitely related to the compensations and gluteal weakness that occurred after the peroneal tendonitis. (That happened bc it took forever to get the thing understood, despite seeking immediate help.)
For all that, I had maybe a few months of that beautiful feeling of your body moving in the sun etc etc etc. I say, eff it, walk instead. (If you think you are crap at running. As I was told multiple times by multiple gym teachers.)
I did C25K, had a gait analysis done, did a running clinic, paid $200 bucks for the "right" shoes, read about foot strike etc in freaking Runner's World, read Runner's World constantly, was cautious as f*k, took weeks OFF C25K when I had TINY, TINY twinges that I couldn't read or interpret, went back and repeated weeks when it seemed necessary, didn't matter.
Some people just shouldn't run. In my opinion.0 -
KittensMaster wrote: »UltimateRBF wrote: »
What does that even mean?
How do you know you're good at running before you decide to try running?
I feel like almost no one has not had the opportunity to run (unlike say SCUBA diving or pole dancing) but admit this may not be true for everyone.
The following is my opinion (albeit one shared by at least two of my past physiotherapists):
Some people are built to run. Great biomechanics for running. They're like gazelles, beautiful to watch. They know they can run because when they do it, it's easy and feels good (vs bad).
Some people are ok at running. Medium biomechanics for running, maybe not perfect but they can make it work without hurting themselves.
Some people SUCK at running and will almost certainly hurt themselves if they do it long enough bc their mechanics for it are terrible.
The issue is when people THINK they're in group 2 but are actually in group 3. That can be long term bad news bears (it happened to me).
Many people who are ACTUALLY in group 2 will probably be fine, but there's no real way to know until you've already hurt yourself, possibly permanently
Fairly sure that as bipedal creatures, humans as a whole are in fact born to run.
Now whether they're good at it or whether it's safe or whether they enjoy it or not is an individual matter.
That's a weird argument, obviously we're bipedal and human and not e.g. fish and humans generally run. Obviously I'm talking about the variation in whatever underlies biomechanics that's expressed in individuals.
Huh? What does this even mean?
It means they said a few harsh mean things that are indefensible. Won't admit wrong and nobody lets them off the hook for it.
Now begins a Bill Clintonesque sort of
"What is the defenition of the word is"
Sort of back pedaling
Zero back pedalling, I've been consistent.Yes, there are many factors, various studies implicate BMI eg this one
http://ojs.sagepub.com/content/1/1/2325967113487316.short
Did you read this from your most recent study?Conclusion: The findings of the present study suggest BMI >30 kg/m2, age between 45 and 65 years, noncompetitive behavior, and previous injuries not related to running are associated with increased risk of injury among novice runners, while BMI <20 kg/m2 was protective. Still, the role of the risk factors in the causal mechanism leading to injury needs to be investigated.
BMI is only one factor, and the results of the study are basically inconclusive.
When I was fat and running I did not have an injury one single time. In fact, I've never had a running injury.
Yes, I said there are multiple factors that go into it.
It's good that you haven't been injured. You probably have decent biomechanics. (Seriously, if you've done it for years with not a single injury, you're pretty unusual.) But you are not everyone. n=1 is a pretty unacceptable sample size from which to generalize. I am not everyone either, also an n=1. But the fact remains that the risk is high for many. What I initially said was that my OPINION was that overweight people and people of any weight who suck at running would do better to not run. I am pretty much done explaining that.The issue is not whether a fat person can run or not.
Thank you
No, this is what you said:Yeah actually I am not so keen on overweight people running. Or on anyone at any weight who doesn't *already know they're good at running* running. Ftr.
Yes, I said *I* am *not so keen* etc. Read those bits again and tell me what else that could possibly mean in English.
***
Also, you all are welcome to my
- plantar fasciitis x 2 episodes (I tried running more than once!)
- completely fallen arch
- patellofemoral syndrome
- chronic peroneal tendonitis that left me unable to walk for longer than 5 minutes at a time for a full year and with continuing pain and neuropathy to this day (4 years later) and cost me tremendous mental strain (due in part to difficulties even getting it diagnosed) and lots of $$$ to treat - oh yeah, if you run, you'd better be able to afford physiotherapy. LOL to ppl saying running is "free"
I have other foot issues that have emerged since but can't as clearly link to the running.
For all that, I had maybe a few months of that beautiful feeling of your body moving in the sun etc etc etc. I say, eff it, walk instead. (If you think you are crap at running. As I was told multiple times by multiple gym teachers.)
I did C25K, had a gait analysis done, did a running clinic, paid $200 bucks for the "right" shoes, read about foot strike etc in freaking Runner's World, read Runner's World constantly, was cautious as f*k, took weeks OFF C25K when I had TINY, TINY twinges that I couldn't read or interpret, went back and repeated weeks when it seemed necessary, didn't matter.
Some people just shouldn't run. In my opinion.
My humble opinion is that you are not made for running.
This doesn't mean it applies automatically to other people.
0 -
You passed judgment on other people running and exercising.
I will run wether any person likes it or not. To think your opinion matters on how it looks? Ha Ha!
If I need t stop for a medical reason I won't project that on others.
0 -
KittensMaster wrote: »UltimateRBF wrote: »
What does that even mean?
How do you know you're good at running before you decide to try running?
I feel like almost no one has not had the opportunity to run (unlike say SCUBA diving or pole dancing) but admit this may not be true for everyone.
The following is my opinion (albeit one shared by at least two of my past physiotherapists):
Some people are built to run. Great biomechanics for running. They're like gazelles, beautiful to watch. They know they can run because when they do it, it's easy and feels good (vs bad).
Some people are ok at running. Medium biomechanics for running, maybe not perfect but they can make it work without hurting themselves.
Some people SUCK at running and will almost certainly hurt themselves if they do it long enough bc their mechanics for it are terrible.
The issue is when people THINK they're in group 2 but are actually in group 3. That can be long term bad news bears (it happened to me).
Many people who are ACTUALLY in group 2 will probably be fine, but there's no real way to know until you've already hurt yourself, possibly permanently
Fairly sure that as bipedal creatures, humans as a whole are in fact born to run.
Now whether they're good at it or whether it's safe or whether they enjoy it or not is an individual matter.
That's a weird argument, obviously we're bipedal and human and not e.g. fish and humans generally run. Obviously I'm talking about the variation in whatever underlies biomechanics that's expressed in individuals.
Huh? What does this even mean?
It means they said a few harsh mean things that are indefensible. Won't admit wrong and nobody lets them off the hook for it.
Now begins a Bill Clintonesque sort of
"What is the defenition of the word is"
Sort of back pedaling
Zero back pedalling, I've been consistent.Yes, there are many factors, various studies implicate BMI eg this one
http://ojs.sagepub.com/content/1/1/2325967113487316.short
Did you read this from your most recent study?Conclusion: The findings of the present study suggest BMI >30 kg/m2, age between 45 and 65 years, noncompetitive behavior, and previous injuries not related to running are associated with increased risk of injury among novice runners, while BMI <20 kg/m2 was protective. Still, the role of the risk factors in the causal mechanism leading to injury needs to be investigated.
BMI is only one factor, and the results of the study are basically inconclusive.
When I was fat and running I did not have an injury one single time. In fact, I've never had a running injury.
Yes, I said there are multiple factors that go into it.
It's good that you haven't been injured. You probably have decent biomechanics. (Seriously, if you've done it for years with not a single injury, you're pretty unusual.) But you are not everyone. n=1 is a pretty unacceptable sample size from which to generalize. I am not everyone either, also an n=1. But the fact remains that the risk is high for many. What I initially said was that my OPINION was that overweight people and people of any weight who suck at running would do better to not run. I am pretty much done explaining that.The issue is not whether a fat person can run or not.
Thank you
No, this is what you said:Yeah actually I am not so keen on overweight people running. Or on anyone at any weight who doesn't *already know they're good at running* running. Ftr.
Yes, I said *I* am *not so keen* etc. Read those bits again and tell me what else that could possibly mean in English.
***
Also, you all are welcome to my
- plantar fasciitis x 2 episodes (I tried running more than once!)
- completely fallen arch
- patellofemoral syndrome
- chronic peroneal tendonitis that left me unable to walk for longer than 5 minutes at a time for a full year and with continuing pain and neuropathy to this day (4 years later) and cost me tremendous mental strain (due in part to difficulties even getting it diagnosed) and lots of $$$ to treat - oh yeah, if you run, you'd better be able to afford physiotherapy. LOL to ppl saying running is "free"
I have other foot issues that have emerged since but can't as clearly link to the running.
For all that, I had maybe a few months of that beautiful feeling of your body moving in the sun etc etc etc. I say, eff it, walk instead. (If you think you are crap at running. As I was told multiple times by multiple gym teachers.)
I did C25K, had a gait analysis done, did a running clinic, paid $200 bucks for the "right" shoes, read about foot strike etc in freaking Runner's World, read Runner's World constantly, was cautious as f*k, took weeks OFF C25K when I had TINY, TINY twinges that I couldn't read or interpret, went back and repeated weeks when it seemed necessary, didn't matter.
Some people just shouldn't run. In my opinion.
I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but your initial post, which you referred to, was copied verbatim. That is when the debate we are now doing started.
I understand about your injuries, but that is about you and cannot be generally applied to anyone else.
It's not for you to say whether anyone should or should not run, unless that someone is you.0 -
This content has been removed.
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions