Health is more than body size. Don't use the scale to measure health.
Options
Replies
-
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 -
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 -
I'm having a hard time understanding why allowing people to find clothing that fits them (including workout clothing) is "unhealth acceptance". I'm currently losing weight. I still want to look good in what I wear. That doesn't mean I'm complacent, it means that I don't want to look like I'm wearing a burlap sack as I'm trying to improve my health. I also want workout clothing that moves with me, allows me to do the workout I want, and look reasonably nice on me. I see nothing wrong with marketing "perfect fit" clothing for those who are plus size. We too need things to wear as we continue this journey.
0 -
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.
Running actually does have some form elements to it and some strength elements. It's possible to have been running (as people do) and yet do it wrong and have to be taught it.
One way in which people do it wrong is trying to run too fast (common when they've only ever sprinted or run in the context of other sports before). This is one of the benefits of something like C25K. But even beyond this there are issues with form that can be corrected and muscle imbalances that can be fixed.
Not saying YOU or anyone else who doesn't want to should run, but that people shouldn't think they either are or are not "good at it."I have other foot issues that have emerged since but can't as clearly link to the running.
Re fallen arches, I have those, and it's not running in my case--it's a combination of genetics (but for size I have my dad's feet pretty much exactly, it's funny) and probably being overweight.
My issue with your original comment isn't that I think everyone should run. I don't like the idea that others, from on high, need to look out for the fat and tell them what they should or should not do, as if being fat also made you incompetent. (Ironically, this is also why I get my back up about the idea that we need to be warning the fat to eat healthy or stay away from "bad foods," as if they didn't already know they should eat a generally nutritious diet and not overdo the high calorie/low nutrient stuff.) Having been fat, I think we should acknowledge that fat people are, in fact, just as likely to be intelligent and competent as you or I, and simply haven't figured out the weight loss thing yet or, more likely, haven't yet cared enough to do it. The idea that as a fat person I need others to look out for me and tell me what's good for me would NOT have helped me lose weight. However, seeing other overweight people exercise and get fitter and, yes, lose weight, was something that was encouraging and motivating, even though I knew in my head it was something I should do.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. 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.
N=10 -
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.
N=1
Also 30% of novice runners who attended a 3 month running clinic in that huge prospective study and 50% of all runners in a given year (get injured, not necessarily w peroneal tendonitis etc)0 -
gaelicstorm26 wrote: »I'm having a hard time understanding why allowing people to find clothing that fits them (including workout clothing) is "unhealth acceptance". I'm currently losing weight. I still want to look good in what I wear. That doesn't mean I'm complacent, it means that I don't want to look like I'm wearing a burlap sack as I'm trying to improve my health. I also want workout clothing that moves with me, allows me to do the workout I want, and look reasonably nice on me. I see nothing wrong with marketing "perfect fit" clothing for those who are plus size. We too need things to wear as we continue this journey.
Yes.
0 -
Have you ever seen photos of swimmers that cross the English Channel?
They come in all shapes and sizes and by god they are strong and have stamina.
I think it's a good thing to see fat people exercising. I'd rather see that than just 'model' physiques. To me it promotes exercise not obesity - I guess it's how you personally see the photo(s)0 -
Trying to justify being fat and saying that its not about the number on the scale..okay. When it comes to running, that number on the scale matters, a lot. It might be mean to say but the girl in the picture in that article is not healthy as much as she'd like to believe she is. She's overweight. Let's be realistic, please. 10 years of running..wtf? Did it ever occur to her that being lighter would be easier on her joints..I'm so tired of society trying to have acceptance about everything..society is too sensitive. She's not healthy. She's not fit. She's overweight for crying out loud. The article screams "HEY, YOU CAN RUN AND EAT DONUTS TOO!" Running is a good way to lose weight but this article is bull sh8t in the sense it screams acceptance...0
-
0
-
Again - personal perception. Interesting nonetheless who perceives it as promoting and validating different things.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 391 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 925 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions