Will running cause muscle loss?

jaina08

I usually do leg workouts in the weight room 3 times a week. I noticed that my thighs got really muscular. I want to cut down the weight training to once a week and run 4 miles everyday instead. Will I lose my thigh muscles? Or will it just get smaller? I did some research online and they said it's mostly the upper body that loses muscle. I don't mind the upper body, I'm just worrying about my legs. This is what it said online:

"1) Endurance training requires a lot of nutrition. You burn extreme amounts of calories and need much more proteins. In some situations it can lead to muscle burning. This is seen, for example, in long mountain trekkings with tents, where you have the food amount limited by how much you can carry. People are loosing muscles, mostly in upper body parts."

bcattoes

I put muscle on my legs when started running 5k most days. I think a lot of it depends on diet and distance. I'm not sure 4 miles would be considered 'endurance' running.

GiddyupTim

I have seen a lot of distance runners and a lot of soccer players with big muscular thighs. I suppose if you are starving yourself, your body will start to consume itself. But, I would guess that if you are eating enough to satisfy your hunger (generally) you won't lose much, if anything.

Mr_Knight

I want to cut down the weight training to once a week and run 4 miles everyday instead. Will I lose my thigh muscles? Or will it just get smaller?

These "90% running" bodies should answer your questions...

jaina08

I'm changing my routine to running everyday instead because I do need to lose more weight, about 10 more pounds to reach my goal.

jaina08

I want to cut down the weight training to once a week and run 4 miles everyday instead. Will I lose my thigh muscles? Or will it just get smaller?

This "90% running" body should answer your questions...

This definitely answers my question, lol thanks.

theopenforum

well if you ask most body builders they almost never run. I am a bit of a hybrid myself because when I started my weight loss journey all I did was cardio. So now a year and a half later cardio is now a staple of my regimen and I can usually out endurance most lifters into the ground because of it. So no, it doesnt cause muscle loss but if you do it to an excess it will change your figure depending on how you want to look. But cardio ripped vs strength ripped is really only a matter of preference. As long as you are happy with your reflection is all that matters

Cheers,

Tof

jaina08

So since running doesn't cause muscle loss, will I still be able to maintain my leg muscles by only lifting once a week, instead of 3 times a week?

mnapier3

I would think running would help out your leg muscles. Are you going to do a total body lifting on the 1x/week?

jaina08

I would think running would help out your leg muscles. Are you going to do a total body lifting on the 1x/week?

I only do legs when I lift. So I would be doing that once a week.

theopenforum

running definitely helps build your leg muscles. but no one can really say if it would tone you the right way with a single leg day. I would just try it and give it a few months then reevaluate.

hope that helps

Tof

mnapier3

I, personally, don't think it will. What are you going to do for your upper body strength? You could always try and work in some push ups and pull ups.

RGv2

I have seen a lot of distance runners and a lot of soccer players with big muscular thighs. I suppose if you are starving yourself, your body will start to consume itself. But, I would guess that if you are eating enough to satisfy your hunger (generally) you won't lose much, if anything.

Just so we all understand, soccer players aren't distance runners. Soccer is built around short stints of sprinting.

I question that steady state running builds appreciable muscle (really, I question that it happens at all due to the poor environment for hypertrophy). Sprinting, hill work, etc, yes I believe it and that's how soccer players train.

RGv2

I want to cut down the weight training to once a week and run 4 miles everyday instead. Will I lose my thigh muscles? Or will it just get smaller?

These "90% running" bodies should answer your questions...

It's absolutely laughable that these are labeled 90% running.

links_slayer

I would think running would help out your leg muscles. Are you going to do a total body lifting on the 1x/week?

I only do legs when I lift. So I would be doing that once a week.

srsly? no upper body evar?

Leadfoot_Lewis

Just so we all understand, soccer players aren't distance runners. Soccer is built around short stints of sprinting.

I question that steady state running builds appreciable muscle (really, I question that it happens at all due to the poor environment for hypertrophy). Sprinting, hill work, etc, yes I believe it and that's how soccer players train.

Exactly. What kind of running are we talking about here? That and if it puts you in a big enough calorie deficit to cause muscle atrophy.

This is usually what I think of when I hear that someone is a runner (hopefully this will work as I suck @ adding images)



You just don't see many (if any) muscular hard-core runners. Your body to has to work hard enough as it is to keep the muscle that it has. Add running to that (which taps even more into your body's resources) & there's nothing left to sustain the muscle that you have.

3dogsrunning

Just so we all understand, soccer players aren't distance runners. Soccer is built around short stints of sprinting.

I question that steady state running builds appreciable muscle (really, I question that it happens at all due to the poor environment for hypertrophy). Sprinting, hill work, etc, yes I believe it and that's how soccer players train.

Exactly. What kind of running are we talking about here? That and if it puts you in a big enough calorie deficit to cause muscle atrophy.

This is usually what I think of when I hear that someone is a runner (hopefully this will work as I suck @ adding images)



You just don't see many (if any) muscular hard-core runners. Your body to has to work hard enough as it is to keep the muscle that it has. Add running to that (which taps even more into your body's resources) & there's nothing left to sustain the muscle that you have.

What exactly is a hard core runner? Are we talking elite distance runners? I know they are often very lean and aren't typically muscular. It does have to do with the amount of mileage they do. But it also has to do with the fact that a certain body type is much better suited for distance running. They are both a combination of genetics and don't train to add muscle specifically for that reason.
On the other hand, Ironman triathletes (which includes a marathon run at the end). tend to be more muscular. They are doing as much if not more cardio exercises than elite long distance runners, but muscle can also be useful for their sport. Again, there comes a point where too much is a hinderance.

Mr_Knight

It's absolutely laughable that these are labeled 90% running.

Sorry, it's true. The top one is a very well known player, who's "supplemental" cardio consists of 2 hours/day of steady state running. That's in addition to normal practice time, which is 3-4 hours a day of, basically, running. This is of course supplemented with interval type training.

If anything, his time in the weight room is even less than 10% of his other activities. And if we go by calorie burn, it's in the low single-digit percentages, easily.

He also does about 3000 situps/crunches a day to "focus" his abs, and follows a strict "eat every 2 hours" feeding policy, so I'm sure by some MFP standards he's doing it all wrong.

Typical professional soccer player covers 8-10km in 90 minutes. It is done with lots of variation in pace, of course, but the distance is covered. I don't know too many people who are going to claim 10km isn't a worthy "distance".

GiddyupTim

I have seen a lot of distance runners and a lot of soccer players with big muscular thighs. I suppose if you are starving yourself, your body will start to consume itself. But, I would guess that if you are eating enough to satisfy your hunger (generally) you won't lose much, if anything.

Just so we all understand, soccer players aren't distance runners. Soccer is built around short stints of sprinting.

I question that steady state running builds appreciable muscle (really, I question that it happens at all due to the poor environment for hypertrophy). Sprinting, hill work, etc, yes I believe it and that's how soccer players train.

So, here is where I am coming from. I did not say 'you're gonna BUILD massive legs by running 12 miles a day at an eleven-minute-mile pace.'
She asked if she was going to maintain muscle. I said: I see a lot of guys who run and don't lift and have big strong legs (ie, seem to maintain just fine).
That said, I do feel that there is a bit of misinformation passed around here on MFP -- to whit, that running is going to burn up all your muscle and that it is impossible to grow muscle just by running/biking/whatever -- and it kinda grinds my oats.
I have seen many guys build huge legs just by running and biking. Granted, much of that was sprinting. But, to say running does not build muscle is false. My brother, for one, played soccer in high school and he ran hills for training. No weight lifting. His thighs grew as big as most speed skaters's thighs. Sure he was an adolescent male; but he did it just with running.
The fact is: Many soccer players have big strong legs.
And, yes, they do run a lot, much of it at a jogging pace. You move up and back down the pitch, all game. You sprint when you have the ball, and maybe when you are defending, and a few times when you are looking for a pass. I don't know about you, but I touch the ball less than 10 percent of the time during a game.
Researchers actually tagged soccer players with GPS devices to measure how far they ran during a game (the US National women's team.) They found that midfielders ran about 7 miles a game average. Forwards -- 5 miles. Defenders -- 6 miles.
That's not an endurance distance? Course it is.
Also, yes, I can guarantee you that 90 percent of Ronaldo's conditioning comes from running of some sort. You think he is going and lifting after running 5 miles or more in a game, with sprints? He trains a lot to develop the skills he has; that undoubtedly does not leave much time or energy for hitting the weight room. He may do some gym training; but I am dead sure he has spent nine times more time on the pitch.

bcattoes

What kind of running are we talking about here? That and if it puts you in a big enough calorie deficit to cause muscle atrophy.

In the OP it says 4 miles

She_Hulk

I have seen a lot of distance runners and a lot of soccer players with big muscular thighs. I suppose if you are starving yourself, your body will start to consume itself. But, I would guess that if you are eating enough to satisfy your hunger (generally) you won't lose much, if anything.

Just so we all understand, soccer players aren't distance runners. Soccer is built around short stints of sprinting.

I question that steady state running builds appreciable muscle (really, I question that it happens at all due to the poor environment for hypertrophy). Sprinting, hill work, etc, yes I believe it and that's how soccer players train.

^^^^^THIS^^^^^

ThickMcRunFast

What kind of distances? Are we talking Rita Jeptoo?



Or the US 4x400 relay team?



In my experience, running will not make you lose muscle, if it is coupled with strength training. If all you do is run, yes you might end up with a softer look. Muscle loss will also depend on your caloric intake.

edited for a better pic

Leadfoot_Lewis

What exactly is a hard core runner? Are we talking elite distance runners? I know they are often very lean and aren't typically muscular. It does have to do with the amount of mileage they do. But it also has to do with the fact that a certain body type is much better suited for distance running. They are both a combination of genetics and don't train to add muscle specifically for that reason.

Yes, a hard core runner (IMO) is what you stated & what I am speaking of in my post. I agree they don't train to muscular because I seriously doubt they could sustain the muscle if they did, plus, it's of no benefit to them.

On the other hand, Ironman triathletes (which includes a marathon run at the end). tend to be more muscular. They are doing as much if not more cardio exercises than elite long distance runners, but muscle can also be useful for their sport. Again, there comes a point where too much is a hinderance.

They are using more muscles in their training (swimming, cycling) than would say, a hard core runner.

I guess my point is you don't see many muscular people who run marathons, and you don't see many people run marathons who are muscular. If you want to run say 4 miles a day and strength train you need to eat enough and make sure you recover enough for both.

_Waffle_

I usually do leg workouts in the weight room 3 times a week. I noticed that my thighs got really muscular. I want to cut down the weight training to once a week and run 4 miles everyday instead. Will I lose my thigh muscles? Or will it just get smaller? I did some research online and they said it's mostly the upper body that loses muscle. I don't mind the upper body, I'm just worrying about my legs. This is what it said online:

"1) Endurance training requires a lot of nutrition. You burn extreme amounts of calories and need much more proteins. In some situations it can lead to muscle burning. This is seen, for example, in long mountain trekkings with tents, where you have the food amount limited by how much you can carry. People are loosing muscles, mostly in upper body parts."

As in all situations and as you yourself have stated this mostly comes down to your diet.

goldfinger88

As a general rule, runners are not muscular people. Yes, running does burn muscle as well as fat. It's not really a healthy exercise. In fact, studies show it's dangerous. Personally I think anything in moderation is ok. But science does not agree with me where running is concerned.

3dogsrunning

As a general rule, runners are not muscular people. Yes, running does burn muscle as well as fat. It's not really a healthy exercise. In fact, studies show it's dangerous. Personally I think anything in moderation is ok. But science does not agree with me where running is concerned.

*snort*

goldfinger88

These are not runner's bodies.

3dogsrunning

What exactly is a hard core runner? Are we talking elite distance runners? I know they are often very lean and aren't typically muscular. It does have to do with the amount of mileage they do. But it also has to do with the fact that a certain body type is much better suited for distance running. They are both a combination of genetics and don't train to add muscle specifically for that reason.

Yes, a hard core runner (IMO) is what you stated & what I am speaking of in my post. I agree they don't train to muscular because I seriously doubt they could sustain the muscle if they did, plus, it's of no benefit to them.

On the other hand, Ironman triathletes (which includes a marathon run at the end). tend to be more muscular. They are doing as much if not more cardio exercises than elite long distance runners, but muscle can also be useful for their sport. Again, there comes a point where too much is a hinderance.

They are using more muscles in their training (swimming, cycling) than would say, a hard core runner.

I guess my point is you don't see many muscular people who run marathons, and you don't see many people run marathons who are muscular. If you want to run say 4 miles a day and strength train you need to eat enough and make sure you recover enough for both.

Why couldn't a marathon runner sustain muscle?
And, I guess it comes down to what you consider muscular.

Mr_Knight

I guess my point is you don't see many muscular people who run marathons, and you don't see many people run marathons who are muscular.

Sure you do!

What you don't see is *competitive* runners at that distance who are muscular. And the reason is simply - the excess muscle weight is a hindrance on performance for that sport.

Elite athletes at any sport are going to have bodies optimized for that sport - which is why nobody but a bodybuilder looks like a bodybuilder. But you also don't have to look like a bodybuilder to be "muscular".

k8eekins

Typical professional soccer player covers 8-10km in 90 minutes. It is done with lots of variation in pace, of course, but the distance is covered. I don't know too many people who are going to claim 10km isn't a worthy "distance".

True@distance is covered When running outdoors , the company usually consists of elite marathon runners, professional soccer players and the boxers. There usually are a few MMA fighters, pretty recognisable ones, who don't run as often or as long.

ETA: Saw Beckham a few times, pre-Season and sometimes, during.

Leadfoot_Lewis

Why couldn't a marathon runner sustain muscle?
And, I guess it comes down to what you consider muscular.

I answered that in my first post.

Sure you do!

What you don't see is *competitive* runners at that distance who are muscular. And the reason is simply - the excess muscle weight is a hindrance on performance for that sport.

Right, I already stated this in my other post.

Elite athletes at any sport are going to have bodies optimized for that sport - which is why nobody but a bodybuilder looks like a bodybuilder. But you also don't have to look like a bodybuilder to be "muscular".

I agree. And apparently what I consider muscular is different than what most people in this thread consider muscular.