Confused - Is running bad... or good... ?!
Replies
-
Running is great - if you want to be a runner. I started to love running in a way I never thought I could, and cover many miles every week.
It's great for your cardiovascular fitness, but so are a good many other things. Anything that elevates your heart rate for a prolonged period of time will improve your CV health. Find something you enjoy, be it an active sport, hiking, running, swimming, anything that gets you moving and gets your heart rate up. Everyone should get some form of CV exercise but don't feel like the choice is running or nothing.
As far as weight loss goes, cardio is not necessary. It does help, but only in the sense that you can maintain the same caloric deficit while eating more food. This can make the dieting process a lot more bearable.0 -
0 -
I tend to run from about September to April every year. Sure, when I'm out three times a week running 45 minutes I have a greater deficit, but even with a minimal weight loss I feel more muscular in my thighs, my waist is smaller and my clothes fit better. If you like to, I say do it!0
-
I am in the same boat with the OP. I have read/heard both sides to the argument. My fianl decision is to do all things in moderation. I have ran a 10k race and plan on continuing with the training that required (3 runs per week from 30 minutes to 1 hour a piece) and I will starting weight training this week on top of the current xtraining I do (2 days a week). I began running/jogging this past spring to train for a Warrior Dash in September and then a 10k in November. Never thought I would enjoy it. So I am sticking with it. I have not lost weight with just the running. But I feel better and I have a ton more energy since I started and that is truly what matters to me.0
-
There is no exercise that guarantees a calorie deficit necessary for weight loss...in fact, if you're really training it can be difficult to eat at a deficit because your body just wants that energy and when you eat at a deficit, often, your training suffers.
Running is great for fitness, but doesn't guarantee that you'll be in a deficit of energy. Exercise in general is a very inefficient way of creating a calorie deficit...it's much more efficient to do it with your diet. The beauty of running and/or any regular exercise is that it's going to increase your body's calorie requirements...thus you can eat more and still be in a deficit...whereas if you're sedentary you pretty much have to eat like a little birdie.0 -
I do like running, and I feel amazing afterwards. It helped my waist become smaller but my thighs just got bigger. I lost most of the flab around my face though.
That said, running appears to be bad for my knees. I can do up to 10km at a slow pace but every time I step it up and try to improve my pace, even over short distances, my knees give in again. I'm back to cycling now, burns just as many calories without the impact on my knees.0 -
I love running, and without really trying I lost my first 40 pounds thanks to it. :)But the reason I getting out and keep doing it is because it makes me feel invincible!0
-
As others have said, stay active doing something you enjoy. For general health, how you get your exercise is less important than being able to do it consistently.
I think that if you love running, you should definitely keep it up.
I've tried to get into running (many times) and I hate it. For me, there are a ton of different ways to get a good workout in.0 -
I think its almost certainly going to help....but...
- Your leg muscles will build up which is heavier than carrying fat on them
- You will be very very hungry if you run beyond short distances ( ie an hour or more )
For the hunger thing I do find that but not for everyone, as for the leg muscle comment, GTFO. You will not gain any muscle doing distance running, if anything there is a better chance of losing it (if in a deficit, not strength training, or not getting enough protein).
Believe me, my calve muscles have grown significantly since I started running in March. I do around 20-30k a week at roughly 5mins per km, so no real speed work at all.
And to clarify, I see it as positive. When I started running I'd lost 15kg out of my 25kg goal and was/am perfectly happy to see a slower weight loss curve as long as I have a good cardio fitness level.
did you measure your calves? or do that appear more muscular as you have lost fat over the existing muscle and are now more "ripped"?
YMMV, but mine got larger and leaner.
I've gained a bit more that a half inch since February and they now look like alien legs with weird veins and cuts.
But I started running at 280+ lbs - and went from mostly sitting to running. I imagine that if you are at a semi-normal weight and even a bit active this might not occur.0 -
But the other side to this, I've read that running is one of the best types of cardio exercises.
There isn't much that'll burn as many calories in the same amount of time. It's one of the most efficient/hardest workouts.0 -
I'm asking because I read an article on Shape where the writer said if you run and burn, say 200, calories... it's the same thing as just *not* eating 200 calories. And that if you're looking to get in shape, and healthy, you're better off doing other exercises.
It really bummed me out.
I just want to say that 2 months ago, I probably couldn't run across a parking lot. Last night, I ran almost 4 miles. I was so proud of myself, and felt so awesome after my run. I absolutely LOVE running, and when I read that article on Shape, it felt like someone punched me in my belly.
Also, I do circuit training and weight training a few days a week. Although, running is my go-to because I love it so much (I run 5-6 days a week).
Thank you, everyone!0 -
I'm asking because I read an article on Shape where the writer said if you run and burn, say 200, calories... it's the same thing as just *not* eating 200 calories. And that if you're looking to get in shape, and healthy, you're better off doing other exercises.
It really bummed me out.
I just want to say that 2 months ago, I probably couldn't run across a parking lot. Last night, I ran almost 4 miles. I was so proud of myself, and felt so awesome after my run. I absolutely LOVE running, and when I read that article on Shape, it felt like someone punched me in my belly.
Also, I do circuit training and weight training a few days a week. Although, running is my go-to because I love it so much (I run 5-6 days a week).
Thank you, everyone!
The article probably meant for weight loss you are better off cutting 200 than burning 200 from running. But running strengthens the heart and may help you achieve athletic goals you couldn't reach by cutting the 200. As for other exercise they probably meant strength training, as if you strength train while losing weight you will retain the most of the muscle you already have and lose mostly fat, instead of losing both fat and muscle as is the case from pure cardio in a deficit.0 -
I'm asking because I read an article on Shape where the writer said if you run and burn, say 200, calories... it's the same thing as just *not* eating 200 calories. And that if you're looking to get in shape, and healthy, you're better off doing other exercises.
It really bummed me out.
I just want to say that 2 months ago, I probably couldn't run across a parking lot. Last night, I ran almost 4 miles. I was so proud of myself, and felt so awesome after my run. I absolutely LOVE running, and when I read that article on Shape, it felt like someone punched me in my belly.
Also, I do circuit training and weight training a few days a week. Although, running is my go-to because I love it so much (I run 5-6 days a week).
Thank you, everyone!
how far you run is going to change the calorie burn...200 calories isn't a very long run...I can assure you that you burned more than 200 calories running 4 miles.
But to the author's point...what is essentially being said is that exercise in general is an inefficient way of creating a calorie deficit...it is much more efficient to create your deficit with diet. There is no difference between eating 200 calories less or burning 200 calories with exercise.
Essentially...diet for weight control; exercise for fitness. Running is absolutely one of the best cardiovascular fitness activities you can do...you just have to realize that there is far more to exercise than just burning calories...it's just kind of a nice side effect of moving and getting your fitness on...the other health benefits far outweigh the calorie burn.0 -
No exercise is useless for weight loss, because all exercise burns calories. Saying exercise is useless for weight is about as silly as saying eating less is useless for weight loss.
You need to consume less calories than you burn to lose fat. Whether you do that by burning more or eating less or a combination of both it will still work.
Running is good for you. Like any exercise, you can overdo it, but if everything one can overdo is considered bad, then pretty much everything is bad.0 -
There are different types of running... If you are talking about long-distance running, then it may cause WEIGHT loss, but it actually isn't good for FAT loss, or for cardio.
---Why is it not good for fat loss? Because it is fueled by bodyfat. While this may sound ideal for fat loss, you are actually training your body to depend on fat reserves to fuel your most-demanding activity of the day. Your body will, therefore, seek to maintain a fat reserve. See how many marathoners have six-packs (almost none).
--Why is it not good for cardio? Because you are training your heart a relatively low intensity, and your body will attempt to become more efficient. While this also SOUNDS great, it really means that you will start shedding any heart muscle your body decides that it doesn't need to pump blood during the non-maximal training.
Sprinting, on the other hand, is also running. Because it is too intense to be fueled by fat, you will train your body to store energy in muscle tissue instead (see how many sprinters have six-packs? Most of them). It is also much better cardio, because it taxes the heart beyond its comfort zone. Much like training your biceps to lift a two-hundred pound dumbbell once instead of a two-pound dumbbell a hundred times; the first will increase muscle mass, the second will not. Why do you want more muscle mass? Because sometimes you may NEED it. If you heart has a sudden shock, and you've shed a lot of cardiac mass to endurance training, you may have problems. Cf. Jim Fix, the inventor of the jogging craze, who died when his heart actually started LEAKING blood because he lost so much cardiac tissue...
This post is so full of fail, I don't even know where to start. :ohwell:0 -
I do like running, and I feel amazing afterwards. It helped my waist become smaller but my thighs just got bigger. I lost most of the flab around my face though.
That said, running appears to be bad for my knees. I can do up to 10km at a slow pace but every time I step it up and try to improve my pace, even over short distances, my knees give in again. I'm back to cycling now, burns just as many calories without the impact on my knees.
Do you have good running shoes that were fit by someone who knew what they were doing?0 -
To the OP: We exercise because it is good for us. I happen to love running, and as another poster said, it is difficult to find a more calorie expensive exercise. And I really LOVE eating back all of those calories that I burn.0
-
I'm hearing two sides to this story and I'm hoping someone can clarify this. I've heard, and done research, that running is useless in regards to weight loss. But the other side to this, I've read that running is one of the best types of cardio exercises.
The second statement in indubitably correct. The first statement is "kind of" correct - if someone eats like an idiot, they're going to have weight or body composition problems no matter how much they run.
However, that also applies to every other form of exercise, as well.0 -
---Why is it not good for fat loss? Because it is fueled by bodyfat. While this may sound ideal for fat loss, you are actually training your body to depend on fat reserves to fuel your most-demanding activity of the day.
This is completely wrong. The human body cannot draw anywhere near the energy necessary for running from fat reserves. The vast majority of running energy is provided by carbohydrates, either stored or ingested.--Why is it not good for cardio? Because you are training your heart a relatively low intensity, and your body will attempt to become more efficient. While this also SOUNDS great, it really means that you will start shedding any heart muscle your body decides that it doesn't need to pump blood during the non-maximal training.
This is also incorrect. The easiest safest way to raise your base caloric burn is to get cardiovascularly fit - BMR goes *up* in well-tuned athletes, not down, even after adjusting for LBM.0 -
Sprinting is an anaerobic activity that requires muscle mass to be efficient.
Nope, that's not right, either (at least in the way it's generally meant on MFP).
For starters, the canonical great endurance runners (i.e., the rake-thin East Africans) run sprint distances faster than 99.999% of the population, so they *are* sprinters as well. Hell, their 5k pace alone is faster than almost anyone on MFP could manage for a measly 200m.
And here is a photo of an Olympic gold medalist sprinter...
That skinny dude, with 19th century level training and diet concepts, ran 200m within 10% of Usain Bolt's "fastest ever" time.
The idea you need to be muscle-bulky to be extremely quick and fast is a myth.0 -
For starters, the canonical great endurance runners (i.e., the rake-thin East Africans) run sprint distances faster than 99.999% of the population, so they *are* sprinters as well. Hell, their 5k pace alone is faster than almost anyone on MFP could manage for a measly 200m.
LOL. +1
Take the finals of the 2012 Olympics 5k. last place ran a 13:52. The winner, a Brit (albeit of Somali descent), finished in 13:41. That's 164.2 seconds per 1 km, average, or 16.42 100m or 32.84 200m. But the finals were slow. The winner ran a 13:26 in an earlier heat. The 2008 winner, also the WR holder, won in 12:57. That's 15s 100m or 30-31s 200m range. Most humans can't do that (yes, a lot can too)0 -
I said mass, not "bulk." Tewksbury doesn't look that skinny to me, but it's difficult to judge considering he's sitting down. Also, Tewksbury's 200m time at the 1900 Olympics was over 3 seconds slower than Bolt's, and he was also a full second slower than the world record at the time.Sprinting is an anaerobic activity that requires muscle mass to be efficient.
Nope, that's not right, either (at least in the way it's generally meant on MFP).
For starters, the canonical great endurance runners (i.e., the rake-thin East Africans) run sprint distances faster than 99.999% of the population, so they *are* sprinters as well. Hell, their 5k pace alone is faster than almost anyone on MFP could manage for a measly 200m.
And here is a photo of an Olympic gold medalist sprinter...
That skinny dude, with 19th century level training and diet concepts, ran 200m within 10% of Usain Bolt's "fastest ever" time.
The idea you need to be muscle-bulky to be extremely quick and fast is a myth.
I didn't say you needed to be a powerlifter or bodybuilder to sprint, just that sprinters have more muscle mass relative to a marathoner.
That's fast, and a lot of normal weekend warriors can't touch that pace, however, a 31 second 200m is over 10 seconds slower than the typical 20 second or under pace of an Olympic level sprinter.For starters, the canonical great endurance runners (i.e., the rake-thin East Africans) run sprint distances faster than 99.999% of the population, so they *are* sprinters as well. Hell, their 5k pace alone is faster than almost anyone on MFP could manage for a measly 200m.
LOL. +1
Take the finals of the 2012 Olympics 5k. last place ran a 13:52. The winner, a Brit (albeit of Somali descent), finished in 13:41. That's 164.2 seconds per 1 km, average, or 16.42 100m or 32.84 200m. But the finals were slow. The winner ran a 13:26 in an earlier heat. The 2008 winner, also the WR holder, won in 12:57. That's 15s 100m or 30-31s 200m range. Most humans can't do that (yes, a lot can too)0 -
how far you run is going to change the calorie burn...200 calories isn't a very long run...I can assure you that you burned more than 200 calories running 4 miles.
I gave the 200 calories example because that's the example Shape used -- sorry! I can't say exactly how many calories I burn for a run, because they are different on any given day. Let's say I go for a run for an hour; I will run, do a brisk walk for no more than 10 minutes, then continue to run again. But yes, I'm burning way more than 200, lol.
Thanks everyone! Really good information, though still a little confusing.0 -
Wow, I don't think a single person has really addressed her question...
Ok, this is the bottom line:
Diet = Lose/Maintain/Gain weight
Cardio = Most time efficient way to burn calories & improve cardiovascular health
Lifting = Less efficient but great way to burn carlories & maintain/build muscle
Cardio is not necessary to burn fat, nor does it "target" fat any better than other forms of exercise. It just burns more calories per minute, generally.
You should pickup a copy of New Rules of Lifting for Women. You will thank me later, it answers all kinds of questions like this and it's easy to read.0 -
My boyfriend runs and it has helped him lose like 20 pounds. He is also doing weights though too. I am at a happy weight but I just started running too for the cardiovascular since I only do pilates/yoga and some weights. I think it seems good to do in combination with weights for a balance?0
-
I'm asking because I read an article on Shape where the writer said if you run and burn, say 200, calories... it's the same thing as just *not* eating 200 calories. And that if you're looking to get in shape, and healthy, you're better off doing other exercises.
It really bummed me out.
I just want to say that 2 months ago, I probably couldn't run across a parking lot. Last night, I ran almost 4 miles. I was so proud of myself, and felt so awesome after my run. I absolutely LOVE running, and when I read that article on Shape, it felt like someone punched me in my belly.
Also, I do circuit training and weight training a few days a week. Although, running is my go-to because I love it so much (I run 5-6 days a week).
Thank you, everyone!
So you found an exercise that you love doing and because some magazine article said you should just eat less, you're considering giving it up? I would suggest just giving up your Shape subscription. You'll be better off. Next month, they'll probably publish an article about how wonderful running is. Their job is to sell magazines - they don't really care how they do it. Every issue is full of contradictory information.
Run because you like it and it's good for your health and fitness. Keep a calorie deficit to lose weight (track and weigh all your food, be accurate and consistent). Keep doing strength training. Be sure to take a rest day every week so you don't burn yourself out.
And stop reading Shape!!! :laugh: :laugh:0 -
Arsenic is bad for you. Running is not.0
-
I'm asking because I read an article on Shape where the writer said if you run and burn, say 200, calories... it's the same thing as just *not* eating 200 calories. And that if you're looking to get in shape, and healthy, you're better off doing other exercises.
It really bummed me out.
I just want to say that 2 months ago, I probably couldn't run across a parking lot. Last night, I ran almost 4 miles. I was so proud of myself, and felt so awesome after my run. I absolutely LOVE running, and when I read that article on Shape, it felt like someone punched me in my belly.
Also, I do circuit training and weight training a few days a week. Although, running is my go-to because I love it so much (I run 5-6 days a week).
Thank you, everyone!
So you found an exercise that you love doing and because some magazine article said you should just eat less, you're considering giving it up? I would suggest just giving up your Shape subscription. You'll be better off. Next month, they'll probably publish an article about how wonderful running is. Their job is to sell magazines - they don't really care how they do it. Every issue is full of contradictory information.
Run because you like it and it's good for your health and fitness. Keep a calorie deficit to lose weight (track and weigh all your food, be accurate and consistent). Keep doing strength training. Be sure to take a rest day every week so you don't burn yourself out.
And stop reading Shape!!! :laugh: :laugh:
This. Shape is bullsh*t!0 -
Theres one huge problem with running if your heavy. It knackers your joints because of the extra pressure. Your better off doing other cardio stuff like using cross trainers like someone else said to make a deficit0
-
Sure are a lot of exploding knees in here0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions