Confused - Is running bad... or good... ?!

tigersword

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...

Right...because elite distance runners never sprint. :laugh: Do you actually know anything about how elite runners train? They're not simply slogging through 100+mpw at low heartrate. And the best sprinters still will have a pretty solid base of higher miles than most non-runners would ever imagine. The primary reason for elite distance runners and elite sprinters looking so different is body type. There are very few mesomorphic elite distance runners, because this body type tends to carry a greater deal of muscle mass and is therefore less efficient at distance. It's also fast-twitch vs. slow-twitch muscle makeup. The ectomorphic distance runner is blessed with slow-twitch muscles...these are the people who struggle to have defined muscles, but they also don't tend to gain weight easily, period.

Jim Fixx (2 xs) had congenital heart defect (inherited. His dad died in his 40s) AND years of smoking 2-packs/day prior to taking up running at 35. He also was convinced that diet was of little importance as long as one was active. Most of us are smart enough to know that we can't outrun a bad diet. As others said upthread, it's primarily a calorie-deficit thing. The makeup of those calories is of great importance, though.

The best exercise for losing weight is the thing that a person enjoys and will stick with. Many of us find that exercise of any type isn't the ultimate key to losing and keeping it off, but what we put in our mouths and in what quantity. Arguing about which exercise is best for weight loss sort of misses the mark entirely if there's little focus on diet.

NO.

Let's just start with the fact that you think sprinters and marathoners look different because of somatotypes. Somatotypes DON'T EXIST. There's no such thing as mesomorph or ectomorph. It's a complete myth fabricated by a guy in the 60s that havs been completely discredited. Sprinters carry more muscle mass because they require more muscle mass for sprinting. Sprinting is an anaerobic activity that requires muscle mass to be efficient. Marathoners don't have much in the way of muscle mass because muscle mass requires a lot of energy to maintain and distance running relies more on aerobic efficiency than muscle mass, so the excess mass is expendable. A runner's body conforms to the type of running they do, not the other way around. Sprinters also spend many hours in the weight room, lifting very heavy weights, in order to pack on muscle mass.

p4ulmiller

See how many marathoners have six-packs (almost none).

Wut?

Paul_Collyer

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.

erickirb

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"?

AllonsYtotheTardis

I think its almost certainly going to help....but...

- Your leg muscles will build up which is heavier than carrying fat on them

lol No.

My legs have gotten measurably smaller. Because one does not build a lot of muscle eating at a deficit. Which is what you do, to lose weight.





And to answer the OP:

running is good for your health. Eating at a deficit is how you will lose weight. They are not mutually exclusive, but running isn't required either - find an exercise you love, and do it. I happen to like running.

Confuzzled4ever

You lose weigh tin the kitchen.. period.

Running is for cardiovascular health and to increase the amount of calories you can eat.

And (I can't believe i'm saying this) it's fun!

Your leg muscles will emerge too. Win Win

jimmmer

I'm going to start sounding like a broken record in these threads, but here goes:

how about running to improve your c-v health, endurance or, god forbid, run a faster mile?

Would these things be considered good or bad?

msf74

I'm going to start sounding like a broken record in these threads, but here goes:

how about running to improve your c-v health, endurance or, god forbid, run a faster mile?

Would these things be considered good or bad?

Don't be funny.

The only useful thing about exercise is the buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuurn.

_John_

Running is great for fitness. Running as your sole source of exercise is not your best way to lose weight as body fat, though higher intensity/lower volume is the best way to to maximize weight lost as fat from cardio.

_John_

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...

Right...because elite distance runners never sprint. :laugh: Do you actually know anything about how elite runners train? They're not simply slogging through 100+mpw at low heartrate. And the best sprinters still will have a pretty solid base of higher miles than most non-runners would ever imagine. The primary reason for elite distance runners and elite sprinters looking so different is body type. There are very few mesomorphic elite distance runners, because this body type tends to carry a greater deal of muscle mass and is therefore less efficient at distance. It's also fast-twitch vs. slow-twitch muscle makeup. The ectomorphic distance runner is blessed with slow-twitch muscles...these are the people who struggle to have defined muscles, but they also don't tend to gain weight easily, period.

Jim Fixx (2 xs) had congenital heart defect (inherited. His dad died in his 40s) AND years of smoking 2-packs/day prior to taking up running at 35. He also was convinced that diet was of little importance as long as one was active. Most of us are smart enough to know that we can't outrun a bad diet. As others said upthread, it's primarily a calorie-deficit thing. The makeup of those calories is of great importance, though.

The best exercise for losing weight is the thing that a person enjoys and will stick with. Many of us find that exercise of any type isn't the ultimate key to losing and keeping it off, but what we put in our mouths and in what quantity. Arguing about which exercise is best for weight loss sort of misses the mark entirely if there's little focus on diet.

LOL squared.

stumblinthrulife

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.

escloflowneCHANGED

Slrajr

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!

dpwdash

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.

cwolfman13

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.

Inkratlet

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.

TheGymGypsy

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!

pattyproulx

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.

JUDDDing

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.

scorpio516

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.