Running vs jogging for slimmer legs?

Graelwyn75

I am sure I once read that jogging will build larger legs whilst running(faster speeds) will slim legs down?
Is there any truth to this?

mcgeheeks

I have no "trainer" knowledge BUT I do run... so here is my take on this question:
I just finished training for and running the Marine Corps Marathon. I can honestly say I don't think I lost a single inch from my legs- in fact I think my pants fit tighter than they did 6 months ago! Super frustrating!!! Anyway- I feel like when I ran faster rather than farther I made more progress on "toning" what I've got. I have muscular legs (always have). Just my 2 cents. I'd love to hear if my theory is true!?

bluechip777

No

hayeskw

Think about what the legs of sprinters in track and field look like vs. the long distance runners. Both are at the top of their game but could be comparison to runners vs. joggers could be made.

arc918

Running vs. jogging is more of a state of mind that a definition of speed.

Don't call me a jogger!

QTRARO

I found that running / jogging ... just doing interval training with pilates using a band helped slim my legs down.

I think my thighs got muscly a bit from squats but that's ok for me as I like definition.

GiddyupTim

Think about what the legs of sprinters in track and field look like vs. the long distance runners. Both are at the top of their game but could be comparison to runners vs. joggers could be made.

Hayeskw is right. Look at serious sprinters compared with serious distance runners. Distance runners are thin and lithe. Sprinters are thick and muscular. That should answer your question. Your statement has it backwards.
That said, unless you are a male teenager, it is extremely difficult to build muscle with running alone. I have run for about 30 years, longer really if you include being a kid. I have played soccer most of that time -- sprinting between 4 miles and 7 miles a game. I have trained seriously on steep hills. My legs have never gotten noticeably bigger.

Graelwyn75

Thanks for the input, I have legs that tend to get pretty muscular with certain forms of exercise, in particular my calves and don't really wish them to be any larger. Same with my butt actually, it changes shape and sticks out more with certain exercises, which is really not my aim, haha. I notice that more with high intensity cycling than anything else.

mowree

I've had skinny legs all my life until I started running a couple of years ago. They are still slim...but noticeably more muscle. Evidently, I don't "gain" in my legs.

MoreBean13

Think about what the legs of sprinters in track and field look like vs. the long distance runners. Both are at the top of their game but could be comparison to runners vs. joggers could be made.

Err....not really. First of all, there's a huge genetic element you're neglecting. Furthermore, you're talking about olympic level people (or 'elite' runners) who spend years upon years developing those bodies. It's not like an average runner has much likelihood of looking like an elite marathoner or an olympic sprinter. They train as their careers and tailor their diets to become that way- sprinters need more muscle, so they EAT to maintain the muscle and hit the gym hard to keep it developed, marathon runners eat entirely different diets and training programs. They generally eat a lot of carbohydrates and log a ton of miles.

Jogging and running for the average person are generally just different lingo for what I call running, which is LISS, MISS and some interval training- most people here don't log a ton of miles- not even close to enough to get an elite marathoner or ultramarathoner's body. Not even on the same scale as enough. The closest thing to a sprinter's training is HIIT, and again, it's not even close to enough. It's like comparing the average swimmer to michael phelps.

OP- Run as much as you like to. If you start seeing changes you don't like, cut back on your running. It's not like you'll get irreversible damage- if that were possible, people would just run until they got the legs they want and quit.

There's zero truth to the slim legs from running/thick legs from jogging thing- it's just nonsense.

I heard a great line one time to describe the difference between runners and joggers- Joggers are the ones that when they get caught at a stop light hop around and jog in place, runners are the ones that just look irritated that they have to wait.

gingerveg

I wonder if it is somewhat genetic and/or based on body type? No matter what kind of exercise I do I lose weight in my legs first.

AmyRhubarb

I heard a great line one time to describe the difference between runners and joggers- Joggers are the ones that when they get caught at a stop light hop around and jog in place, runners are the ones that just look irritated that they have to wait.

Ha! Love this! :bigsmile:

thelovelyLIZ

I don't think there's any distinct difference between running and jogging, for one. I don't think it will make a huge difference either.

Sarauk2sf

No

Sharkington

I heard a great line one time to describe the difference between runners and joggers- Joggers are the ones that when they get caught at a stop light hop around and jog in place, runners are the ones that just look irritated that they have to wait.

Hahaha, yes that really is a great line. : )

tappae

Think about what the legs of sprinters in track and field look like vs. the long distance runners. Both are at the top of their game but could be comparison to runners vs. joggers could be made.

Err....not really. First of all, there's a huge genetic element you're neglecting. Furthermore, you're talking about olympic level people (or 'elite' runners) who spend years upon years developing those bodies.

Yeah, the sprinters have big legs because they do squats and other exercises in the gym aimed at developing the power in their legs. The endurance runners don't need the same kind of power and any superfluous muscle will slow them down, so they don't work on developing it. In training, both sprinters and endurance runners do mostly slow/easy running (jogging?). Of course, their "easy" pace is faster than most of us race.

OP, if you're looking to lose fat from your legs, just create a deficit with your diet and exercise and be patient. It might be the last area you lose. Running won't significantly affect the size of the muscle in your legs. My legs are basically the same size after running (jogging?) 1700 miles in the last 3 years and losing 50 pounds of fat from elsewhere in my body.

omma_to_3

Thanks for the input, I have legs that tend to get pretty muscular with certain forms of exercise, in particular my calves and don't really wish them to be any larger. Same with my butt actually, it changes shape and sticks out more with certain exercises, which is really not my aim, haha. I notice that more with high intensity cycling than anything else.

My legs haven't gotten bigger, but they are very slow to get smaller (unfortunately!). With my thighs and calves, what I've noticed is that I'll go 5 months with no loss in inches (while losing about 15 to 20 lbs. in that time) and then BAM...I drop half an inch off my thighs and 1/4 of an inch off my calves.

omma_to_3

Running vs. jogging is more of a state of mind that a definition of speed.

Don't call me a jogger!

Agreed!

tpt1950

Since when was jogging not running?

supergirl6

There is no difference between the two words. Jogging is running. If you aren't walking, you're running. There aren't any definitions for pacing where you move from walking to fast walking to jogging to running. More often than not it's just a mind set like someone else said, people who don't go as fast assume they are "only" jogging. There's no only about it. A runner runs and a walker walks and any thing else is just semantics.

That being said, you are unlikely to bulk up unless you weight train to bulk up. And being a girl, that's going to be very hard to do anyway. Once you lose fat over your muscles, you might look more sculpted and defined, but you're not going to get a male pro-runner bulk.

Running, whatever speed you do it at, will give you stronger legs and more endurance and all kinds of other awesome side effects though.

mike_littlerock

Most "runners" i know are NOT technically runners. Running is a gate where BOTH feet are not in contact with the ground for parts of the stride. I think that Jogging just sounded un-cool, so they adopted "running" to describe their 15 minute miles. I think that its generally accepted that jogging is a slow run. If you really drill into it, it does get interesting. for example one might assume that walk is slowest, then a jog, then running, and finally sprinting. I will agree that sprinting is fastest, but on the lower end, a competitive speed walker is faster than most "runners" but their exaggerated gate is designed to meet the rules of walking (one foot always in contact with the ground).

I say that the best form of exercise is the one that you do. I could really care less about labels overall, and if you want to call it running, gliding, or whatever then no skin off my back.

I have a friend that must be one of the slowest "runners" on earth, but hes out there and trying. during the olympics he was watching every distance running event, because that was "his sport". Im not going to rain on his parade and point out that what he is doing barely resembles elite runners, because I think his passion is great and if it gets him off the couch then I will watch it with him. The only bad note: the local running club is more of a drinking club with a running problem and his diet is HORRIBLE. hes running all the time but i think he is gaining weight.. Oh well..

tappae

Most "runners" i know are NOT technically runners. Running is a gate where BOTH feet are not in contact with the ground for parts of the stride. I think that Jogging just sounded un-cool, so they adopted "running" to describe their 15 minute miles. I think that its generally accepted that jogging is a slow run.

There should be moments when you're airborne while jogging. The gait is the same, it's just about speed. And no, there's no magic number where you go from jogging to running. It's relative to the individual. I was out running one day when this Kenyan looking dude turned onto the road in front of me. He looked like he was totally taking it easy, just jogging along. I figured that I would use him to pace myself and maybe even catch him, since I was pushing pretty hard. Turns out, jogging for him was somewhere under 7-minute-mile pace.

I know a lot of runners don't like to be called joggers (and that's fine by me), but when I started back 3 years ago, I called myself a jogger intentionally. My reasoning was that most runners get injured every year, so I would be a jogger instead. Being competitive in nature, though, I ended up pushing myself on almost every run. I needed to take rest days between runs and still had a few niggling injuries. I improved quickly from around 11 minute miles down to 8 minute miles, but wasn't really breaking through previous personal records from several years before. This year, I've upped my mileage considerably and slowed way down to a point that most of my runs are more like jogging. I'm trying to keep my heart rate under 70% of maximum for almost all of my runs and not going so fast that I get out of breath. The result is that I've improved more quickly with less injury. Now, my "jogging" pace is as fast as my racing pace was for longer distances.

iplayoutside19

I think we're messing with semantics here. To answer the original posters question...no.

I think what you're concerned with is almost all genetics. While you can affect how your legs look...there will still be a limit to what your legs can look like. You may lose fat on your legs, and your muscles will appear. But odds are you will not gain muscle running...any kind of running, walking, jogging, or sprinting or whatever you want to call it.

jellebeandesigns

No, jogging I had 19 inch thighs and 11.6 in calves. I run 20+ miles a week and I have 22 inch thighs and 14.5 inch calves now. Profile if my calf looking down at it

FitBeto

Sumo squats

SassyCalyGirl

I've had skinny legs all my life until I started running a couple of years ago. They are still slim...but noticeably more muscle. Evidently, I don't "gain" in my legs.

this is me too!

the_green_midget

According to my dictionary:

- Run: move at a speed faster than a walk, never having both or all the feet on the ground at the same time
- Jog: run at a steady gentle pace, esp. on a regular basis as a form of physical exercise
- Sprint: run at full speed over a short distance

So running is a broad category where the only requirement is that you be moving faster than when you're walking, and that you don't have a foot on the ground sometimes. Jogging is just a subcategory of running, where you're running at an easy pace, not pushing yourself as hard as you can possibly go. I think the distinction should be between sprinting and jogging, since with sprinting, you're pushing yourself to go as fast as possible for a short period of time.

As for what makes your legs skinnier versus larger, I have no idea. I've been running 5k's since June (my fastest time is 35:35) and my legs have gotten smaller, but it has more to do with eating at a deficit than anything else.

tappae

I think what you're concerned with is almost all genetics. While you can affect how your legs look...there will still be a limit to what your legs can look like. You may lose fat on your legs, and your muscles will appear. But odds are you will not gain muscle running...any kind of running, walking, jogging, or sprinting or whatever you want to call it.

^This.

I think it's important to give up on the idea of attaining to an ideal physique that someone else has. This is something that I'm having to learn in this process. When I get to a healthy or even optimal body fat % and am capable of doing the things I want to do fitness-wise, I'm going to look me. I'm not going to look like somebody else. I may be skinnier than "ideal." Parts of my body may be bigger than others, but I'm going to look like me; the fittest me I can be.

mike_littlerock

I think we're messing with semantics here. To answer the original posters question...no.

I think what you're concerned with is almost all genetics. While you can affect how your legs look...there will still be a limit to what your legs can look like. You may lose fat on your legs, and your muscles will appear. But odds are you will not gain muscle running...any kind of running, walking, jogging, or sprinting or whatever you want to call it.

Amen.. I have a friend that has a short/squat build. he started running because he wanted "a runners body" long lean limbs.. Err.. I am fairly sure that running will not increase the length of your limbs. I always thought it fascinating that people think of a body type with a sport and thinking the sport makes them that way, versus having a build that is more successful for a sport/activity. we can all work out butts off, but can only develop within the boundaries of our genetic makeup.

also. on the point about "sprinters build" versus "long distance build".. the sprinters and bulked up in the gym not on the track. They hit the weights to develop explosive strength and that translates to performance in sprints.