Cardio VS Running ??

krlong6

So I've been doing research on different methods of exercise for weightloss and overall health. This sounds silly, but I saw a picture that was being shared on Facebook that basically claimed that running was bad for someone to stick to as their only method of exercise because over time it causes the muscles to deteriorate and scar tissue to form around the heart. There were other bad side effects but I can't quite recall them at the moment.
On the other hand, it claimed that high intensity cardio and weight lifting were much more beneficial because they encouraged fat loss and muscle growth and development.
Has anyone else looked into this argument any? Or does anyone have some educated input?

Thanks!

_DaniD_

On the other hand, it claimed that high intensity cardio and weight lifting were much more beneficial because they encouraged fat loss and muscle growth and development.

It all depends on your goals.

Running is not bad for you & anyone who says it is, is a complete moron.

DandelionCupcakes

So I've been doing research on different methods of exercise for weightloss and overall health. This sounds silly, but I saw a picture that was being shared on Facebook that basically claimed that running was bad for someone to stick to as their only method of exercise because over time it causes the muscles to deteriorate and scar tissue to form around the heart. There were other bad side effects but I can't quite recall them at the moment.
On the other hand, it claimed that high intensity cardio and weight lifting were much more beneficial because they encouraged fat loss and muscle growth and development.
Has anyone else looked into this argument any? Or does anyone have some educated input?

Thanks!

I think a mix of both is the most beneficial.

carrieous

its always best to have variety in your workout. I did HIIT on the treadmill last night by running at 5.8 for the msot part but every once in awhile bumping it up to 7, 7.5 or 8 for a minute. I only run 2-3 days a week and other times i do stairs or elliptical.

weights are separate, i do those too

michellemybelll

... I saw a picture that was being shared on Facebook that basically claimed that running was bad for someone to stick to as their only method of exercise because over time it causes the muscles to deteriorate and scar tissue to form around the heart. There were other bad side effects but I can't quite recall them at the moment.

BS

that is all.

thepetiterunner

... I saw a picture that was being shared on Facebook that basically claimed that running was bad for someone to stick to as their only method of exercise because over time it causes the muscles to deteriorate and scar tissue to form around the heart. There were other bad side effects but I can't quite recall them at the moment.

BS

that is all.

^ Ditto. It's obvious the person who posted that FB picture is not a runner.

legnarevocrednu

I doubt there is anything bad about running. I dislike it, but when I did the C25K (and even though people say you can't spot reduce) I noticed that my lower belly and thighs got smaller. Haven't noticed that with any other type of exercise yet.

Warchortle

Cardio is cardio.. outside of heart health cardio in a caloric deficit is all going to do similar things, but the real difference is time and effort involved. My body is not like my friend's he can run 12 miles and feel fine and do it the next day. I can't run more than 5 miles a day even if it's morning and at night. My knees were not made for it. HITT and low intensity steady state cardio are both known for that same "fat burning" effect. Lifting weights also spikes your metabolism for up to 36 hours whereas cardio's after burn lasts substantially less... ~3 hours? In the end, it doesn't really matter if it's a form of exercise that's sustainable, enjoyable, and gives you the results you want.

jchenks

As mentioned earlier, it does depend on what you goals are. Essentially if your goal is to lose weight both will do that for you, so long as your diet is in check.

I do a mix of both. Steady state cardio for longer periods of time for my "endurance" as I play 90 minute long soccer games and HIIT (sprint intervals specifically) to allow for my bursts of speed and for fat loss.

The more oxygen you're sucking in the more calories you are burning.

A prolonged period of time doing steady state cardio does deterioirate muscle. Hense the look of long distance runners compared to short distance sprinters. (theres a picture floating around somewhere with a great comparison of the two)

AllonsYtotheTardis

This sounds silly, but I saw a picture that was being shared on Facebook that basically claimed that running was bad for someone to stick to as their only method of exercise because over time it causes the muscles to deteriorate and scar tissue to form around the heart.

I find it best to question 99.9% of the bull**** pictures that people post on Facebook.

lporter229

You will get answers all over the map for this because there is much published data to both support and refute both sides of the argument and people tend to believe what they want to hear. Bottom line is: Decide what you want to do and do it.

_DaniD_

You will get answers all over the map for this because there is much published data to both support and refute both sides of the argument and people tend to believe what they want to hear. Bottom line is: Decide what you want to do and do it.

I would like to see the data that supports the "running is bad for you" argument.

Warchortle

... I saw a picture that was being shared on Facebook that basically claimed that running was bad for someone to stick to as their only method of exercise because over time it causes the muscles to deteriorate and scar tissue to form around the heart. There were other bad side effects but I can't quite recall them at the moment.

BS

that is all.

^ Ditto. It's obvious the person who posted that FB picture is not a runner.

My dad set the track record at University of Illinois and has terrible knees now. I think it's one of those things that's a contributing factor, but not an absolute. Especially when you enter into the "advanced" years of life.

lesle1

I'll take running over anything else. : ) I lost 120 pounds from running and I love how it makes me feel.

bcattoes

On the other hand, it claimed that high intensity cardio and weight lifting were much more beneficial because they encouraged fat loss and muscle growth and development.

It all depends on your goals.

Running is not bad for you & anyone who says it is, is a complete moron.

This ^^

Based on nothing more than experience, I believe it's not good to stick to just one form of exercise, no matter what it is. A variety of movements that include strength/resistance, cardio, balance and flexibility seems best for overall wellness and fitness.

EatClean_WashUrNuts

Cardio...running....One in the same.

ducky715

If all you do is run then yes, you can get bad knees, joints, etc. My husband ran a lot, and he got split discs in back from running too much. I think running is great, but take rest days so your body can recover. He didn't rest enough.

RunFarLiveHappy

I'm a runner... I also lift! (ETA: running = cardio)

???????????? + ???????? = ????????????

See ticker ✅

heybales

You will get answers all over the map for this because there is much published data to both support and refute both sides of the argument and people tend to believe what they want to hear. Bottom line is: Decide what you want to do and do it.

I would like to see the data that supports the "running is bad for you" argument.

It's the quantity, not running in general.

http://www.active.com/running/Articles/Why-Too-Much-Running-Is-Bad-for-Your-Health

the health benefits of exercise seemed to diminish among people who ran more than 20 miles a week, more than six days a week, or faster than eight miles an hour. The sweet spot appears to be five to 19 miles per week at a pace of six to seven miles per hour, spread throughout three or four sessions per week. Runners who followed these guidelines reaped the greatest health benefits: their risk of death dropped by 25 percent, according to results published in the journal Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise.

The effects of long endurance exercise starting to burn muscle mass is well established already, you can look that up regarding any cardio sports, not limited to running. Actually, for most, running too fast for too long is automatically taken care of by the fact it's hard to do. Much easier for cyclists or x-country skiers.

lizsmith1976

ALL forms of exercise can be good for you or can be bad for you (if done improperly, for example running too fast or too far too soon).

It depends on your goals though - right now mine are to be a faster swimmer/biker/runner, so that is what I do. If your goal is to lose weight then a mix of both is probably best.

Running is not bad for you in general and don't listen to anyone who says that it is. Finishing my first marathon was one of the happiest days of my life. I run for my life and will be a runner for life

csuhar

It would seem the "scar tissue" matter is related to the study mentioned in this article:

http://running.competitor.com/2012/06/news/how-much-running-is-bad-for-your-heart_54331

However, if you look at the article, they're usually talking about a very high amount of running (multiple marathons per year, plus the associated training) and they don't know where the cut off is as far as how long is too long.

miracole

*wipes sweat from forehead and puts latest half marathon medal in drawer*

running is bad for you? Huh, I have to think about that some more...

*puts on running shoes and heads out for a quick contemplative 10k*

seriously though, all cardio is beneficial, all cardio has risks (I like to swim but I know every time I do I COULD drown). But frankly, so long as you listen to your body and don't try to power through injuries/cross-train to prevent them in the first place, you may as well do whatever exercise makes your heart sing. If that's running? then run!

nwarguy

I don't know the picture that you're talking about but I do know the article that it may be referring to. I found one of the articles and it states
"High intensity exercise continued over hours and repeated regularly over years and decades “stretches” the heart, disrupting muscle fibres and causing micro-tears that do permanent damage."
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/marathon-running-is-bad-for-you-and-its-best-to-keep-exercise-to-a-maximum-of-50-minutes-a-day-say-doctors-8369266.html

This does not mean that running is bad for you. Anything in complete excess can be bad for you and this type of study "may" apply to those extreme, everyday hardcore, wear your butt out runners.

sccet

http://www.active.com/running/Articles/Why-Too-Much-Running-Is-Bad-for-Your-Health

the health benefits of exercise seemed to diminish among people who ran more than 20 miles a week, more than six days a week, or faster than eight miles an hour. The sweet spot appears to be five to 19 miles per week at a pace of six to seven miles per hour, spread throughout three or four sessions per week. Runners who followed these guidelines reaped the greatest health benefits: their risk of death dropped by 25 percent, according to results published in the journal Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise.

Boy do I wish the anti-running crowd would consider this. I'd bet that hardly anyone on MFP is running 20+ 8 min miles a week with no other exercise simply for weight loss: The "harm" argument is unliekly to apply to the crowd here.

I love this bit: "The sweet spot appears to be five to 19 miles per week at a pace of six to seven miles per hour, spread throughout three or four sessions per week."

... so if you are running 3-4 days a week, 9-10 minute miles, for 30-45 minutes a pop, you are NOT eating your muscles up... unless your diet is hosed. And if you are also lifting, you are helping keep that muscle in place.

.02

_DaniD_

You will get answers all over the map for this because there is much published data to both support and refute both sides of the argument and people tend to believe what they want to hear. Bottom line is: Decide what you want to do and do it.

I would like to see the data that supports the "running is bad for you" argument.

It's the quantity, not running in general.

http://www.active.com/running/Articles/Why-Too-Much-Running-Is-Bad-for-Your-Health

the health benefits of exercise seemed to diminish among people who ran more than 20 miles a week, more than six days a week, or faster than eight miles an hour. The sweet spot appears to be five to 19 miles per week at a pace of six to seven miles per hour, spread throughout three or four sessions per week. Runners who followed these guidelines reaped the greatest health benefits: their risk of death dropped by 25 percent, according to results published in the journal Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise.

The effects of long endurance exercise starting to burn muscle mass is well established already, you can look that up regarding any cardio sports, not limited to running. Actually, for most, running too fast for too long is automatically taken care of by the fact it's hard to do. Much easier for cyclists or x-country skiers.

"Overall, runners had a 19 percent lower death risk than non-runners. However, the health benefits of exercise seemed to diminish among people who ran more than 20 miles a week, more than six days a week, or faster than eight miles an hour."


..I'll take that trade. Although I don't buy it. There is no link to the study..this is simply an article.

sunglasses_and_ocean_waves

Lazy people post pics like that on FB, and those who do not want to put in the effort buy into it. Don't do research on FB. Do your own research or better yet, just get out there and exercise. I think you;re just procrastinating.

aakaakaak

... I saw a picture that was being shared on Facebook that basically claimed that running was bad for someone to stick to as their only method of exercise because over time it causes the muscles to deteriorate and scar tissue to form around the heart. There were other bad side effects but I can't quite recall them at the moment.

BS

that is all.

^ Ditto. It's obvious the person who posted that FB picture is not a runner.

My dad set the track record at University of Illinois and has terrible knees now. I think it's one of those things that's a contributing factor, but not an absolute. Especially when you enter into the "advanced" years of life.

While this is an anecdotal statement, it's true on a statistical level. Running is a high impact workout that has an effect on your bones and joints (Tink bone spurs, not loss of bone density). It's not "bad for you" inasmuch as you have to pay attention to your body. Continued running for long periods of time can cause bone and joint problems, just like any other repetitive exercise. If you did 200 squats a day you're bound to have knee issues eventually. It's not a specific running thing. It's an over-usage thing.

The heart comment of the OP is taken completely out of context. Running, plus about a dozen other factors combined with it, can cause heart concerns. However, it's the same issue as any other exercise that causes your heart to push hard. There is nothing especially bad for your heart about running over say, cycling or swimming. If you'd like a better understanding of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (and what is and isn't "Athlete's Heart") this article might be a good starting point. Please keep in mind this is only one study. Others since 2005 may have different or more amplifying results:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1769182/

heybales

"Overall, runners had a 19 percent lower death risk than non-runners. However, the health benefits of exercise seemed to diminish among people who ran more than 20 miles a week, more than six days a week, or faster than eight miles an hour."


..I'll take that trade. Although I don't buy it. There is no link to the study..this is simply an article.

True, besides it's about moderation and balance for you, and YMMV (ha! mileage, get it .... hmmm, ok, not funny).

http://www.medhelp.org/heart-disease/articles/Can-Excessive-Endurance-Exercise-Damage-Your-Heart/423?page=1

Page 2 on is the study details, and links on last page.
Much more indepth than article about it.

missADS1981

If you want a long distance runners body then run your heart out on the gym for long periods of time.
If you want to keep your muscle in glutes/legs switch to fast walk/highest incline to work those butt muscles and not literally "Run you butt off"

HIIT with 15-30 bursts of speed followed by 45 sec of slow walk to me work the best. I do that for 15 minutes and am drenching in sweat.

scorpio516

A prolonged period of time doing steady state cardio does deterioirate muscle. Hense the look of long distance runners compared to short distance sprinters. (theres a picture floating around somewhere with a great comparison of the two)

Citation?

The difference between distance runners and sprinters is not directly due to the running, but the training and the body types that excel.
Sprinting requires fast twitch muscles. It also doesn't penalize for extra mass - i.e. at 100m to 400m muscle mass will be able to overcome the penalty for carrying the extra weight. Even then, more distance favours lower body weight. Michael Johnson weighed 170 (6'1) in 96 when he won the 200m and 400m. Usain Bolt weighs 210 lbs (6'5).
Distance requires slow twitch muscles. And it penalizes mass, no matter where it comes from. At seconds per mile, distance racers sacrifice muscle mass.

It's not the distance running that deteriorates muscles, its that their training is designed to hit optimal race weight. If distance running itself deteriorated muscles, there would be no fat marathoners...

acidosaur

I was reading an article on this the other day. That kind of arterial scarring only happens to extreme marathon runners who do marathon after marathon for years and years. Unless you're one of them, you don't need to worry about it- running is great for you overall.