Should we runners not run?

Show me one elite level soccer player who is overweight or skinny fat. Please? If running is so bad for you, there should be plenty. They run a lot -- up to seven or eight miles a game, and they practice too.
But you can't.
The reason the article author's friend had a thyroid problem is that she had a thyroid problem. It was not because of running.
The reason there are overweight runners is that they do not go hard enough, and they do not go hard for long enough. Simple as that. You'll never see an elite long-distance runner who is heavy. Are they all working against their physiology? I don't think so.
The OP said it herself. She lifted and built muscle. But, when she ran, the fat just disappeared.
My wife runs, and she is slim and muscular. Runners generally look pretty good. They may not look like body builders, but then they don't do the fasting and drugs either.

I'm curious about...

Training consistently at 65 percent or more of your max heart rate adapts your body to save as much body fat as possible.

In my mind, this is speaking to the heart rate training zones and I've been struggling with that concept lately. Working at 60-70% of my sex-adjusted maximum heart rate, which supposedly burns the most fat, just doesn't feel like I'm working hard enough.

And what does the author mean by "consistently"? I'm not a runner, but I do a stationary bike and a treadmill for 45-60 minutes (combined) 5-6 days a week. I know it's not the 20 hours a week that he's talking about so I'm just wondering if it relates.

Don't worry about it. The person who wrote it does not understand the physiology of cardiovascular exercise. The statement is blatantly untrue.

Like to hear your thoughts as you seem to have a pretty solid understanding of exercise physiology.

The body's preferred energy source is fat because it provides the most energy per unit of fat burned. However, burning fat requires oxygen so when the body's demand for energy exceeds its ability to provide oxygen to the working muscles it burns glycogen in addition to fat.

The purpose of cardiovascular exercise is to make physiological changes in the body so that it can provide more oxygen to the muscles and changes in the muscles so that they can process more oxygen and burn more fat. This allows the body to work harder while still using fat as its primary fuel source. This is important for athletes because, even in a skinny person, there is enough fat to provides days worth of energy while even in the best trained person there is only enough glycogen stored for less than 2 hours of activity.

The notion that cardiovascular exercise causes a body to store more fat for energy is wrong and there is not a single reputable study anywhere that backs that up. The body stores fat for energy by default whether you do cardiovascular exercise or not. The mechanism that causes this is simply eating more calories than you currently burn during daily activity.

Don’t want to stop running? Fine. Then stop complaining about how the fat won’t come off your hips, thighs, and *kitten*. You’re keeping it there.

i beg to differ on this statement. i went from having a big wide butt and not just big and wide but high too (so high my mother said she could rest her teacup on it), to one that is more "normal". the extra giggle in my thighs are gone and my hips are smaller. all because of running.

i'll keep running.

All true! Running has given me more toned legs..Appearance of Cellulite has also decreased on my thighs...I don't run 20 hrs a week...its hardy 4- 5 hrs...

I enjoy what I do...

If fat were so readily available to burn, why the "induction phase" in ketogenic eating systems to train the body to "fat adapted" for energy?

I'm just guessing here but I expect the reason is that if the body is deprived of carbohydrates it is forced to burn fat. Of course, in that state no moderate or high intensity exercise will be possible.

Most people have extremely poor cardiovascular fitness so the simple act of walking around requires excessive amounts of carbohydrates since they cannot process enough oxygen to walk around, or do anything else, burning primarily fat. Rather than increase their fitness so that they burn more fat naturally they would rather look for a quick (and temporary) fix by not eating carbohydrates.

I believe this because if you look around at what people around here say their heart rate is when simply walking you often see figures of 70 to 80% or more of max. The reason it is high is because the body is demanding oxygen yet it is not equipped to to provide or use that oxygen. Therefore it is forced to use carbohydrates in increased amounts simply to move.

Contrast that to someone who is trained and they can walk around casually (3 mph) with heartrates below 40% of max and walk fast (4 mph) at heartrates below 50% of max. [I know this is possible because it reflects my current heartrates at those exertion levels] Here the body has enough oxygen to burn primarily fat without the aid of a ketogenic eating system. This person is naturally burning primarily fat throughout the day and only starts burning excessive carbohydrates for the short periods of intense exercise.

There are then two ways to become fat adapted. The first is to deprive yourself of carbohydrates for the rest of your life. The second is to build a high level of cardiovascular fitness and eat whatever you want (within the caloric limits of energy demand.)

When I read this article at first I thought it was just for those women who do a ton of cardio/running becasue of the 20 hour a week comment. But I read some of the comments below and it seems like the author is saying running is bad . Here is the comment:


Poster:


You refer to hours of running per day. What about someone who runs 30 min a day a few times a week, or even 30-40 min every day? Some of your language suggests running is out completely for women, but then you describe what most women would consider extreme workout schedules. Is your point more that women shouldn't over-do it with cardio? Can you be more specific about how much running is too much and could cause these kinds of negative results?


Author:
From the research, a few times per week at less than 30 minutes should not have as heavy of an impact, but you're riding a fine line here and there are gaps in the research. So I can't answer this fully. If you find you can run 2 times per week at this intensity and it has no effect on you whatsoever and you're happy with how you look, keep doing it. If, however, you're using this activity to achieve a body that you desire or to increase your health, then ditch it. It's not helping your cause.


So basically if you run a few (2-3) times a week less than 30 mins you are fine (maybe), but anymore it will be negative. So it is not just someone who is running 20 hours a week. I have been running for 7 months. I have lost a lot of weight and my butt is smaller and is looking a lot better. I just started to incorporate weight lifting (4 weeks now). I am going to keep running, because I love it. It makes me happy:)

Could you provide evidence that running doesn't help with health - specifically evidence on cardio and bowel health, and on arthritis....?

I am sorry but I dont understand what you are asking me. I do think that running or cardio helps with a lot of health problems. I was just providing an example of a comment on the article and what the author of the article replied to that person. I think the article is BS personally.

I've lost a boatload of fat from running. Go watch a marathon and tell me those runners are fat. The tone of this article really irritated me- this person sounded so holier than thou. Maybe I'm reading into but it really rubbed me the wrong way.

I believe strength training is very important for getting a fit body. But running is wonderful for you and runners are not fat because of running. I feel stupid even typing that.

Anecdotal evidence, sure, but training for two half marathons has significantly leaned me out, decreased my fat, eliminated cellulite on my butt. And that was with extremely little strength training because I haven't be diligent enough to get into a good program. I have more energy than ever, have lost about 15lbs during training, have been able to eat and drink heartily, and have much more toned looking legs.

I love running and I dislike this article.

Edit to add: maybe his Jessica character used her diligent running as an excuse to eat like crap? I do know many "cardio bunnies" (I hate that term but it seems to be what the article is describing) make that mistake.

More information on the effects of aerobic fitness on fat burning.

source: http://www.unm.edu/~lkravitz/Article folder/fatfacts.html

Does Aerobic Exercise Actually Make You a Better ‘Fat Burner’?
Horowitz and Klein (2000) indicate that a number of physiological and metabolic adaptations occur with cardiovascular exercise that distinctively enhance fat metabolism, including the following:
1) An increased oxygen delivery (via blood flow) and extraction system (via capilarization) helps the cell oxidize (burn) fat more efficiently.
2) An enhanced sensitivity of muscle and fat cells to epinephrine leads to an improved release of fatty acids (disassembled triglycerides from their glycerol backbone structure) into the blood and within the muscle (where fat is in its triglyceride storage form).
3) An augmented circulatory blood flow system aids in the delivery of fatty acids to the muscle to be used as fuel.
4) An improvement in the specialized protein transporters that move the fatty acids into the muscle cell, thus making the fat more readily available for fuel.
5) An increase in the amount of fatty acids allowed to enter the muscle, which thus makes more fat available for fuel.
6) A meaningful increase in the number and size of the mitochondrion. The mitochondrion is the only place in a cell where fat is oxidized. It is the cell’s ‘fat burning furnace.’
7) Finally, an increase in the oxidative enzymes that ‘speed up’ the break down of fatty acids molecules to be used during aerobic exercise.
Thus, an important take home message to regularly tell all students and clients is that consistent, progressively challenging aerobic exercise will truly develop their body’s to be much better ‘fat burners’.

I may be jumping in at the wrong point in this back-and-forth. That is the classic rationale behind the "fat burning zone" theory. It's important to remember that those "fat burning" adaptations apply mainly to doing aerobic exercise. Meaning that they are an adaptation that allows for CHO sparing and thus improves performance. Those adaptations do not enhance the permanent loss of stored body fat.

The issue I have with this cardio vs weights thing is this:

Running for the same amount of time, at the same pace month after month will not produce results, any more than lifting weights for the same number of reps at the same weight month after month will not produce results. There's no challenge! Neither debunks cardio or weights as legitmate exercise.

Now running further, faster, produces results. Lifting heavier, produces results. If that's what you're after.

If you love moving your body and giving your dog some exercise (which is why I run), there's nothing wrong with that. If you love a strong healthy lean body, which is I why I lift heavy, ain't nothing wrong with that either (even though I don't enjoy it).

When I read this article at first I thought it was just for those women who do a ton of cardio/running becasue of the 20 hour a week comment. But I read some of the comments below and it seems like the author is saying running is bad . Here is the comment:


Poster:


You refer to hours of running per day. What about someone who runs 30 min a day a few times a week, or even 30-40 min every day? Some of your language suggests running is out completely for women, but then you describe what most women would consider extreme workout schedules. Is your point more that women shouldn't over-do it with cardio? Can you be more specific about how much running is too much and could cause these kinds of negative results?


Author:
From the research, a few times per week at less than 30 minutes should not have as heavy of an impact, but you're riding a fine line here and there are gaps in the research. So I can't answer this fully. If you find you can run 2 times per week at this intensity and it has no effect on you whatsoever and you're happy with how you look, keep doing it. If, however, you're using this activity to achieve a body that you desire or to increase your health, then ditch it. It's not helping your cause.


So basically if you run a few (2-3) times a week less than 30 mins you are fine (maybe), but anymore it will be negative. So it is not just someone who is running 20 hours a week. I have been running for 7 months. I have lost a lot of weight and my butt is smaller and is looking a lot better. I just started to incorporate weight lifting (4 weeks now). I am going to keep running, because I love it. It makes me happy:)

Could you provide evidence that running doesn't help with health - specifically evidence on cardio and bowel health, and on arthritis....?

I am sorry but I dont understand what you are asking me. I do think that running or cardio helps with a lot of health problems. I was just providing an example of a comment on the article and what the author of the article replied to that person. I think the article is BS personally.

Apologies, I wasn't writing clearly. I meant a generic 'you', not you personally. And my question was triggered by this point:
" If, however, you're using this activity to achieve a body that you desire or to increase your health, then ditch it. It's not helping your cause." (I.e the claim that running does not improve health)

Oh no worries! we are on the same page on this one. Anyone can go around claiming anything they want, but they need to have proof to back it up. And just because some article says I should stop running I am not going to. It has benefited me a lot. Why would I stop? Have a great day!

I used to run several miles a day. I'm actually trying to get back into this habit, because I liked how my body looked and felt. I WAS toned and fit. I dropped several pants sizes just from running. But I did other workouts, too, and I walked everywhere when I wasn't running.

I also have hypothyroidism, but these two things are not related. My doctor told me that I had probably been hypothyroid for years prior to diagnosis. In fact, once I started taking thyroid hormone replacement, I dropped EVEN MORE weight while I was running. And, for once, I could actually build muscle (something that I couldn't do with low thyroid levels). I had more energy, which meant I could work out more.

The idea that running can cause thyroid issues is nonsense. Are you going to find some unhappy runners at the gym that just can't burn off the fat because they have thyroid issues? Sure. But there's plenty of runners at the gym that don't have thyroid issues, too.