Why Women Should Not Run (as their only means to lose)

Bumping for the bunny pics. Also because I have a friend who's a cardio bunny and super frustrated about her lack of results. I've mentioned she might add some light-weight or body-weight training for improved results. (You know, until she gets comfortable enough doing those things so she can really lift with me. )

This thread needs more cardio bunnies. Who doesn't love cardio bunnies?

Running (or doing any cardio) over 20 hours a week is excessive and I could see how that could cause muscle loss and hinder progress on losing fat, but how many people are really putting in those hours doing cardio unless they are training for a specific event? An hour a day or a few times a week is not going to slow your progress on losing fat, imo.

Hmm. I have lost over 80 pounds and have gotten really excellent definition with running being 90% of my workout repertoire. Started Insanity recently, but my actual goal from it was to increase my cardio endurance as I now wish to run faster and longer races.

Personally, I think a mix of both cardio and strength is the way to go, but have noticed a whole lot of "cardio bunny" shaming for (primary) women who choose to burn calories through cardio - not just here, but heavily in the Crossfit community as well. It's disheartening that the benefits to your lung and heart functions are so easily dismissed...calorie burn aside.

So funny thing...I posted I believed this article was total tripe and guess what? I just read the scientific proof that it IS total tripe...

It's a long read, but if you want some FACTS...here is it

http://gokaleo.com/2013/06/11/women-and-running/

I especially liked the closing 2 paragraphs,

"If anything should be taken away from John Kiefer’s article, it has little to do with running. What should be learned from this article is that a string of numbers after a claim does not automatically make it true. As a reader you should always check up on an author’s sources and come to your own conclusions after you’ve judged the evidence for yourself. If you were looking for an echo chamber to confirm your anti-endurance opinions, then the article was exactly what you wanted. But why mislead readers with contradicting or tangential citations? Why talk in certainties when none exist? Why use small, unrepresentative populations to generalize to the average woman?

Only the author can answer these questions.

Steady-state cardio has been shown numerous times to have many health benefits leading to decreased mortality risks. Sure, “too much” (so far quantified only as “long term and excessive” amounts typically used by competitive, extreme distance athletes) is not good for you and can be detrimental to general health and fitness goals. But for all the Jessicas out there, moderate amounts can easily be included in a well-rounded routine to complement fat loss goals or general health pursuits.
That said, steady-state cardio is not a requirement. If someone doesn’t want to do it or doesn’t like it, there are other alternatives that can be used. What this all boils down to is this: If you enjoy running and feel it benefits you and your training, and aligns with your goals… then keep on running."

EXCELLENT!!

Squeeee it's so adorable!

My ex lost 100 pounds by only running.

I plan on not running. But I have a bad knee. I prefer to hit things, and lift heavy things.

also, tired of men telling me what i should be doing.

SERIOUSLY. No uterus, no opinion.

also, tired of men telling me what i should be doing.

SERIOUSLY. No uterus, no opinion.

And probably shouldn't go to male doctors or personal trainers then either.

http://gokaleo.com/2013/06/11/women-and-running/

I always love it when a man starts a thread about what women should and should not do.

The recommendation was an accurate one. Moderate cardio + moderate strength training. Why should his gender diminish the quality of his advice?