|
|
|
|
|
| is long-distance running natural?
Posted: 5/8/2008 10:29:51 PM | | I wondered the same thing once I started boxing I picked up running of course and I was on the verge of passing out after a mile or so for awhile but I noticed I wasnt stretching very well and I was expecting to much too soon you gotta build yourself up gradually. Now 3 years later I run 4-5 miles easily. | |
|
| is long-distance running natural?
Posted: 5/9/2008 2:42:26 PM | | I believe running is natural to us, technology has just made us lazy. We find it difficult to run because we no longer HAVE to run. Once you get used to running it can feel as natural as walking. What isn't natural to us is running very long distances. I run marathons, if I'm running easily without trying to break a set time I can run up to about 16 miles very easily. After the 16 mile point the body starts to tell you that its time to stop, and thats when running becomes 80% mental. Your body is capable of doing it but your mind is telling you its not. This is where the so called "wall" that you hear about kicks in. The "wall" is in fact a state of mind that you have to overcome. Of course once you become a runner you want to beat personal targets and training is the means of helping you to run quicker over those long distances, the way to do that is not to keep running long distances but to run short distances often, or interval training, a mixture of jogging and fast running. My long runs are limited to one a week, and that long run is literally to not let your head rule your body, to keep going when its telling you to give up and walk. Anyone can run, I am by no means a natural, I have just conditioned myself to it. "I'm not a runner, I cant do it" is just the equivalent of saying "I'm too lazy to try, I dont want to do it" | |
|
| is long-distance running natural?
Posted: 5/10/2008 2:08:45 PM | Eh, I run 4-6 miles several days a week in Portland most of the time, although sometimes allergies push me indoors since I don't like it when my eyes swell shut. I've been doing it off and on to stay in shape for about 6 years, but I've never really compared to the cross country runners I knew through high school and in college. I ran my last 5k in just over 20 minutes and was smoked by like 80+ people ranging from ages 15-60+ by as much as 5-6 minutes if I recall correctly.
I used the treadmill as an example since we were comparing calories burned via swimming and jogging. I've done both, and 5 mph jogging is hardly comparable to keeping up a good pace while doing laps in the pool no matter how you slice it. It's hard to really compare one to the other as the effectiveness of either is based primarily on what you are willing to put into the work out.
Anyway, I believe running is fairly natural. Most healthy people can pick it up and become better at it in a relatively short period of time. | |
|
| is long-distance running natural?
Posted: 5/11/2008 11:19:58 PM |
I went for a little jog today. Not much a mile or two- I'm hoping to work up to several to get in shape. But in the middle of even this light trek and on the verge of what felt like excrutiating pain, I got to wondering, is this really natural? Were our bodies designed really to do this (just think about it)? lol
I personally do not consider a two-mile run to be a "long distance run." In my mind, a long-distance run to something closer to at least 7 or 8 miles. Consistently running that kind of distance would take a toll on most people's bodies.
I frequently see some overweight people jogging long distances. I can practically guarantee that is bad for their bodies. People who are very out of shape and hunch over while jogging are putting a tremendous amount of stress on their joints and might be doing their bodies more harm than good. | |
|
| is long-distance running natural?
Posted: 5/12/2008 5:13:55 PM |
Running is a biomechanical process that we are all capable of. It takes relatively little practice to be able to carry out that process for long periods of time.
I think the reason for this dispute is lack of definition for the terms 'long distance' and 'natural' in this whole topic. It IS normal for us to run, we are built to run. But to run for an extremely long distance (such as a marathon) is NATURALLY unnecessary which we then define as unnatural because there's no biological or primitive reason behind any creature needing to run for such a long time. Not saying we can't do it, just that there is no point to it beyond a psychological level of 'how far can I go?' | |
|
| is long-distance running natural?
Posted: 5/13/2008 8:11:12 AM | I frequently see some overweight people jogging long distances. I can practically guarantee that is bad for their bodies. People who are very out of shape and hunch over while jogging are putting a tremendous amount of stress on their joints and might be doing their bodies more harm than good.
***
I actually have been trying to learn proper running form. Keeping my elbows in and not flapping out like I'm a bird trying to take off for flight. Keeping my head and back straight, picking up my feet and legs, lengthening my stride and concentrating on a smooth transition from heel to toe.
I swam varsity for 4 years in high school and it was easier to learn stroke form than running form. | |
|
| is long-distance running natural?
Posted: 5/13/2008 9:15:46 AM |
I think the reason for this dispute is lack of definition for the terms 'long distance' and 'natural' in this whole topic. It IS normal for us to run, we are built to run. But to run for an extremely long distance (such as a marathon) is NATURALLY unnecessary which we then define as unnatural because there's no biological or primitive reason behind any creature needing to run for such a long time. Not saying we can't do it, just that there is no point to it beyond a psychological level of 'how far can I go?'
This is my frame of mind too...I like to briskly walk, with intervals of jogging/running to boost my heart rate, but I don't think humans were built to continuously do something like running/jogging without some sort of drawback.
I believe the same for cycling, ellipticals, rowers, stairmasters, etc - even weight machines and free weights - things like that are great for variety, and good here and there - but are man made, and even tho they are good for working out and staying in shape, our bodies weren't naturally meant to do one of those things constantly (or in the case of man made machines, at all).
To me walking, hiking, climbing, swimming, some weights for muscle development and strength with isometrics, and things like yoga for flexibility and relaxation are natural things that benefit our bodies in moderation, but won't do us a lot of harm if we go overboard doing them. | |
|
| is long-distance running natural?
Posted: 5/13/2008 10:24:34 PM | Yes it is natural for humans to be good long distance runners. We are some of the best mammals on earth at long distance running because we are bi-pedal. And this goes back to ancient man, not just modern sportsmen.
Anthropology 101 I am afraid.
End of thread. | |
|
| is long-distance running natural?
Posted: 5/13/2008 11:59:36 PM | Totally natural, doesn't take long to get into it.
I went from hardly running 2 km to running over 10 in an hour during about 3 months.
I'm 5'7" (shorter legs don't lend to nice long strides) and heavily built (broad shoulders type) and eventually I was out running guys in the 6 foot 180 pound range that looked like long distance runner... The difference between us that gave me an edge? A competitive spirit and a want to do it.
I started out being the guy that was almost left behind in our morning runs and eventually I had moved into the "advanced" runners group and was in the top of that group aside from a few people that train for marathons. And I'm just an average guy.
So I think that yes, due to my drastic improvement over a few short months makes me beleive that long distance running is totally natural. You can go for alot longer than you would think. Our bodies store up alot of easily available energy, more than most of us would ever deplete | |
|
| |
| is long-distance running natural?
Posted: 5/14/2008 6:03:09 PM | | Bah, I repeat. It's not that humans CANT do it, it's that there's no naturally biological POINT to it. It all depends which way you want to look at it. To me if you enjoy it, go for it, if you don't, then don't waste your time. | |
|
| is long-distance running natural?
Posted: 5/14/2008 10:57:31 PM |
Bah, I repeat. It's not that humans CANT do it, it's that there's no naturally biological POINT to it.
Not sure I understand what you mean by biological point. But...for the sake of disscussion. 
I am certain I once watched a documentry on the evolution of man. Something about when man became bipedal, we could no longer keep up or out pace our four legged friends (aka: food). For this reason we had to adapt to different strategies, such as surprise, weapons and long distance endurance running (if you can't win the battle at least win the war). I would reason it's actually harder for a 4 legged creature to run long distance than us, simply because they need to use 4 legs to run which requires way more energy.
I can't find that documentry on PBS or TLC or wherever I watched it, so I cannot cite any resources to backup my claim. However logically it does make sense.
Also consider that man is "probably" the most nomadic creature on the planet...likely because it's easier for us to travel long, extended distances. And it doesn't hurt we were smart enough to do so and bring food, etc.
Anyway, back to the bilogical part. What do you mean by that? You feel there are no biological benefits to traveling great distances? Why wouldn't there be (assuming thats what you meant)? I mean, burnt calories are burnt calories. Sure it's probably unhealthy for a average human to run a marathon in attempt to loose 5 or 10 Lbs in a single day, but a well conditioned body, probably doesn't suffer at all.
I do agree that most people (these days) do it for no other reason than to push the boundries of the human spirit and physical capacity, but I still personally support such endeavors. Biologically, we are not meant to fly and certainly never meant to leave this world and explore other planets, but we did...and thats something I find pretty fascinating. 
Evolution is a neat thing. Personally I want to start a family and live off the waters in the Bermuda triangle. I figure after about 100 generations of offspring living solely in the water (never touching ground again) and my successors would eventually grow gills and begin breathing under water naturally. Likewise, I plan on starting another polygamy camp but one based in the trees or off a cliff. I will train them to flap their arms daily until the day they develop wings and become human birds. 
Cheers | |
|
| is long-distance running natural?
Posted: 5/17/2008 11:11:21 PM |
Yes it is natural for humans to be good long distance runners. We are some of the best mammals on earth at long distance running because we are bi-pedal. And this goes back to ancient man, not just modern sportsmen.
Anthropology 101 I am afraid.
End of thread.
WIN! | |
|
| is long-distance running natural?
Posted: 5/19/2008 3:00:36 AM | There is one very large issue here that a number of you are missing out on... Some have touched on it but there is much more detail out there available if you wish to research it..
First of all, the BEST exercises to stay fit, increase your aerobic output and keep your body safe are the zero impact exercises. Things such as Biking, walking, elipticals, swimming and such are great ways of getting into shape.
Swimming burns more calories then running and other exercises NOT because we are less efficient at them... Its because you don't just use your legs as you do in most locomotion type exercises, you are also very actively using your arms to propel yourself through the water as well. Who hasn't had their entire body ache after a good long swim? You don't get that from any other form of locomotion except maybe skiing. And I am sure cross country skiing likely burns calories similar to swimming. I have had my whole body ache from a bike ride but thats because the upper body is maintaining a position and has to hold it in place ... But after I get used to riding for the season I seldom have any upper body aches.. But with swimming I always ache all over...
Personally for me biking is the best aerobic exercise out there. I can do interval training or any sorts of different training in a set and not get bored... If I want a different work out I can jump on the mountain bike and hit the off road trail, or I can grab the road bike and ride 30 miles on hilly terrain or just do 50 on a straight piece of road with few hills. Very variable and I also build very strong legs in the process. If I can ride my bike 3 times a week for 1-2 hours a time I really don't need to do much if any of a leg work out to get very toned and very large legs. The ONLY problem with Biking is an ergonomic one. You MUST get the bike to fit you. Seems simple enough but if you are doing any sort of longer distance riding or are on your bike for any length of time you really need this bike to fit you like a glove or pair of shoes. Having the seat too high or too low can put pressure on your hips or your knees and defeat the great protection this exercise gives your legs. Also to be made aware of is cadence. The old rule of thumb was to attempt to maintain 90rpm during normal riding. To maintain that you need to shift gears. If you are interval training you might go to 120rpm but your normal riding should try to maintain 90rpm. If the bike is fitted properly and you maintain 90rpm for most of your riding you should increase your aerobic ability, strengthen your legs and knees. If you ride less RPM then that you tend to put unnecessary stress on your knees. As far as I am aware other then being inefficient riding faster then 90rpm doesn't do any harm and may actually help with aerobic development but you don't want to consistently ride slower.
But the WORST exercise for your body is jogging/running. This is a high impact exercise and it jars everything in your body. "In the wild" we ran to get away from predators since we were not the top of the food chain, as well as chase down prey. But we ran for very short periods of time and we ran on mostly dirt. Also average age was in the 20's for our ancestors... If you made it into your 30's you were considered really old...
Fast forward to today.. We wear shoes that after a while are ill fitting and we run on a very unforgiving surface.. Concrete... The BIGGEST problem with running is that the injuries you obtain from it are not the normal type of injury you see from pulling a muscle or tearing a tendon. Those types of injuries are immediate and you know they happened. With Running and Jogging the injuries are cumulative and happen over time. The types of injuries you get from running can range from bulging discs in your back to stress fractures in your legs and degration of cartilage in your knees. I know alot of people now in their 30's and 40's that used to run but complain that their knees bother them now and they end up with arthritic knees. They end up with menicous tears and cartilage damage. These are all characteristic cumulative type injuries and we can easily put them off to being older and such. But these types of injuries are much more prevalent in younger people who have run for a large portion of their lives. Research is only just really beginning to come out that running is actually very BAD for you long term. Orthopedic doctors make ALOT of money off jogging so the AMA is not willing to push alot of the information out there to show jogging is very bad for you long term.
If you DO have to jog however due to sports you are involved in there are things you can do to minimize your risk of injury. The most important thing here is your shoes. Not only do you want to make sure you have some decent ones that will absorb the shock as much as possible but make sure they fit properly and replace them before they get worn out. Worn out shoes are as bad or worse then the wrong shoes.
When you do run try to find places that are well cushioned. Most newer tracks have a very cushioning surface made to be run on. If you have to run in the road it is best to try running in the grass then on the road its self. The road has very little cushioning to it and is the worst thing to run on. If all else fails most tread mills of decent quality do provide some cushioning as well. MUCH better then concrete. You also need to make sure you keep good form and posture while running. If you curve your spin just a little the wrong way you can put tremendous strain on your spine from all the jarring hits its taking.
I used to weigh in at over 365 lbs and I was having issues with my knees due to the heavy weight and weak knees. I mentioned to an orthopedic surgeon that I was considering taking up jogging to take off the weight and he STRONGLY warned me away and at that time provided me with literature that pointed to running as being VERY bad for you. He also pointed out that it doesn't take being much over weight to put a TREMENDOUS load on your knees. Some crazy number like 1,000 lbs per every 10 lbs of body weight per knee additional pressure or something like that.. Which again points to the use of zero impact exercises.. Because zero impact exercises are as safe on your body if you are lean as if you are extremely over weight as long as your cardio vascular system is able to handle the strain. With my being 100 lbs heavier back then it would have been something like 10,000 lbs of force per step per knee with the extra weight... And with the total weight you are talking like 36,000 lbs of pressure exerted on each knee per step in my case at the time.. (ONLY 28,oo0 lbs of pressure at my current weight. ) I am pulling a number out of the air. I can not recall the actual number. It may have been considerably higher or a little lower but not much lower. This sort of pressure was only when jogging/running.. Walking or other zero impact exercises do NOT put that pressure on your knees. ( The information he gave me only considered the knees. He did not provide additional information about the exertion on the spine but I am sure its not insignificant either..)
Again we are able to ignore the cumulative injuries because they happen over time, may take 10 years before you notice anything but by then your cartilage is gone and you need some sort of weird treatments to gain it back. These same sorts of injuries MAY happen when lifting large amounts of weight for lots of reps as well. It makes reasonable sense to me but I have not seen any numbers on it..
Just something to think about...
Rodney | |
|
| is long-distance running natural?
Posted: 5/20/2008 2:14:31 PM | A different perspective on running
http://runningbarefoot.org/
We all know how to run--or do we ?????
excerpts from the webpage :
It is only because we live in a culture in which running in shoes is
usual, even though it is probably the most unnatural way to run. The
whole purpose of shoes is to protect us from feeling how our feet are
touching the ground. Not so surprisingly, because our shoes are
blocking the sensitivy of our soles, we often end up HITTING the
ground, rather than simply touching the ground.
When we come to believe that shoes are necessary to cushion our
impact while running, we, not only become dependent on that
cushioning, but we land with greater impact, because we believe shoes
are protecting us.
But, I talk about the benefits of feedback a lot. Today, I'm going to
talk about how to use that feedback in a couple of specific ways.
First of all, we must believe that our bodies are designed to run
without shoes - that today's modern surfaces are not so unnatural as
shoe-manufacturers would have us believe - I've run on trails made of
solid granite, harder and nearly as smooth as any asphalt roads or
concrete sidewalks, yet perfectly natural!
Our real downfall comes when we add extra effort to running, with the
usual result of increasing impact needlessly.
Our body has spring, naturally. The trick isn't working at making our
body bounce high into the air, so it can come crashing down harder
than any sensible person would want to do for more than a couple of
strides.
The trick is to allow our springs to work naturally, gracefully, and
best of all, effortlessly!
Instead of tensing our muscles, we should find the proper balances so
that we can relax our muscles, allowing them to stretch, and spring
back, effortlessly, reducing impact naturally, with absolutely no
need for adding cushioning through technological advances, and no
need to work at propeling our body into the air.
We humans have always been able to run without shoes, without rubber
soles filled with air, or loaded with steel springs, or with tiny
computers adjusting tension in a few millimeters of cushioning in the
heels of our shoes.
We naturally have a couple of FEET (err, in this case I mean about 24
inches, not the other two feet) of natural cushioning! And, perhaps
as importantly, we have a computer attached to the sensors in our two
feet (this time I do mean our two feet, or more specifically, the
soles of our feet). Who needs a puny microprocessor in our shoes,
when all we need do is engage the huge super-computer in our head,
and stop blocking the sensors which nature gave us, specifically to
reduce impact, and allow us to run for miles and miles, and hours and
hours, and days and days, and basically for a lifetime, without
blowing out our knees, because we didn't have the sensitivity or
sensibility to adjust HOW WE RUN, to reduce the impact we didn't
feel, because we were wearing shoes to prevent us from feeling the
impact!
So "Where is that natural cushioning?", you might ask. Well stand up
straight, now, keeping your torso vertical, let your knees bend, let
your ankles bend, relax your muscles, don't fight it, just get down
as low as you can, without bending over at the waist. It is OK to let
the heels come off the ground, after all we're measuring the maximum
potential amount of our spring | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
