| is long-distance running natural?
Posted: 5/6/2008 8:23:48 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 | |
|
| is long-distance running natural?
Posted: 5/6/2008 9:20:06 PM | Even the most physically fit person who does aerobics, weight training and so forth has trouble learning to do distance running.
6 weeks ago I started walking 3-6 miles and have built up to jogging 3 miles 4 times a week.
The trick is to run or jog in spurts. walk a while, then jog for a minute or 2, then walk..., slowly build up your distance for running versus walking.
You also need to work on breathing. In through the nose out through the mouth. The first time I jogged a mile straight I nearly peed my pants and threw up I was so winded.
Eventually you will find a pace that is comfortable for you to go the whole distance through.
a couple other tips- get fitted for the correct type of shoe. Are you a flat footed or do you have a natural foot(arches). How many times a day do you want to be running? Ask your local footwear specialist what is good and try them out.
Ice your shins for 15 minutes after to avoid getting shin spints
Stretch out before and after your run and keep hydrated! Good luck! | |
|
| |
| is long-distance running natural?
Posted: 5/6/2008 11:15:28 PM |
Were our bodies designed really to do this
If you run, it's worth your while to do some weight training. Tighten up all your joints by exercising with weights. If you don't tighten your sockets, you will run the risk of tearing muscle and hyper-extending ligaments. And ligament damage in most cases is permanent unless you have surgery. Running is an isotonic exercise. The constant landing on one or the other foot creates a shock wave throughout the body. The result is bunched musculature.
Personally, I don't think we were designed for running. Rather we are more suited towards swimming. Swimming exercises nearly all of the muscle sets (agonists and antagonists) in the body. Swimming is an isometric exercise. Maintaining float and keeping body straight in the water is resistance training. Unlike running, swimming produces less shock on joints and the overall body. The result is elongated musculature.
For me, at 185 pounds:
Running 5 mph (12 min mile) burns 690 calories per hour.
Swimming breaststroke burns 863 calories per hour.
http://www.nutristrategy.com/activitylist3.htm | |
|
| is long-distance running natural?
Posted: 5/6/2008 11:49:14 PM | "excrutiating pain"
where? Healthy people wouldn't have pain from a short run (maybe the always-fun hip points). Your single experience doesn't mean running is unnatural, except maybe for you. 
How about walking a few weeks, get your lower body and lungs in some shape, then running?
Just because we can run doesn't me we should run. Running miles/day for years never seemed natural to me. :)
No matter how many $100 you spend on running shoes, running impacts feet, ankles, knees, hips, spine. Some people's joints can't support it, some people's joints can (at least for now). A lot of runners, esp people had never played any sports, overdid it in the 70s running boom and are screwed from the hips down now.
Cycling, swmming, elliptical machines are aerobic and non-impact. | |
|
| is long-distance running natural?
Posted: 5/7/2008 12:30:18 AM | No, it's not natural. As a species we evolved for anaerobic energy expenditure, stuff like short bursts of sprinting chasing after deer, exertions of power from hitting other people for territorial dominance, etc.
What in nature could possibly require us as humans to have overly developed aerobic energy systems?
If you want to have an athletic body like a sprinter or something, train your anerobic energy system. If you want to become more energy efficient (in terms of strength and aesthetics NOT a good thing) then do distance running and be undefined and lacking muscle like distance runners. | |
|
| is long-distance running natural?
Posted: 5/7/2008 1:26:46 AM | Our bodies are amazing machines. There's a lot of long technical explanations but the molar understanding is this. Our bodies respond best to specific forms of stress. For example, if you want to run a 100 mile run you must train by doing long distance. To get fancy this training principle is called specific adaptation to imposed demand or SAID for short. So if you want to get good at swimming then swim. If sprinting is your goal then sprint lots. It seems like common sense but we often overlook this principle in training to reach goals. The best thing is to always know your fitness goals. And from experience the best goals are always based on performance. Appearance is the bonus but is set at a goal could become counter-intuitive.
Good luck with your running! | |
|
| is long-distance running natural?
Posted: 5/7/2008 2:14:08 AM |
No, it's not natural. As a species we evolved for anaerobic energy expenditure, stuff like short bursts of sprinting chasing after deer, exertions of power from hitting other people for territorial dominance, etc.
What in nature could possibly require us as humans to have overly developed aerobic energy systems?
If you want to have an athletic body like a sprinter or something, train your anerobic energy system. If you want to become more energy efficient (in terms of strength and aesthetics NOT a good thing) then do distance running and be undefined and lacking muscle like distance runners.
Not entirely true... we've never been able to outrun deer, we are not sprinters!
Before projectile weapons were invented, it's widely believed that we practiced persistence hunting - running animals down over great distances. We were able to do this because our relatively hairless bodies and sweating mechanism allowed us to keep cool over hours of exertion in the midday sun, whilst our prey would be unable to control its body temperature and eventually collapse from exhaustion and overheating. Some bushmen tribes still practice this form of hunting.
So it is entirely natural for us to run for long distances.
What's not so natural, is for us to do it wearing shoes on tarmac surfaces. That's very bad for your joints. Wearing shoes at all is detrimental to natural walking & running motions, for that matter. | |
|
| is long-distance running natural?
Posted: 5/7/2008 7:46:42 AM | 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
It was painful to you because you aren't used to it. Others have been doing it for a while and can go for miles upon miles without feeling much of a strain unless they increase their pace.
Running 5 mph (12 min mile) burns 690 calories per hour.
Swimming breaststroke burns 863 calories per hour.
That's a little off, though. 5 mph is scarcely a good example of "running," or even jogging. I can burn over 1,000 calories an hour on a treadmill at 7.5-9 mph, and I'm not really an accomplished runner.
If you want to have an athletic body like a sprinter or something, train your anerobic energy system. If you want to become more energy efficient (in terms of strength and aesthetics NOT a good thing) then do distance running and be undefined and lacking muscle like distance runners.
Somewhat true. However, 3-4 miles a few times a week never hurt anyone, especially if you eat for it. There's also a difference between the hard core distance running (like cross country and marathon runners,) and the distance running most casually fit people are interested in doing to stay in shape. A combination of anaerobic and aerobic exercises are fine for maintaining a decent amount of muscle on the average person. | |
|
| is long-distance running natural?
Posted: 5/7/2008 9:16:00 AM |
That's a little off, though. 5 mph is scarcely a good example of "running," or even jogging. I can burn over 1,000 calories an hour on a treadmill at 7.5-9 mph, and I'm not really an accomplished runner.
Actually most fitness machines aren't that accurate. Each company has different standards on the way they calculate the amount of calories burned. Same goes for the handlebar heart rate monitor. This site can help determine what rate you are burning.
http://www.sparkpeople.com/resource/calorie_calculation101.asp
Another thing is that running/jogging/ walking on a treadmill is TOTALLY different than running on the road or trail. Treadmills have adjustable incline and shock absorbers in the frame to allow for cushioning and to help risk extra injury. Plus, people have a tendancy to hold on to the handlebars.
The hardedst jog I've done so far, soft sand on the beach. Try and have a treadmill mimic that. Oye!
| |
|
| is long-distance running natural?
Posted: 5/7/2008 9:48:58 AM | I am a runner. I run about 8 miles / 5 days a week. There are a lot of things you have to consider when you decide to start running.
First, running can be hard on your joints. It would be good to start taking joint lubricating pills, multivitamin, and calcium daily.
Second, when you begin running. You will discover that you will be using parts of your legs that are not used to being used, you might get sore muscles and have to work your way slowly into it. Dont' forget to stretch Before and After your run!
Third, running on concrete really takes a toll on our bones and joints. Although I LOVE RUNNING outside, its a thousand times better than the treadmill
You might want to start on a treadmill until your muscles are stronger to run outside. Treadmills are way better on our joints and bones. You can raise the incline to get a better burn! :-)
I hope this was helpful! | |
|
| is long-distance running natural?
Posted: 5/7/2008 9:57:50 AM | [/ That's a little off, though. 5 mph is scarcely a good example of "running," or even jogging. I can burn over 1,000 calories an hour on a treadmill at 7.5-9 mph, and I'm not really an accomplished runner.]
Fact: Running at a maximum speed can burn from 8-11 calories a minute (you would have to be running super fast to be burning 11 calories a minutes BTW. Most machines are very inaccurate. As Missmelly180, has pointed out.
There isn't a possible way anyone could burn 1000 calories an hour!
There is only one known exercise that has the ability to burn 1000 calories an hour, and that's JUMPROPE. I am talking about HARDCORE jump-rope! Which by the way is very fun to do if you learn the movies  | |
|
| is long-distance running natural?
Posted: 5/7/2008 10:09:16 AM | | I love this forum just for the humor alone. The Human body is evolved/created to run long distances. Humans are NOT evolved/designed to run long distances on CONCRETE. The human body has adapted to swimming, but it is a not at all efficient, thus why we burn more calories swimming. Since we no longer have to run to survive, distance running is skill that you have to commit to developing. Jumping up off the couch and running a mile, after having never ran, will be excrutiating, but after a couple of weeks it won't hardly hurt at all, and after a couple of months that first mile is just a warm up, and after years, you'll be able to run what previously seemed like impossible distances. | |
|
| is long-distance running natural?
Posted: 5/7/2008 10:25:18 AM | Long-distance running is only natural only if you and your posse are tracking and hunting down a pack of woolly mammoths.
When I was in top athletic condition--I used to play soccer at the highest possible level in this country in the 70's--I could with minimal warmup sponaneously run 4.5 miles with no difficulty in around 30 minutes...but that was merely to get a Kohr's chocolate-vanilla custard cone at the end, with the cute, buxom girl dispensing it without the entitlement frown of disappointment of today. | |
|
| is long-distance running natural?
Posted: 5/7/2008 11:40:12 AM | What's unnatural is the state of condition our bodies are in now. Stress levels, light throughout the night, pollution, steroids in the foods we eat, xenoestrogens from drinking from plastic bottles. All these things that the first humans on Earth never had to deal with affect us.
In history you look at numerous example of people running long distances. Look up the history behind the Marathons run today and how historically that came about. Or look at the Native American Indians, Africans, ect.. The short bursts of speed mentioned earlier are really only a cortisol reactions, A "fight or Flight" reaction that has been imprinted with us from the beginning to assure existence. So too has endurance and that is just a simple fact. The condition that we have put our bodies into, environmental influences and simply an increase in what we see as stressful everyday make these things such as distance running seem unnatural despite that fact that they are the very key to our present existence. Had our bodies not been designed for endurance - we would not be here!
 | |
|
| |
| is long-distance running natural?
Posted: 5/7/2008 12:30:01 PM |
Before projectile weapons were invented, it's widely believed that we practiced persistence hunting - running animals down over great distances. We were able to do this because our relatively hairless bodies and sweating mechanism allowed us to keep cool over hours of exertion in the midday sun, whilst our prey would be unable to control its body temperature and eventually collapse from exhaustion and overheating. Some bushmen tribes still practice this form of hunting.
of course we were meant to run, otherwise we couldn't do it. I have done what this poster states....but I'll tell you when you catch a deer get ready for a fight.
and if you don't believe me ask the Kenyans.... | |
|
| is long-distance running natural?
Posted: 5/7/2008 3:51:44 PM | | I've always read that it is not natural, not for any animal really. We are meant for fight or flight. Meaning sprint AWAY from something or don't go anywhere at all. Never at any point were we built to just run... for the hell of it for as long as we can. | |
|
| is long-distance running natural?
Posted: 5/7/2008 3:59:29 PM | Define un-natural?
I don't believe it's unnatural. Humans as a species (some of us) are capable of running tremendous distances, just look at Terry Fox, with one leg and cancer to boot.
My cat could out run me in the short burst, but there is no way his four little legs would carry past a few miles at anything more than walking speed.
There are many factors which can influence "pain" you might experience, like shoes, the ground your running on, bad knees, back, etc. | |
|
| is long-distance running natural?
Posted: 5/7/2008 11:19:46 PM |
don't believe it's unnatural. Humans as a species (some of us) are capable of running tremendous distances, just look at Terry Fox, with one leg and cancer to boot.
That's a flawed argument given you can do a lot of things if you train long and hard enough to do it.
Some people can bench press over 700lbs raw and squat over 1200, the Cirque du Soleil performers can balance upside down fully outstretched on someone else's hands, does that mean we evolved to be able to do that? | |
|
| is long-distance running natural?
Posted: 5/8/2008 1:22:09 AM | Originally posted by Mr_Squelchy
That's a flawed argument given you can do a lot of things if you train long and hard enough to do it.
Some people can bench press over 700lbs raw and squat over 1200, the Cirque du Soleil performers can balance upside down fully outstretched on someone else's hands, does that mean we evolved to be able to do that?
His example was poorly chosen, but it is your argument that is flawed.
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. It takes a lot of practice to be able to do it quickly for long periods- but the actual running stride is within every normal persons grasp. The aerobic system is capable of fuelling said activity for as long as the person bothers to run and has glycogen and fat stores. A dedicated person- not a fit person, but dedicated- can continue into consuming muscle and connective tissue. Tends to hurt and make you smell bad though, muscle catabolisation is not a happy process.
Comparing lifting a single weight to a certain stride is flawed. Everyone is capable of carrying out the biomechanical movement of benchpressing- it is just the amount that varies. We are all capable of running stride, it is just the speed that varies. | |
|
| is long-distance running natural?
Posted: 5/8/2008 1:27:22 AM | | Well I suppose that depends on how you define distance running, doesn't it? If you're talking a few miles then I agree, that's within everyone's grasp very quickly, but if you're talking about longer distances then that's going to require a lot of training, and I have yet to see anything in terms of nature which suggests that the ability to run 10 miles+ (for example) is for a human being anywhere near natural or necessary. | |
|
| is long-distance running natural?
Posted: 5/8/2008 2:39:41 AM |
Originally posted by Mr_Squelchy
Well I suppose that depends on how you define distance running, doesn't it? If you're talking a few miles then I agree, that's within everyone's grasp very quickly, but if you're talking about longer distances then that's going to require a lot of training,
Not at all. Once you reach the point where you can maintain a running stride under your anaerobic threshhold, your distance limitation is a function of your energy stores and willingness to keep running. This will be a fairly slow speed for most people- but they will be able to maintain the stride. Have faith.
I appreciate you are a weight lifter, that is my prefered activity too, but I have no dramas pulling my ~270lb through 10 miles when required, I just do it very slowly. Find my pace and stick to it. No magic training required, I do short intervals for my running training, rarely more than 1.5 miles at a time or more than 3 miles in a single session. | |
|
| is long-distance running natural?
Posted: 5/8/2008 5:38:03 AM | The body is capable of amazing things. Personally, I find running quite boring. I would rather cover long distances hiking through scenic country, which is definately natural, im sure generations ago people had to cover ground to gather food and resources.
I like the idea of short jogs to cover more ground on hikes. Interval training is great cardio training.
I don't even mind lugging a big pack on my hiking adventures, all good and a good workout, plus self sufficiency if camping overnight.
If I do a general everyday run, I'll go for 20mins at the most, I prefer cycling, gym and hiking in hilly areas as my fitness routines. I take my hat off to marathon runners, they are at the absolute pinnacle of aerobic endurance and are very dedicated, but their look doesn't appeal to me, Id rather look like I stepped out of a gym instead. | |
|
| is long-distance running natural?
Posted: 5/8/2008 6:49:35 AM | Personally, I find running quite boring. I would rather cover long distances hiking through scenic country, which is definately natural, im sure generations ago people had to cover ground to gather food and resources.
***
I don't know how some people can stay on a treadmill and not get bored. I started to get bored with my walks and jogs around my neighborhood. The scenery does get old, but one day I went behind and around my house to a long stretch of road that connects to a nature preserve and heads to the beach. It was heaven. There are also a bunch of parks and trails around my work I've been wanting to go on. When I go on vacation. I'll be running around where I'm staying. It's all about keeping things interesting. | |
|
Home
login 
