jogging

[mikey41]

Does jogging have any functon?

Is running good for you?

I have read here that it is not very benificial.

 

I want to be less wide around the hips, I thought jogging a few (3) miles a day would help.

 

If this isn't true, was it not once generally thought to be true?

When did this change?

 

I've never heard this point of view before. (though i like it)

 

Why do gyms have treadmills?

 

Also, what would help?

 

Thanks

[PurpleAngel]

Jogging is a great way to get fit… I found this article for you…

 

Go to this web site for more information on Jogging. http://www.lin.ca/lin/resource/html/jk45.htm

 

The only thing to watch out for is that jogging has high impact on knees and ankles and therefore vigorous jogging can lead to knee and ankle injuries. It is very important to wear proper and supportive jogging shoes and if you are not a regular jogger it is always wise to start slowly and work up to a goal.

 

 

Good Luck!

~PurpleAngel~

[turtle]

I've been running for 10 years and love it. (Running is the correct term....most runners hate it when people call it jogging) I would recommend it. It reduces stress, clears your mind, and gives you energy.

 

However, if you want to simply get into shape, there are other alternatives that you might enjoy more. Rollerblading, biking, going to the gym, speed walking, and swimming are all other physical activities that would help control your weight.

 

Running can be hard on your knees and ankles if you are not careful. Make sure you buy good shoes that fit well. Shoes need to be replaced about every 500 miles. If you run on a regular basis, they need to be replaced about every 6 months. Also make sure you stretch properly and don't overtrain - this will prevent most injuries.

[Rob]

I've found that running helps to clear your mind when you're worrying about things. I've been running since late last summer and it's been great!

[Ryan]

Does jogging have any functon?

 

Yes. Running serves to move you from one location to another rapidly....best employed to remove oneself from danger. That's about it.

 

 

Is running good for you?

I have read here that it is not very benificial.

 

You've probably been reading that from me. My contention is that running is of meager benefit at best and significant detriment at worst. There are far safer and more efficient options. I'll get to why in a bit.

 

 

I want to be less wide around the hips, I thought jogging a few (3) miles a day would help.

 

Well, you can't target specific areas of your body to remove bodyfat. It is a systemic process that requires systemic burning of bodyfat. No activity (aside from liposuction) will remove width around the hips alone.

 

 

If this isn't true, was it not once generally thought to be true?

When did this change?

I've never heard this point of view before. (though i like it)

 

Oh it's still generally believed and promoted that running is healthy and beneficial. I believed it for a long time. It seems so ubiquitous that it HAS to be true. Unfortunately, common sense in terms of fitness is neither common nor sensible. People rarely question these prescriptions, even though they are comparable to any drug a doctor might suggest.

 

Let's evaluate some of the support for running that people have presented here.

 

 

Cardiovascular fitness, or the strength and endurance of the heart, lungs and circulatory system is the most fundamental benefit achieved through jogging and walking.

 

First, I'm going to dismiss walking from this altogether. If walking is an effective means of improving fitness, then our country wouldn't be fighting obesity.

 

So, the contention is that running stimulates improvements in the strength and endurance of the cardiovascular system. Ok, so what exactly does the cardiovascular system do?

 

We all know that the heart pumps blood. What most people don't know is that the heart beats on its own. Our brain/nervous system does NOT control whether or not our heart beats. This is why we can have heart transplants - take a human heart out of the body and it will continue beating. All we do is modulate how fast it beats. Therein lies the question - how do you improve the endurance of something that can naturally remain in CONSTANT action? Ok, so let's consider strength. The heart is muscle (although NOT the same as skeletal muscle) and it does contract. Improving its strength would mean causing it to contract more forcefully. If we cause the heart to contract more forcefully, we're asking it to do MORE work per beat. Isn't the whole point to REDUCE the load on the heart?

 

We all know that the lungs process oxygen in and carbon dioxide out. But how many people realize that the lungs are passive organs? They don't expand and contract on their own. The diaphragm is responsible for every breath you take. How often have you heard any fitness expert talk about strengthening the diaphragm??? The truth is, this is largely a moot point. People can breathe in more than sufficient quantities of oxygen. If lung capacity and efficiency were a significant weak link, we'd have people passing out all over the place. Why? Our brain is far more sensitive to oxygen deprivation than our muscular system. You get that blood O2 level dipping too low and that brain will shut you down PRONTO.

 

Of course, the whole matter of training cardiovascular ability tends to be discussed in a sterile sense. People often miss the one FUNDAMENTAL truth - the cardiovascular system exists to SUPPORT the muscular system. The heart/lungs only react to what your muscular system needs to perform the work required. There is no cognition of external activity nor awareness of which muscles are doing what. If you want to train the dependent (cardiovascular) system by taxing it to a high degree, you must train the controlling system (muscular) to a high degree. Running isn't even close to utilizing the musculature of the legs to a high degree: consistently, significantly, and through a full range of motion. It does NONE of those.

 

 

Other major benefits are weight control and muscle toning.

 

There is no such thing as muscle toning (as conventionally used). It is a fabricated term that means nothing more than lean.

 

As for weight control...I assume the suggestion is that running is an effective means of burning calories. No activity is an effective means of burning calories when compared to what bodyfat contains. Consider that an average person will expend about 100 calories per mile of moderate running. A single pound of bodyfat contains some 3500 calories of energy. Assuming all of that energy comes from bodyfat (which it never will), you've still got quite a lot of foot travel.

 

 

The amount you benefit will depend upon your present state of fitness

 

Consider what this statement really means...there are 1 of 2 possibilities:

 

1. You have to be fit to get the most out of it....which means you have to be fit to get fit. That's helpful.

2. If you are fit, you get diminishing returns. Great.

 

I prefer activity that is equally productive for anyone at any level of fitness.

 

 

Over all, one can expect that your joint mobility will increase

 

Relative to what? Being sedentary? Seeing as how running isn't even CLOSE to full range of motion on the hip and knee joints, I don't know how one would justify this.

 

 

personal stress will decrease

 

I love this one. This must mean mental stress, because running itself is a physical stressor. At best, you are trading one kind of stress for another. Interestingly, all types of stressors have a common, non-specific physical response.

 

 

you may experience a welcomed sense of accomplishment.

 

When I train people, accomplishment comes in the form of progression and results. I'm not sure what this is referring to...the pride of having run a certain distance?

 

 

As well, one can experience certain social benefits from participation.

 

This is not the purpose of exercise. It is irrelevant.

 

 

It reduces stress, clears your mind...

 

... running helps to clear your mind when you're worrying about things...

 

I'm sure this is true for some people....and I'm sure there can be some psychological benefit. However, that is not the purpose of exercise. It is not a therapy session. This is irrelevant. People confuse the value of exercise (improvements in the areas of general fitness) with the value of RECREATION (enjoyment, escape, relaxation, etc.).

 

 

The only thing to watch out for is that jogging has high impact on knees and ankles and therefore vigorous jogging can lead to knee and ankle injuries.

 

Running can be hard on your knees and ankles if you are not careful.

 

Now we get to one of my main qualms - the inherent risk of running. Running subjects your body to very significant levels of force. At best, you'll subject your foot, ankle, knee, hip, and lower back to force absorption of about 2x bodyweight every time you hit pavement. On the other end of the spectrum (which varies based on how your foot lands), you're upwards of 10x bodyweight. That's every stride...stride after stride....day after day. Is the human body capable of withstanding that? I don't know...but I'm not taking that risk.

 

Shoes offer little protection...their main purpose is to spread the force across your foot so the PRESSURE (which is what you feel) is lower. The force doesn't appreciably change...and it still goes up the same ankle, knee, and hip regardless of how it is spread out at the foot. The surface you run on isn't much help either. People often insist that running on the beach is fine because the sand absorbs it. Do you know how easy it is to move sand around? When was the last time you saw a little kid struggling to dig in the sand?

 

 

I'm sure there will be some rebuttals and criticisms of this outline...and I welcome them. One I can hear right now is, "Ok, so what IS good?" The answer is short: proper weight training. The explanation of what that IS....well, will have to come in another post on another day.

[turtle]

weight training sucks

[turtle]

Shoes offer little protection Ryan? Try running a 10k in $10 sneakers from Payless. Or try running in shoes that are too old.

[turtle]

As well, one can experience certain social benefits from participation.

 

This is not the purpose of exercise. It is irrelevant

 

So exercise is supposed to be dreary and boring?!?

 

Isn't volleyball exercise? Football? Soccer? Rugby? Aren't those all socially oriented?

[Ryan]

weight training sucks

 

There's a cogent reply. It's very interesting how personally people take my arguments. Let's stick with facts - physics and physiology. However, I do agree that it sucks. PROPER weight training is not fun. It's not supposed to be.

 

 

Shoes offer little protection Ryan? Try running a 10k in $10 sneakers from Payless. Or try running in shoes that are too old.

 

Allow me to elaborate on my original statements.

Shoes offer little protection in the way of force absorption. What shoes primarily do is distribute the force over a wider area of the foot. This creates lower PRESSURE, which is what you feel as discomfort. Pressure is force divided by the area of application. If you travel barefoot, the majority of the force is across part of your heel and part of the ball of your foot...not the entire surface area of your foot. Shoes have a fairly flat surface, so the force is spread across a wide area of application. Since the inside of the shoe is moulded to contact most of your foot surface, the correlation is closer to 1:1 for the area of contact on the bottom of the shoe as compared to the area of transmission to your foot. However, once transmitted to the foot and up the skeletal structure of the leg, the force is the same. It is your perception that is different. If your body wasn't there to absorb the force, the shoes would be destroyed very quickly.

 

As shoes wear, the bottom becomes uneven based on your gait and the rigidity of the material decreases. This means force application will occur across smaller areas due to shoe contortion. The inside of the shoe also compresses and does not retain contact as well with your full foot area. You are subjected to the same forces, but the pressure increase creates perceived discomfort.

 

 

So exercise is supposed to be dreary and boring?!?

 

That's not what I said.

I said that it is irrelevant. The amount of enjoyment you get out of an activity has zero bearing on how effective it is for improving your general fitness. Furthermore, that which is most effective and true exercise is definitely not enjoyable. The physical effort required to best satisfy the areas of general fitness has accompanying sensations that are quite uncomfortable.

 

 

Isn't volleyball exercise? Football? Soccer? Rugby? Aren't those all socially oriented?

 

Those are sports and they can be social. They are not exercise. None of those fit a comprehensive definition OF exercise. The notions that exercise is anything that "gets me moving and my blood pumping" or "gets your heart rate up" are flawed and far too broadly defined to be of any use. You'd be hard pressed to get a good definition of exercise from most people, even so-called experts. It's difficult to come up with one on your own as well. However, it does exist and there are criteria by which any activity can be evaluated to determine how well it influences the areas of general fitness.

[mike41]

Thank you