Running. Why do they do it?

[Allen 38]

Because they like it, I would guess. Why do you go swimming?

Read my opening post again...."in my younger days I went swimming" ...

I doubt folks would want to see me in speedos at my age.

 

I was in the army for years and we ran three or four miles just about every day and some days up to ten miles depending on the training at the time and this was mostly done wearing boots and carrying heavy packs on our backs,I was super fit at the time granted,but now I am a virtual cripple due to both my knees being completely worn out,I can hardly walk a few hundred yards without pain in my knees and hips.

This supports my viewpoint in my original post.

I hope you get help with your problems and wish you well.

 

To be sure, both walking and running had positive effects. When the researchers checked in with participants six years after the start of the study, they found that running significantly reduced the risk of high blood pressure (by 4.2 percent), high cholesterol (4.3 percent), diabetes (12.1 percent) and cardiovascular heart disease (4.5 percent), for every MET h/d, which is a standard measure of metabolic energy expenditure. Great news, right? Well, it gets even better.

 

Click > Walking

 

---------- Post added 05-07-2015 at 00:56 ----------

 

Anyone cant be bothered to click.. Participants who walked regularly saw even better results. Walking decreased risk by 7.2 percent for high blood pressure, 7 percent for high cholesterol, 12.3 percent for diabetes and 9.3 percent for cardiovascular heart disease.

Can't argue with statistics....walking is better.

[code word 10]

To be honest at my age all I can do is walk. So the stats look good for me. lol

[anywebsite 10]

Running improves self-esteem. When you exercise, your body releases endorphins that interact with your brain and reduce your perception of pain. A legal high if you like.

 

Good job it'll be banned soon then.

[Cyclone 10]

To be sure, both walking and running had positive effects. When the researchers checked in with participants six years after the start of the study, they found that running significantly reduced the risk of high blood pressure (by 4.2 percent), high cholesterol (4.3 percent), diabetes (12.1 percent) and cardiovascular heart disease (4.5 percent), for every MET h/d, which is a standard measure of metabolic energy expenditure. Great news, right? Well, it gets even better.

 

Click > Walking

 

---------- Post added 05-07-2015 at 00:56 ----------

 

Anyone cant be bothered to click.. Participants who walked regularly saw even better results. Walking decreased risk by 7.2 percent for high blood pressure, 7 percent for high cholesterol, 12.3 percent for diabetes and 9.3 percent for cardiovascular heart disease.

 

They're not mutually exclusive of course. You can run and also walk at other times!

 

Here’s the if: The runners and walkers had to expend the same energy to get the same benefits. That means you’d have to walk longer than you’d have to run for the same effect.

So if you spend 1:30 hrs running a week, if you were to want to swap that out, you'd need to spend what, 4 hrs walking, maybe more in fact.

[hyper 10]

So if you spend 1:30 hrs running a week, if you were to want to swap that out, you'd need to spend what, 4 hrs walking, maybe more in fact.

I'd argue you can never replace running with walking.

If I run, I'm in oxygen debt and virtually on my knees after 15 minutes, maybe I push too hard, but that's another story. I can walk all day in the Peaks and never breathe deep and feel no tired or exertion at all

[JFKvsNixon 11]

I'd argue you can never replace running with walking.

If I run, I'm in oxygen debt and virtually on my knees after 15 minutes, maybe I push too hard, but that's another story. I can walk all day in the Peaks and never breathe deep and feel no tired or exertion at all

 

The trick is to run in such a way as to not got into oxygen debt. You only have a very limited store of glycogen which you start to use if your body is using more O2 that it's getting back, once you use that up you feel absolutely awful. It also can take a few days to rebuild your glycogen levels back up.

 

So pacing yourself is really important for sustainable regular exercise.

 

I cycle regularly and on my commute I think that anyone can kill themselves getting to the top of the hill fast, but the trick is to learn to get to the top of the hill fast day after day.

 

On a long cycle, I'll wear a heart rate monitor so it makes it easier to keep an eye on my effort, and I know to turn it down a bit if I', approaching my threshold.

[Ousetunes 10]

I have recently returned to running. I'm 46 and whilst I'm a snail compared to the youthful me, the benefits are beyond question.

 

Weight is dropping off and my stomach is actually becoming defined! I feel healthier and am cutting down on the anti-depressants. 40 minutes in the fresh air, up on Lodge Moor, all by myself; sure, it can be hard work but that feeling when you come out of the shower is wonderful.

 

My only question is to people who run with headphones on. I simply cannot grasp the concept. Listen to nature's soundtrack - much more pleasant!

[hyper 10]

The trick is to run in such a way as to not got into oxygen debt. You only have a very limited store of glycogen which you start to use if your body is using more O2 that it's getting back, once you use that up you feel absolutely awful. It also can take a few days to rebuild your glycogen levels back up.

 

So pacing yourself is really important for sustainable regular exercise.

 

I cycle regularly and on my commute I think that anyone can kill themselves getting to the top of the hill fast, but the trick is to learn to get to the top of the hill fast day after day.

 

On a long cycle, I'll wear a heart rate monitor so it makes it easier to keep an eye on my effort, and I know to turn it down a bit if I', approaching my threshold.

I know. I have exercise-induced asthma, so the first mile is a killer, but with slowing down a bit, it evens out and I can run for 30 mins or so. I don't like running per se, just use it to keep in shape over the winter.

 

And, weirdly I can go anaerobic and recover quickly, and the several days recovery is not an issue on the glycogen front. Being slightly overweight, the reserves are there, and a couple of ales replenish me. To be honest, I feel fine after a shower. My point was, walking several hours does nothing for me on the cardio vascular side, whereas only a 15 min run, gets me going.

[Cyclone 10]

I'd argue you can never replace running with walking.

If I run, I'm in oxygen debt and virtually on my knees after 15 minutes, maybe I push too hard, but that's another story. I can walk all day in the Peaks and never breathe deep and feel no tired or exertion at all

 

They achieve different things, walking is no good for increasing CV fitness. It is good for other things, including apparently reducing the risk of mortality through various health improvements.

 

---------- Post added 06-07-2015 at 10:03 ----------

 

The trick is to run in such a way as to not got into oxygen debt. You only have a very limited store of glycogen which you start to use if your body is using more O2 that it's getting back, once you use that up you feel absolutely awful. It also can take a few days to rebuild your glycogen levels back up.

Glycogen is used as soon as you run out of glucose, which is very quickly.

You can't do CV exercise without using glycogen. You have enough to support quite a long period of exercise though. Several hours probably.

It's use is unrelated to O2 debt, that's a different issue.

 

So pacing yourself is really important for sustainable regular exercise.

There's no problem with going anaerobic with regards to regular sustainable exercise, it's not a problem and it's the only way to increase your lactose tolerance and your anaerobic threshold.

[JFKvsNixon 11]

Glycogen is used as soon as you run out of glucose, which is very quickly.

You can't do CV exercise without using glycogen. You have enough to support quite a long period of exercise though. Several hours probably.

It's use is unrelated to O2 debt, that's a different issue.

There's no problem with going anaerobic with regards to regular sustainable exercise, it's not a problem and it's the only way to increase your lactose tolerance and your anaerobic threshold.

 

I'm not sure where you're getting your information from. This explains it it better than i could:

 

The two types of anaerobic energy systems are: 1) high energy phosphates, ATP adenosine triphosphate and CP creatine phosphate; and 2) anaerobic glycolysis. High energy phosphates are stored in limited quantities within muscle cells. Anaerobic glycolysis exclusively uses glucose (and glycogen) as a fuel in the absence of oxygen, or more specifically when ATP is needed at rates that exceed those provided by aerobic metabolism.

 

I would also suggest that how long your glycogen will last depends on the amount of effort that you're putting in. If you're exercising anaerobically I don't think that your glycogen levels will be able to support anaerobic exercise for more than a matter of minutes.

 

As to the increasing your anaerobic threshold, surely this would increase as you get fitter automatically, as it's measured as being 90% of your maximum heart rate.

[hyper 10]

They achieve different things, walking is no good for increasing CV fitness. It is good for other things, including apparently reducing the risk of mortality through various health improvements.

I know. I was just countering your argument in post #52 where you suggested running and walking can be swapped out, albeit walking needing more time

 

---------- Post added 06-07-2015 at 11:29 ----------

 

Glycogen is used as soon as you run out of glucose, which is very quickly.

You can't do CV exercise without using glycogen. You have enough to support quite a long period of exercise though. Several hours probably.

It's use is unrelated to O2 debt, that's a different issue.

There's no problem with going anaerobic with regards to regular sustainable exercise, it's not a problem and it's the only way to increase your lactose tolerance and your anaerobic threshold.

OK, I'm no expert, in fact I know very little. The way I had it explained to me was that normally you breathe and the oxygen, along with food fuels your muscles. If you manage to keep breathing at that level and sustaining your effort, you are exercising aerobically.

Anaerobic is where you have the ability to bypass the direct use of oxygen that you have breathed and get all your fuel from your glycogen stores. Of course, you can't do this forever, and when it catches up with you, you are curled up in oxygen dept. You've also gone into the red and will have taken a lot out of your stamina. So, it's what you might do in a sprint finish, but not mid-marathon

I was also told that the ability to go anaerobic naturally is quite rare - you can train for it to a point, but the large %age of the populous cannot do it.

 

I'll happily be told I'm wrong if that's how it is

[vwkittie 10]

To be sure, both walking and running had positive effects. When the researchers checked in with participants six years after the start of the study, they found that running significantly reduced the risk of high blood pressure (by 4.2 percent), high cholesterol (4.3 percent), diabetes (12.1 percent) and cardiovascular heart disease (4.5 percent), for every MET h/d, which is a standard measure of metabolic energy expenditure. Great news, right? Well, it gets even better.

 

Click > Walking

 

---------- Post added 05-07-2015 at 00:56 ----------

 

Anyone cant be bothered to click.. Participants who walked regularly saw even better results. Walking decreased risk by 7.2 percent for high blood pressure, 7 percent for high cholesterol, 12.3 percent for diabetes and 9.3 percent for cardiovascular heart disease.

 

If you both do you live forever