Hammerschmidt wrote:
You're really going to call this a "scientific" article? It's an advertisement.
It's a good enough sample size to be called scientific, also it's backed up by impressive before and after shots. What else do you need to be convinced?
He got some points wrote:
It's a good enough sample size to be called scientific, also it's backed up by impressive before and after shots. What else do you need to be convinced?
Scientific articles are peer reviewed and appear in scientific journals.
If we are talking just weight loss, then I see distance running as one of the best methods by which to achieve this. However, if we are talking fat loss, I would agree with the article that higher intensity weight-training and sprinting is totally the way to go. There are many biological benefits from this process beyond the tired and inaccurate "calories in vs. calories out" argument. High intensity exercise increases muscle mass, creating a more favorable calorie burning body both at rest and in motion. Also, sprinting particularly, has been shown to increase natural HGH levels, which contributes to lean muscularity. Anecdotally, I have tested both methods on myself and found the latter a much more efficient and effective way to get very lean (in fact leaner than logging 50+mpw). Of course I did weigh a lot less while distance running.
I think there is a happy medium where the non-competitive athlete would benefit from a mixture of weights (for strength), sprinting (for explosiveness/fast twitch recruitment) and moderate range running (3-5 miles for general endurance).
Benson St. Wales wrote:
I think there is a happy medium where the non-competitive athlete would benefit from a mixture of weights (for strength), sprinting (for explosiveness/fast twitch recruitment) and moderate range running (3-5 miles for general endurance).
In other words: CROSSFIT.
Btw: when we sprint, we usually pull tires. That gives you even more benefit.
LIke I'm going to believe you just because you have a 1 at the end of your name.
This thread (and many others like it) was doomed from the start, mainly due to a lack of a common understanding of the relative term "long distance". They mean different things to a "letsrun.com" audience versus a "bodybuilding.com" audience. You are providing an answer to a question that no one at "letsrun.com" is asking.Putting aside any personal opinions about whether the referenced article is "great" or even "scientific":- a 5K race is not a very long distance when you run marathons- 1 hour of jogging is not a long run; 90 minutes or 2 hours is- "jogging", "cardio", and "aerobics" are not synonyms for "long distance running" or "long runs"The "great scientific article" should also provide at least some scientific explanation or a scientific link for the assertion that "cardio" training uses muscle as a fuel. My understanding is that protein becomes an important source of fuel only after glycogen depletion -- something that doesn't occur during a 1 hour cardio session. But what do I know? A reference here would help me separate scientific facts from bodybuilding myths.This article is correct, for the 45 minute a day, 5 days a week treadmill runner, who runs the charity 5K in 30 minutes. This "runner" has plateaued because the training is not that demanding, and the "runner" has fully adapted to this low, introductory training load, and needs to do something more. Maybe they are only doing 25-30 miles a week, all at something like 9 minute/mile pace.For a "letsrun" distance runner, 75 miles a week is low mileage, and 7 minute pace is slow, as is 15:00 for a 5K.The "long distance" runner can do many kinds of training:- jogging for recovery- short easy running and long runs for endurance- tempo training for stamina- interval training for speed- sprint training for form- circuit training for specific strength (e.g. hill resistance training, plyometrics, jumping drills, ...)So from this perspective, what's the point of an article that says 1 hour runs on a treadmill alone is not enough? Of course not. It's not enough for running either.The article is also correct to stress first identifying the goal. If your goal is 6-pack abs, and publishing before and after photos on a website, that's fine. Katie Cates looks great in a bikini, but how fast can she run a 5K? Maybe her current bodybuilding training is completely wrong.If your goal is to run races fast, then fat loss is a secondary or non-existent concern.
Xfitguy wrote:
Great scientific article on why long distance running doesn't lead to a great body. Sure, most pro runners are slim but it's not because of the running. They're great distance runners because they are slim.
Anyway, this article gives great insight of why weight lifting is superior for before-after-pics than running:
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/distance-dilemma-running-and-fat-loss.htmlMost comments seem to agree with this.
Xfitguy wrote:
SumguyI wrote:Weight is not a function of biology, it is of physics. Ittakes way more calories to run than lift. There is your center of mass moving the distance of the run and then all of the internal movements. You would have to literally be lifting weights for hours, no rest, to replicate that.
Weight is basically a calories in vs calories out equation.
Ok then why are 80% of runners at your typical 5k event overweight?
80% are there to support the cause, not for the competition.