[ Return to Index ] [ Original Message ]Original Message
By entering these forums you agree to our Rules
on the logo to return to our homepage
|Subject: ||RE: The Distance Dilemma: Why Long Runs Arenít The Fast Track To Fat Loss|
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.
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:
Most comments seem to agree with this.
To combat message board spam (by non runners). We are making people answer a brief question before they can post on a thread that is over 20 days old.
If you answer this question you should be able to post.