Why do "fitness" people HATE running so much?

Better look like twigs than the average obese american.

Josh Cox, Bob Kennedy, Alan Webb don't look like twigs....now Ryan Hall and Rupp, yes.

Who gives a shit how other people look or what they do for exercise?

Coffee Drinker wrote:

Running is great when it's done for SPORT and/or RECREATION. As far as exercise goes, running absolutely sucks. Hardcore running is an abusive, irrational waste of time masquerading as a healthy lifestyle.

Yep.

Running destroys health.

Proper exercise enhances health.

People that hate on runners are out of shape and JEALOUS.

RIF!!!

Reading Is Fundamental!

The post states that fitness people 'hate' running and not runners.

Where adfasdf came up with the data I'd like to know, but that's for another topic.

For for the next silly post!!!

[quote]table wrote:

how can no one say that running is bad for your joints? Seriously. I can assure you 100mi/week on roads/sidewalks/anything other than dirt is terrible for your body. I've just accepted Ill have pins through my knees in 10yrs. Hopefully biomech technology is better by then.[/quote

Running is most definitely NOT bad for your joints (unless you are genetically pre-disposed to joint problems) I have been running for 35 years and despite running thousands of miles my knees are fine. I have Dr friends who tell me that the "running is bad for your knees myth", is one they constantly have to address.

Aghast wrote:

Better look like twigs than the average obese american.

Complete strawman. We're not talking about joe schmo the average American, we're talking about someone doing

~10 hours of running per week and no weight work

~5 hours per week of gym work and 2-3 hours of running

~7 or 8 hours of running and 2-3 hours of gym work

Those kinds of comparisons. The first is a twig, the second says "I lift things up and put them down," the third can run fast and enjoy training, without neglecting other basic elements of physical fitness.

No we are talking about A) 10 hours of running per week and no weight workB) 5 hours per week of gym work and 0 hours of running

themanontherun wrote:

Aghast wrote:

Better look like twigs than the average obese american.

Complete strawman. We're not talking about joe schmo the average American, we're talking about someone doing

~10 hours of running per week and no weight work

~5 hours per week of gym work and 2-3 hours of running

~7 or 8 hours of running and 2-3 hours of gym work

Those kinds of comparisons. The first is a twig, the second says "I lift things up and put them down," the third can run fast and enjoy training, without neglecting other basic elements of physical fitness.

Aghast wrote:

No we are talking about

A) 10 hours of running per week and no weight work

B) 5 hours per week of gym work and 0 hours of running

No I'm talking about 20 minutes a week of weight work and no running.

Then you are clearly a troll. You can't achieve anything of significance in life with only 3 minutes a day

Coffee Drinker wrote:

Aghast wrote:

No we are talking about

A) 10 hours of running per week and no weight work

B) 5 hours per week of gym work and 0 hours of running

No I'm talking about 20 minutes a week of weight work and no running.

This entire debate seems silly to me.

I belong to one of those fancy gyms that talks about "cardio" instead of running. When I cashed in on the two free training sessions that came with my membership, the trainer said, "It sounds like you're already doing fine with the cardio work and don't need my help there. Let's get you started on some strength training that will improve your overall fitness without causing you to bulk up or screw up your running." And he did. I strengthened my legs, my back, and my core, which improved my form over long runs, improved my balance, and improved my posture. And he taught me what I could do on my own so I didn't need to pay for more sessions.

I occasionally see that trainer (a huge, bulky guy by non-runner standards) out on the running paths. He's not primarily a runner, but he gets it.

I'm still a runner at a gym that takes overall fitness seriously and treats members like adults. Maybe the OP needs to find a new gym.

The OP is generally referring to the new breed of trainers devoted to the religion of "Crossfit" and its various offshoots

Also, when I was 16 I too used to think that running was the perfect exercise and all one ever needed.

But I've been watching my father age. He has always been fit, but he has been struggling to do simple tasks he used to do with ease (carrying air conditioners from the basement and installing them in windows, shoveling deep snow, etc.). He spends hours on the elliptical and stair machines at his gym, but that won't prevent him from throwing out his arm or his back doing normal life stuff, and really setting him back because he isn't in his 30s or 40s anymore. So he's been trying strength training in addition to his cardio (which he too calls cadio unless he's actually running) and he's lost weight and gained nearly an inch back in height (posture--he didn't actually get taller), and he's probably a lot less prone to injury than he used to be, which matters an awful lot at his age.

It's all balance. Hours of cardio (yes, the dreaded "cardio") keep his cardiovascular system healthy. Strength training helps keep the rest of his body in shape enough to handle his cardio workouts, and regular life activities that only get harder past a certain age.

Hrm...Hrm... wrote:

Hours of cardio (yes, the dreaded "cardio") keep his cardiovascular system healthy

Unmitigated bullshit.

The Magic wrote:

The OP is generally referring to the new breed of trainers devoted to the religion of "Crossfit" and its various offshoots

I didn't know what CrossFit was until reading this thread (although I had heard of it). So I read the website. Seems a little self-assure, but whatever.

Noted this from an FAQ: "1.4. Is the WOD Enough? Should I do more?

Part of the crossfit philosophy includes pursuing/learning another sport or activity, and many crossfitters are also martial artists and competitive athletes in a variety of disciplines." (http://www.crossfit.com/cf-info/faq.html)

The whole thing seems a bit silly to me, but even the CrossFit website seems to suggest it should augment, not replace, other activities (like running). Sounds like some trainers drank more kool-aid than necessary.

lol lol lol lol wrote:

Hrm...Hrm... wrote:

Hours of cardio (yes, the dreaded "cardio") keep his cardiovascular system healthy

Unmitigated bullshit.

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/09/when-exercise-is-too-much-of-a-good-thing/?emc=eta1&apage=4#comments

Edit: hours of cardio weekly, not daily. Thanks for the link.

It depends on how you define fitness. The problem with running is that it is too one dimensional. If you define fitness as a combination of the following: cardiorespiratory endurance, muscular endurance, muscular strength, flexibility, and body composition. I can improve all of those characteristics through resistance training. The majority of them I can improve better through resistance training than just running. Very few fitness people hate running, most believe it can be one part of an all-inclusive fitness plan, but it's not the end all be all of fitness.

Alan

The Magic wrote:

Then you are clearly a troll. You can't achieve anything of significance in life with only 3 minutes a day

2 x 10 minute sessions per week is sufficient to produce good results. One ten minute session per week is sufficient for an advanced trainee.