[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
Like I said I don’t think it will hurt, other than joints maybe, but there better things for physique and cardiovascular function. In no way do I think you will wither away. I do more cardio than many and weight train with 2-3x the volume most do. I don’t wither away. The cardio is my tv time or studying time during the semester. [/quote]
This.
A few runs won’t make a person’s size wither away or kill their strength but there are better cardio options so why go sub-optimal unless you don’t have another choice.
The pounding knees take from running isn’t some invention, why take joint damage you don’t need when you are already lifting heavy?
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
…and weight train with 2-3x the volume most do. I don’t wither away.[/quote]
I am curious what you consider high volume. If you calculated your volume for your back workout would it be 20,000 / 30,000 / 40,000 ?? What about your legs?
[quote]Myosin wrote:
If this forum was called Bigger, Stronger, Faster these 3 mile runs would be appropriate, other than that, few people are going to be able to squat and leg press at the intensity needed to make good lower body progress and run 3 miles in 20-30 minutes without something suffering.[/quote]
Amen
There is no reason a lifter can’t jog a mile or so here and there as an alternative to other conditioning work; but as soon as the duration last longer than 20-30 minutes or the intensity increases much higher than 60%…the boat will begin to take on water and non-essential items (ie. LBM/strength gains) will be jettisoned overboard.
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
…and weight train with 2-3x the volume most do. I don’t wither away.[/quote]
I am curious what you consider high volume. If you calculated your volume for your back workout would it be 20,000 / 30,000 / 40,000 ?? What about your legs?
[/quote]
No idea kinda hard to do with machines and odd exercises like meadows rows. also what about added band tension on some machines? Also rep speed? Holding a peak contraction? I could do it for free weights. I consider 1.5-2 hrs of weights high volume when rest is never longer than 2min. Not sure what you are getting at?
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
…and weight train with 2-3x the volume most do. I don’t wither away.[/quote]
I am curious what you consider high volume. If you calculated your volume for your back workout would it be 20,000 / 30,000 / 40,000 ?? What about your legs?
[/quote]
No idea kinda hard to do with machines and odd exercises like meadows rows. also what about added band tension on some machines? Also rep speed? Holding a peak contraction? I could do it for free weights. I consider 1.5-2 hrs of weights high volume when rest is never longer than 2min. Not sure what you are getting at?[/quote]
Band tension is a known, intensification techniques and rep. speed are not considered. You have to do some standardizing, but volume is easy to calculate. You seem to track/record a fair amount of detail and I thought volume and intensity might be something you keep a record of. No worries.
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
…and weight train with 2-3x the volume most do. I don’t wither away.[/quote]
I am curious what you consider high volume. If you calculated your volume for your back workout would it be 20,000 / 30,000 / 40,000 ?? What about your legs?
[/quote]
No idea kinda hard to do with machines and odd exercises like meadows rows. also what about added band tension on some machines? Also rep speed? Holding a peak contraction? I could do it for free weights. I consider 1.5-2 hrs of weights high volume when rest is never longer than 2min. Not sure what you are getting at?[/quote]
Band tension is a known, intensification techniques and rep. speed are not considered. You have to do some standardizing, but volume is easy to calculate. You seem to track/record a fair amount of detail and I thought volume and intensity might be something you keep a record of. No worries.
[/quote]
Ok I see. I am OCD when it comes to calculating something like that. To me it seems like too mnay variables also it would be a pain in the ass. I count all sets as sets. I don’t differentiate between warm up back off and what not but the lowest I have gone in over 6months is 36 and that’s leg day and its mainly because my low back tightens up too much. I would say average is 45-60. If I feel like shit or can’t get a pump or lose focus ect I end early. I have been loving it. Growing adding strength even though that’s not the direct goal.
When you’re a bigger guy, running is harder on your body than other types of cardio.
If you enjoy running then that’s fine.
If you don’t the there are plenty of other options that are easier on your feet, shins, knees and back.
[quote]SickSex6 wrote:
… know no one likes running … [/quote]
Oh really?[/quote]
I love running (unless I’m out of shape). I go out running on the farm and it’s a high.
Nothing wrong with running a few miles. I haven’t been doing it lately because my training volume has been really high, but I’m cycling back down on volume, so I’ll be starting back into it.
I think the backlash from running came from the 80-90’s idea that its just what you do when you want to lose weight… You diet and you run (jog).
So as the fitness industry learned more and better ways of doing “cardio” with the main goal being lose fat and preserve/gain muscle, most of these were compared to running as the de facto standard… Guess what!? You dont have to jog any more, you can do Sprints/Complexes/HIIT/Prowler/etc…
Given that most of us don’t do cardio for fun, I think we are looking for 2 things out of our cardio:
To be effective at dropping body fat while preserving our muscle mass
To not be mind numbingly boring
Given the variety of cardio that is out there these days I really don’t think running does a good job of addressing these 2 points better than other options. Its typically VERY boring for MOST people (yes, there are some people who love to run, but I have found most people hate it), and has the POTENTIAL to be muscle wasting and hard on the joints involved with it. Its not time efficient either compared to other types either.
There is really no benefit to it above and beyond other options for those of us who do cardio ONLY for physique reasons, and it may in fact be worse in many regards. If you like to run, by all means go ahead.
I’d also say that shoe “technology” and hard artificial surfaces are a huge part of the reason it’s “bad for joints”.
There was supposedly a study done trying to find things that predict the likelihood of running injury. The best predictor was shoe price. The more expensive your running shoes, the higher the risk of injury.
Running is harder on the joints. In response the body makes them stronger. Same deal as with weightlifting. You stress the body and the body adapts to the stress. Most runners develop heavier and stronger skeletons than cyclists due to the impact absorbed by the body.
In my experience most people that develop issues from running are either chronic runners (lots of long distance with inadequate recovery), runners that attempt to run distances for which they’re not adapted (form breaks down due to fatigue and they start landing like a sack of bricks), and runners in improper footwear (running in cross trainers, basketball shoes, skate shoes, etc).
Lots of people also bitch about running because they suck at it and make up a hundred excuses as to why they don’t need to do it. It’s the same shit with squats.
But… Back to the original premise; 3 miles isn’t all that far and if you’re not trying to become an elite runner it’s not going to eat your muscle. Nor are you likely to pound yourself into the ground like someone who’s running 20-30 miles (or more) a week. Whether or not you want to run is up to the individual and if your goal is just to burn calories there’s plenty of other options, but it’s not the evil muscle devouring boogie man some people make it out to be.
[quote]some_dude wrote:
Running is harder on the joints. In response the body makes them stronger. Same deal as with weightlifting. You stress the body and the body adapts to the stress. Most runners develop heavier and stronger skeletons than cyclists due to the impact absorbed by the body. [/quote]
Agreed. What strikes me as ironic is fear or running because of it being hard on joints but at the same time chasing 300+ pound benches and 500+ pound squats and deadlfts.
Four or five days per week of weight training, especially with multijoint exercises and Olympic lifts with relatively heavy weight poses some risk too.
[quote]
In my experience most people that develop issues from running are either chronic runners (lots of long distance with inadequate recovery), runners that attempt to run distances for which they’re not adapted (form breaks down due to fatigue and they start landing like a sack of bricks), and runners in improper footwear (running in cross trainers, basketball shoes, skate shoes, etc). [/quote]
When I started running consistently after years of not doing so, I didn’t just start running three miles or more straight. I started out with walk-jog intervals. At first I was so conservative I did seven rounds of 2min walk-2 min jog intervals for a total of almost half an hour. I gradually increased my total running time til I could do 30 minutes with no problem and built up from there. And if there was ever a point in which my running form fell apart, I’d stop. I’ve never had any running related problems.
[quote]
Lots of people also bitch about running because they suck at it and make up a hundred excuses as to why they don’t need to do it. It’s the same shit with squats. [/quote]
Right. According to some wuss mentality, we should not partake in anything physical because there’s chance for pain and strain.
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
When I started running consistently after years of not doing so, I didn’t just start running three miles or more straight. I started out with walk-jog intervals. At first I was so conservative I did seven rounds of 2min walk-2 min jog intervals for a total of almost half an hour. I gradually increased my total running time til I could do 30 minutes with no problem and built up from there. And if there was ever a point in which my running form fell apart, I’d stop. I’ve never had any running related problems. [/quote]
When I restarted running last year I fucked up hard. At this point I was on a bit of a downward spiral and had let my fitness slide for awhile. Work loaded me on a physically intensive course and I had 5 weeks to go from zero to hero. On week 1 I couldn’t run a mile without stopping to walk one or two times and the pace was brutally slow. In week 5 I ran three 10k. On the third one my form broke down at the 6km mark and I decided to muscle my way through. I plodded the last 4km, bruised the cartilage in both knees and couldn’t run without pain for the next six months.
I ran 2 miles on Saturday and another 2 miles on Sunday. Set a PR on squats on Monday (385x3), did HIIT on Monday and Tuesday (Tabata on an exercise bike) and today I ran 3 miles. Tomorrow we’re going to march a little over 4 miles with a 60lb rucksack and on Friday we’re going to run 6.2 miles, after which I’m going to PR on deadlifts and take the weekend off.
The human body is capable of so much more than most people give it credit for.
[quote]some_dude wrote:
Running is harder on the joints. In response the body makes them stronger. Same deal as with weightlifting. You stress the body and the body adapts to the stress. Most runners develop heavier and stronger skeletons than cyclists due to the impact absorbed by the body. [/quote]
Agreed. What strikes me as ironic is fear or running because of it being hard on joints but at the same time chasing 300+ pound benches and 500+ pound squats and deadlfts.
Four or five days per week of weight training, especially with multijoint exercises and Olympic lifts with relatively heavy weight poses some risk too.
[/quote]
Risk reward. For poeple trying to get big and srong, the reward for chasing the squat and deadlift numbers is worth the risk of joint issues. Running does not offer the same reward for that individual for the extra wear on the joints.
I actually kind of like running (former XC runner as well).
But honestly body comp seems to always be better when NOT doing it consistently. Completely anecdotal, but that was enough for me to not do it consistently. Plus, I feel with running long distance, you kind of ‘top out’ easier. I can either run for a longer time, or a longer distance. I can try to make my time ‘faster’, but at that point I have a different ‘goal’ in mind I guess.
Regardless, jogging for 60+ minutes or 5+ miles becomes just a hassle after awhile IMO. Stuff like sprints and complexes, it’s you can manipulate rest intervals, weights, distance, time, reps, sets, etc. Basically, I like having more options to adjust when I ‘stall’ when fat loss is concerned, or even just for change of pace.
[quote]Spidey22 wrote:
I actually kind of like running (former XC runner as well).
But honestly body comp seems to always be better when NOT doing it consistently. Completely anecdotal, but that was enough for me to not do it consistently. Plus, I feel with running long distance, you kind of ‘top out’ easier. I can either run for a longer time, or a longer distance. I can try to make my time ‘faster’, but at that point I have a different ‘goal’ in mind I guess.
Regardless, jogging for 60+ minutes or 5+ miles becomes just a hassle after awhile IMO. Stuff like sprints and complexes, it’s you can manipulate rest intervals, weights, distance, time, reps, sets, etc. Basically, I like having more options to adjust when I ‘stall’ when fat loss is concerned, or even just for change of pace. [/quote]
Things were so much clearer when there was a race every Saturday…
These days, I don’t really feel like there’s much point to running, unless you’re training for something specifically. From an aerobic standpoint, there just seem to be much better options, whether it be using a strength-endurance approach or an interval approach.
Granted, if you’re fairly new to running, there’s probably some benefits until you adapt.
I agree that I think the fear of the catabolic effects of running is largely overblown and taken out of context. Maybe it’s that people look at the physiques of Olympic level marathoners and conclude that if they run they will shrivel up and look like them too. If you were running and training in the style and to level of these athletes, then yes it would be very hard to build any significant muscle mass. However, for the average meathead, going for a 20-30 min run a few times a week isn’t going to significantly inhibit muscle growth.
I think that it’s a situation of not seeing the forest for the trees. After reading these and other forums, as well as talking to other lifters, I’ve concluded that a lot of people get really bogged down in the minutiae of strength training when they’d be much better served by simply concentrating on the basics. I can’t tell you how many conversations I’ve overheard at gyms between people discussing the exact number of grams of BCAA’s that should be ingested periworkout and the proper amount of internal/external rotation of the shoulder at various points in the ROM of a DB shoulder press to better hit the anterior delts, when, invariably, these people’s physiques and lifts are absolute shit.
If you are a mid to high-level COMPETITIVE powerlifter or bodybuilder then by all means you probably should consider these things. Otherwise, I think 99% of the general public should just find a basic program, a basic diet, forget about the supps and just shut-up and actually DO THE PROGRAM for 6 months to a year.