I'm another person who hates running but do it moderately as it's a very efficient form of exercise.
I also do intermittent fasting, which also change you leptin levels. One thing I've noticed is that I have less hunger pangs when fasting when I can do a run in the middle of the day.
Also, I find it easier to find motivation to exercise when fasted than not. As a matter of fact, I only run on days I fast these days. There was another article earlier this week about this study which says exactly that and theorise that it might be an evolutionary thing, if you're skinny and hungry, you need to hunt, if you're satieted and fat, you're OK with just napping for a while.
> I'm another person who hates running but do it moderately as it's a very efficient form of exercise
Interesting point of view! Many people run despite the harm it may cause (esp. to their knees and back) because they love to run. But if you remove enjoyment out of the equation, I assume there are other forms of exercises that are safer and as "efficient" as running.
- you can't cheat and ignore it, you run or you walk (you can coast while biking, you can swim slowly, etc...)
- you can open your door and star running. Mist other sports, you need to go somewhere before you start doing the sport (swimming pool, mountain, dojo, etc...)
- no other sport I have done build cardio in a few weeks like running does.
Keep in mind that I don't try to promote running, I literally hate it, I just enjoy the results given the low time investment.
I started running regularly about 30 years ago. I hated it for about 5 years, and then began to enjoy it. Now, I look forward to it, enjoy it, and miss it when for some reason I can't.
It's not time wasted, either, because I work on my most difficult programming problems while running.
The assertion is that it's an efficient exercise, not an efficient form of movement. It's actually an efficient exercise because it's less efficient in terms of movement than alternatives (which were listed).
It's boring, painful, and promotes over-use injuries. Most people don't wear proper shoes, or run with proper form, putting extra stress on their joints or striking on their heels.
Endurance running isn't great training for anything besides endurance running - any sort of sport-based activity includes lots of short sprints, lateral changes in direction, back-pedaling, jumping, not extended straight-line, moderate-pace running. If pure cardio is what you want, jumping rope is more efficient.
It really depends on what you consider endurance running. A marathon distance is quite different than a mile and even a 5k. But all the above require training at various paces. You tend to train your endurance, lactate threshold, vo2 max and pure speed in different ratios depending on the distance. Granted many runners don't push themselves that much but to each their own...
As for boring I have been doing it for 25 years so I'd have to disagree. I have made most of my friends through running as well as my fiance. I have run a high 4 minute mile and a sub 2:50 marathon. I have run boston twice. It is my constant companion through the highs and lows of my life. I'm also basically the same weight I was in college 20ish years later. Any place I visit I can get a workout in with a pair of shorts and shoes. I have run in london, istanbul, amsterdam, paris, buenos aires, vancouver, rome, venice and many american cities and many rural areas and digesting a new place at a slower pace than driving is really special in my opinion (I realize I am very fortunate to have been even able to visit those places).
I would also argue that it's not running that promotes injury. It's the 40+ hours a week of sitting most of us spend on our asses. How do you expect your hamstrings to work smoothly when they live in that shortened position most of the time?
I run about 30 miles a week currently (much less than my 50 to 60 of yesteryear) and I do find as I get older I need to spend more time on auxiliary exercises to be a more balanced athlete and human.
Anyways... Probably not going to convince you but at least this is a counterpoint.
I don't really disagree with your points, but I think you are still arguing something slightly different than the original statement. The original supporting points make it obvious that efficiency is referring the the whole of the exercise routine, not just the portion spent exerting yourself. A sport based activity may be a better workout, but you generally don't start that workout as soon as you step out your door.
> If pure cardio is what you want, jumping rope is more efficient.
I imagine it is. I suspect getting the majority of your exercise doing something the human body has evolved to be extremely efficient at is not the most efficient use of the time, depending on your goal. I think one of the major benefits of running (even though I hate doing it) is its convenience (which sort of ties into how efficiency was being used previously).
I think jumping rope is even more boring than running + you can cheat by slowing down.
I have seriously looked into "running properly" and have tried to run barefoot a lot (which forces you to not heel-strike etc...) but I'm in a cold climate and it physically impossible ot run barefoot in the winter, and I never managed to get used to pebbles!
I keep my distance to about ~ 21 km / week max (typically less), which I am thinking is low enough not to do too much damage.
All other form of sports you are talking about require me to go somewhere, etc... which burns a lot of time. I enjoy other sports (hiking, swimming, skiing to certain extent, used to sail and do martial arts, ice skating) when I can, but not as regularly, and I'll argue not enough, because of time constraint.
There are at least a few great shoes out there that will let you run with (more) proper form and still give you some protection from the cold and rocks. Have you given any of them a try? Admittedly, you'll never have as good form in a shoe, but you can get close.
I have found that switching to the "POSE" running regime has eliminated running injuries - not had a running injury in over 10 years, so with good form, running can be safe. Before switching, I had 20+ years of intermittent injuries. For normal people I can only think of skipping with weighted handles that would go beyond running.
> Many people run despite the harm it may cause (esp. to their knees and back)
There has never been a study to my knowledge that running hurts your knees or back. Any study I have seen shows that it helps your knees, but it may suffer from some selection bias.
Remember, just because "common wisdom" says something does not make it true. This is one of those cases.
Here's an article that cites two studies that show runners suffer from fewer knee issues.
> The other U.S. study was from 2013 and involved more than 74,000. The runners reported a lower rate of knee arthritis and a lower risk of needing knee replacement surgery.
I wonder what you mean by "efficient form of exercise".
Can you compare it to swimming and rowing (the sliding seat kind).
BTW, I don't run.
I won't go as far as saying I hate it. I just don't enjoy it. Also, we have runners in the family. Every single one of them has had problems with their knees, ankles, hips, tendons, etc. A couple of surgeries here and there too.
I do swim and row. I enjoy both and find them very relaxing and mentally stimulating. I swim both at our local olympic-size pool and lake for the open experience. I also row at the same lake.
My definition of efficiency is, loosely stated, using the most major muscle groups per unit time. This means a bunch of things depending on what you are trying to achieve.
For weight loss, for example, I think it is hard to beat swimming or rowing. Swimming, in particular, probably takes the lead because you expend calories two fold: The first is moving. The second is thermally, as you are immersed in water colder than your core temperature and your body has to deal with that the entire time you are immersed.
For strength and muscle tone both are good but I'd probably suggest rowing might have a bit of an advantage because you engage muscles through a longer range of motion under a non-trivial load.
> Also, we have runners in the family. Every single one of them has had problems with their knees, ankles, hips, tendons, etc. A couple of surgeries here and there too.
Swimming gets points for having a lower risk of injury, but OTOH, running is good for bone density which can help avoid injuries down the road.
Were your relatives competitive runners who trained hard for races? I think injuries are much less common in casual runners who rarely train to exhaustion, and never try to power through oncoming conditions like shin splints.
See my other reply about what I mean by efficient. Note that swimming will pull less from fat reserve because of the cold, still a very good sport, but you do need to get to a body of water.
I found that when fasting, if I get hungry a good food substitute is a one to two mile walk. It kills the hunger. I suspect without proof that once you force the body to pull from the fat stores that it kinda notices the fact that it's got a food source already. Excersize in the morning is also a decent breakfast substitute for me.
To add to it caffeine also. When I'm fasting and get hungry, anything that increase fatty acid oxidation (runnning walking caffeine weightlifting, etc) makes the hunger go away.
tea is pretty weak on caffeine and depending on the sugar you're + what's in the milk that would likely easily trump the caffeine effect. Caffeine increases lipid oxidation so you get more energy from fat. But sugar will be used up first and if it's enough to raise blood sugar, the drop will spike hunger more than the increased leptin from fat oxidation can stop it.
Since I've began intermittent fasting (Only eating in between 8am-8pm) my appetite and amount I can eat to be satisfied has decreased tremendously. It's crazy how quickly changes can be made to your body
Although religious in origin, I suspect that the idea of an overnight fast became a religious doctrine because of the clear health benefits. Just like many other food prohibitions in religion that have the net effect of improved public health and food safety.
Eating during the day when active raises or at least supports an active metabolism. Eating before going to sleep cause excess energy to be stored.
One can objectively cut through the diet fad, and general weightless noise by looking at the unequivocally consistent success of body builders and athletes in losing fat. This suggests that caloric deficit via increased activity is better then caloric deficit by reducing intake (generally athletes consume more calories then a typical diet, just not as many more as they burn when they are 'cutting').
The effects of the opposite behavior seem to confirm this. Sumo wrestlers build mass by eating a diet high in carbs and sleeping a lot. Mauritanian women traditionally drank camel milk and slept a lot to fatten up before marriage.
So eating the 'entire day' but stopping at least 2-4 hours before sleep seems likely to be at least moderately effective. I wonder if there's been a study... ;)
> One can objectively cut through the diet fad, and general weightless noise by looking at the unequivocally consistent success of body builders and athletes in losing fat. This suggests that caloric deficit via increased activity is better then caloric deficit by reducing intake (typically athletes consume more calories then a typical diet, just not as many more as they burn when they are 'cutting').
It's not consistent. You're only seeing the results on the people it works for.
When we study whether exercise helps people lose weight we tent to see that either it doesn't help, or that it's counter productive and people put on body fat.
People:
1) over estimate how many calories they burn during exercise
2) under estimate how many calories are in food
And then they eat a treat which they feel they've earned, putting them into caloric surplus.
You may say 'yes but we just need to tell them not to eat that treat and they'd be in calorific deficit', and while true it's obviously not going to work because "stop eating so much" has been the consistent message since the 1970s and it obviously doesn't work.
Obese people aren't obese because they sleep a lot or because they don't do any exercise. (I know obese people who do 5k in 25 minutes). Obese people are obese because they eat too much of the wrong food.
I think we're saying exactly the same thing, and I agree that people have the incorrect casual estimations of exercise calories vs food calorie density.
However...
"It's not consistent. You're only seeing the results on the people it works for."
I think this isn't correctly stated, and dangerously gives one the impression that athletes are born not made.
In fact, it is extraordinarily consistent. Outside of disease processes anyone who takes up training like an athlete will begin matching the physique of an athlete. People are athletes buy choice, not by physiological imperative, and this is proven out extensively by people who take up athletic behavior anywhere at any time in life.
As I pointed out with the Sumo example, I'm specifically including all behaviors of athletes not just the exercise portion. That was my point about the value of 'fasting' before going to sleep. Something most athletic diets recommend (also eating more and smaller meals even with the same total calories per day).
As you point out it is psychologically difficult to reduce calories with diet alone. This psychological effect becomes increasingly successful at causing us to consume excess calories the longer or larger a deficit we attempt to maintain. This nearly invariably results in a bounce back effect, and often resulting in a higher 'set weight'. The net effect of diets being a progressive increase in weight over time.
Athletes are consistently successful, dieters are consistently unsuccessful (with the exception of anorexia).
It makes sense that this is true when you start digging into it. Along with improved self image and mood a higher metabolism allows athletes to hold a better physique for longer even with excess calories, while a dieter will 'rebound' more quickly due to lowered metabolism, and the bodies tendency to store fat in response to famine. Further, other than protein sparing diets the diet only approach can lead to loss of muscle as the body consumes it for energy, so after any success with dieting taking in excess calories leads to muscle being replaced with fat.
Eating a bunch of Twinkies is bad, eating them right before going to sleep is worse.
> In fact, it is extraordinarily consistent. Outside of disease processes anyone who takes up training like an athlete will begin matching the physique of an athlete. People are athletes buy choice, not by physiological imperative, and this is proven out extensively by people who take up athletic behavior anywhere at any time in life.
They only become athletic if they keep doing it, and many people are for a variety of reasons unable to keep doing it, which is why "exercise to lose weight" is unhelpful advice and is no longer part of the public health message on obesity. It's still really important to get people to exercise. Just don't claim weight loss as one of the benefits.
Food/drink intake is probably like 90% of it, yeah. It's important to keep track of calories, absolutely avoid shit food and do the right kinds of workouts.
eating within a specific period of time long before you actually go to bed (become sedentary). I wake up anywhere between 7-10 am, immediately go top heavy with big breakfast -- you're going to be moving about the entire day. By dinner time (like 6 or 7), I'm only having a milkshake or something <200 calories. Go to bed around 1 or 2 am.
I also do intermittent fasting, which also change you leptin levels. One thing I've noticed is that I have less hunger pangs when fasting when I can do a run in the middle of the day.
Also, I find it easier to find motivation to exercise when fasted than not. As a matter of fact, I only run on days I fast these days. There was another article earlier this week about this study which says exactly that and theorise that it might be an evolutionary thing, if you're skinny and hungry, you need to hunt, if you're satieted and fat, you're OK with just napping for a while.
*edit: Adding the article https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&tl=en&u=h...