Why women shouldn't run

[purdy65]

Does anybody buy this?

http://www.dangerouslyhardcore.com/5343 ... d-not-run/

[ngcaper]

NO!!! I don't buy this. And from a guys point of view, me being that guy, I think women who run are the most attractive with the best physiques.

I have a neighbor who started running 2yrs ago. She was alarmingly heavy when she started and she'd sneak around the loop in our neighborhood painfully slow, and early, likely embarrassed and wanted no one to see her...yes that early. She's kept it up, and having not seen her through the winter, I bumped into her 2 days ago and was surprised at the improvement in her health and appearance. She has a way to go...but impressive, and its all running she told me.

Now the reason you shouldn't run is to allow me to finish higher in my races. You're all too fast

[Jwolf]

Link doesn't work, but I'm not sure I want to read it anyway!

[purdy65]

Jenn - basically saying steady cardio cause release of certain thyroid enzymes (paraphrasing here) and cause more fat cells to be generated.

Link works here, but maybe cut and paste?

Not my experience, but I do know some female runners who have had a hard time losing weight. What they are eating? Who knows.

[ngcaper]

Jenn - basically saying steady cardio cause release of certain thyroid enzymes (paraphrasing here) and cause more fat cells to be generated.

Link works here, but maybe cut and paste?

Not my experience, but I do know some female runners who have had a hard time losing weight. What they are eating? Who knows.

My mother went through chemo after a double mastectomy and gained 5lbs...it had nothing to do with what she was eating so tough to say why some men or women don't lose weight.

[Hammie]

absolute and utter garbage.

If you want a more rational and evidence-based assessment of what we do and don't know about endurance exercise and thyroid function, try Alex Hutchinson http://www.runnersworld.com/health/how- ... vice-versa

[Jwolf]

OK, it loaded in FireFox.

Anyway, I don't buy it.

First of all, this isn't really about "Why women shouldn't run" (I thought it was going to be about something about our ligaments, joints, or other body issues), but more "Why women who want to lose weight shouldn't run." I still don't buy it. I'm not sure why running is singled out here-- really they are just talking about how your body will adapt if you only do steady aerobic exercise and don't mix it up (or speed up as your body adapts). Running is unique here, but I guess some people who run tend to just do the same pace all the time.

I've only had a hard time losing weight when I can't run enough.

[Jwolf]

absolute and utter garbage.

If you want a more rational and evidence-based assessment of what we do and don't know about endurance exercise and thyroid function, try Alex Hutchinson http://www.runnersworld.com/health/how- ... vice-versa

Thanks for this.

[Robinandamelia]

Jenn - basically saying steady cardio cause release of certain thyroid enzymes (paraphrasing here) and cause more fat cells to be generated.

Not my experience, but I do know some female runners who have had a hard time losing weight. What they are eating? Who knows.

Could have some truth... seems to be the case for me though I'm also peri-menopausal (sorry guys) so who knows which is to blame!

[Joe Dwarf]

Not sure about his science but I do know that when I look at the people, men and women, who show up for the races locally I see a much higher percentage of fit-looking people than average. Sure there are still a variety of body shapes but it sure is skewed to the fit end of things.

OTOH if you are looking for overall fitness then slogging it out for LSDs on the treadmill is definitely not the most efficient way to do it.

[ian]

I managed to read the entire article. The guy isn't entirely off the mark with some of the metabolic discussions, but he overgeneralized in a few key places:
(1) He keeps referring to 20+ hours per week of low-end cardio. Other than Spirit, and perhaps a couple of our ultranuts, I can't think of anyone on this board who gets near those numbers, and yet the sensationalized headline leads you to believe that even 2 hours per week of running would be just as bad.
(2) He refers to the eating habits of those who do lots of exercise. This is an absolutely valid point that has come up elsewhere on this board: you can't exercise your way out of a bad diet. Unfortunately, he then avoids the obvious suggestion of eating better and instead figures that it's the exercise that's the problem.
(3) He starts to classify the different ranges of aerobic intensity (walking, then gym machines, all the way up to HIIT) and points out the limitations of putting in so many hours in that intermediate zone. OK, how about a constructive suggestion: switch some of the weekly workload to higher intensities. This is well known to any runner who has ever followed a training program.

In short, the website is selling something, and in my experience as an academic, anyone who needs to include terms like "magna cum laude" (i.e., your undergraduate marks were good enough to get into grad school) and "doctoral candidate" (i.e., your grad school didn't kick you out after your candidacy exam but you still have a lot of work ahead of you before you finish) alongside their name is hoping that these credentials might support weak work.

[AjaxRunner]

I managed to read the entire article. The guy isn't entirely off the mark with some of the metabolic discussions, but he overgeneralized in a few key places:
(1) He keeps referring to 20+ hours per week of low-end cardio. Other than Spirit, and perhaps a couple of our ultranuts, I can't think of anyone on this board who gets near those numbers, and yet the sensationalized headline leads you to believe that even 2 hours per week of running would be just as bad.
(2) He refers to the eating habits of those who do lots of exercise. This is an absolutely valid point that has come up elsewhere on this board: you can't exercise your way out of a bad diet. Unfortunately, he then avoids the obvious suggestion of eating better and instead figures that it's the exercise that's the problem.
(3) He starts to classify the different ranges of aerobic intensity (walking, then gym machines, all the way up to HIIT) and points out the limitations of putting in so many hours in that intermediate zone. OK, how about a constructive suggestion: switch some of the weekly workload to higher intensities. This is well known to any runner who has ever followed a training program.

In short, the website is selling something, and in my experience as an academic, anyone who needs to include terms like "magna cum laude" (i.e., your undergraduate marks were good enough to get into grad school) and "doctoral candidate" (i.e., your grad school didn't kick you out after your candidacy exam but you still have a lot of work ahead of you before you finish) alongside their name is hoping that these credentials might support weak work.

Great summary. I agree.

Writer is also looking at it more from a "body sculpting" perspective than anything else.

[MichaelMc]

Quite a bit of nonsense in there interspersed with a few facts to further an agenda.

The site caters to people who choose to cut bodyfat to a bare minimum for competition purposes: this colors the analysis. I was a freestyle wrestler and owned a bodybuilding gym, so I understand the mindset, but it isn't your average person or even your average runner's mindset. Thyroid metabolism is the latest focus for many amateur scientists, but the effect of exercise on thyroid function is not clear at all.

This article really doesn't add anything to the debate, unfortunately.

[Ken B]

I have only an argument for why women should run. Because I like to run with them. ( Men as well) Why cut down on possible running partners??

[QuickChick]

It's absolutely true that you can't eat yourself out of a bad diet. It's also true that by putting on more muscle mass you'll burn fat more efficiently. I hate the "all or nothing" mentality put forth in this article, however. How about, like Ian says, not running at the same pace all the time, or not eating 4000 calories worth of cheesecake on a regular basis?? I was a lot "softer" before I started running- not overweight, but close to 10 pounds more than my happy weight has been for the last 12 years. It came off over the first probably 2-3 years of distance training, during which I was doing hills, speed, long runs, etc. It did take quite a lot of running to make it come off, and if I had dieted I'm sure it would've come off faster, but it did work eventually!

[jamix]

I managed to read the entire article. The guy isn't entirely off the mark with some of the metabolic discussions, but he overgeneralized in a few key places:
(1) He keeps referring to 20+ hours per week of low-end cardio. Other than Spirit, and perhaps a couple of our ultranuts, I can't think of anyone on this board who gets near those numbers, and yet the sensationalized headline leads you to believe that even 2 hours per week of running would be just as bad.
(2) He refers to the eating habits of those who do lots of exercise. This is an absolutely valid point that has come up elsewhere on this board: you can't exercise your way out of a bad diet. Unfortunately, he then avoids the obvious suggestion of eating better and instead figures that it's the exercise that's the problem.
(3) He starts to classify the different ranges of aerobic intensity (walking, then gym machines, all the way up to HIIT) and points out the limitations of putting in so many hours in that intermediate zone. OK, how about a constructive suggestion: switch some of the weekly workload to higher intensities. This is well known to any runner who has ever followed a training program.

In short, the website is selling something, and in my experience as an academic, anyone who needs to include terms like "magna cum laude" (i.e., your undergraduate marks were good enough to get into grad school) and "doctoral candidate" (i.e., your grad school didn't kick you out after your candidacy exam but you still have a lot of work ahead of you before you finish) alongside their name is hoping that these credentials might support weak work.

This.

It was mentioned that the original article was posted on EliteFitness, where most of the authors or "experts" come from a bodybuilding background I believe. The authors tend to be more bias against steady state cardio than fitness experts from other disciplines.

[purdy65]

Also,

What if I want to do steady state cardio - run or whatever - just because I like it as well as it's other physical and psychological benefits ASIDE from fat loss.

Ian has, as usual hit the nail on the head with his analysis.

[Avis]

Also,

What if I want to do steady state cardio - run or whatever - just because I like it as well as it's other physical and psychological benefits ASIDE from fat loss.

Ian has, as usual hit the nail on the head with his analysis.

+1
Steady-state cardio has it's place in fitness...My quick impression of the article is that the author is conflating several factors: women gain weight from too much steady-state cardio, and/or because they pig out at the Cheesecake Factory.

For the record, my thyroid levels normalized after I had been running for a couple of years, just sayin'.

[turd ferguson]

Science aside...

I'm not the sort of overly sensitive person who sees bias under every rock, but that article had a disturbing current of sexism underlying just about every paragraph. I don't think the author thinks much of women.

[Jwolf]

There certainly is a lot of excess fat on these women.



Makes me want to avoid the treadmill at all costs.

[turd ferguson]

There certainly is a lot of excess fat on these women.



Makes me want to avoid the treadmill at all costs.

Clearly they're on their way to the Cheesecake Factory to register for a charity marathon. Or something.

[ultraslacker]

wait, Cheesecake Factory sponsors marathons?! Sign me up!

[dgrant]

Science aside...

I'm not the sort of overly sensitive person who sees bias under every rock, but that article had a disturbing current of sexism underlying just about every paragraph. I don't think the author thinks much of women.

Agree 100%

[Hammie]

Science aside...

I'm not the sort of overly sensitive person who sees bias under every rock, but that article had a disturbing current of sexism underlying just about every paragraph. I don't think the author thinks much of women.

Agree 100%

Me too.

[NMG]

I don't get it either. If women enjoy running (for whatever reason), who the heck is the author of that article to suggest that they shouldn't? They obviously feel like they are more significant than they are if they believe their opinion should sway such a large percentage of the population from doing something they find enjoyable.