For women. IMO, this could also apply to men as well.
Should Most Women Run Long Distances?
Michael Boyle
I really like Physical Therapist Diane Lee's quote 'you can't run to get fit, you need to be fit to run". In fact I've used it in numerous presentations and articles. It really resonates with me. Simple, to the point.
I'm going to take the idea one step further. I'm not sure most women should run. When I say this in seminars it really pisses off the female runners. However, the truth is I'm not worried about female runners as much as I am worried about coaches and trainers encouraging or worse yet forcing females to run. If you are a female runner and healthy, read on but realize that you may be the exception, not the rule.
I'm going to go from bad to worse. Here's a riddle for you.
Q- What do most elite female runners look like? A- Elite men runners
Ever ask yourself why? I'm going to let you in on a little secret. Women who run successfully for long periods of time were probably made to run. They look very much like men runners. Good female runners generally do not look like plus size models. They are generally not tall. It's not a question of cause and effect, it's a question of natural selection. You can't run to get that runners body. It's actually reversed. You have to have that runners body to survive running.
Why do I say this? Two simple reasons. Anatomy and physics. My favorite two sciences. No matter how hard you try or how well you eat, you can't change your skeleton. The problem with most women and running comes down to something they call Q angle in sportsmedicine. I won't bore you with the details but it boils down to this. Wider hips make for narrow knees. This angle of hip to knee creates problems. Problems are magnified based on number of steps. The average person gets about 1500 foot strikes per mile. You do the math on a 5 mile run. Running produces forces in the area of two to five times bodyweight per foot contact. Do we need more math than that?
Lets go back to our elite female runner. Look at her body. You will generally see two things. She has narrow hips and she has small breasts. I know, there may be exceptions but, at the elite level I doubt it. One thought process would say "great, my hips and breasts will decrease in size if I run". The other thought process is more logical. Women with larger breasts and wider hips don't make good runners. It the same logic as why there are no large gymnasts or figure skaters. Physics. Big people would rotate slower. Natural selection rules out.
So what happens when a "normal" woman begins to run? She becomes a statistic. She becomes a physical therapy client as she tries to shovel you-know-what against the tide. Her wider knees cause her to develop foot problems or knee problems. Her greater bodyweight causes greater ground reaction forces. Greater ground reaction forces stress muscle tissue and breast tissue. Get my drift yet. The end result might be hurt and saggy instead of the runners body.
The bottom line. Distance unning is not good for most females. If you want higher intensity exercise, ride a stationary bike. Take a spin class, use a stairclimber, don't run.
PS- the best stuff is the hard stuff. Use the AirDyne Bike or the StepMill. Don't take the easy way out.
Should Women Run? Part 2
My "Should Women Run Column" hopefully made some people think. One person followed up and said it took guts to take a stand like that. Others were not so complimentary. Check out Nancy Toby's blog entry from Jan 4, 2007.
"Want to get pissed off? Get a load of this article
I'll bet that dinosaur is real popular with his female clients, eh? I'll get right on that stationary bike, you betcha. Yeah, since I'm training for that Olympic stationary bike competition, after all."
Unfortunately, this is the problem with writing. Oftentimes people read what they want to read. They interpret it through a personal lens. Nancy took my article as an attack on her and those like her. Nancy is a runner and has completed a marathon. She is exactly the type of person who I would expect to have a negative response. I'm not going to blame my editor here but, the title of the piece I submitted was "Should Women Run?" The title was deliberately phrased as a question.
The reality is that whether you are a male or female endurance athlete, training can lead to overuse injury. My point is that the female bodytype puts them at greater risk. Was my article intended to be a chauvinist rant aimed at demeaning women? No, exactly the opposite. It is meant as a word to the wise.
Here is another interesting thought for which I have only anecdotal support. The running and aerobics boom of the late seventies corresponded directly with a huge boom in the practice of physical therapy. More exercise led to more injuries in our more is better world. People weren't happy with a run. It had to be a Marathon. It is tough to look at something you enjoy and realize that it may not be good for you. I had the same experience in the eighties. I realized that exercises like squats, bench presses and deadlifts may not be good for you long term. I have also written about this on websites devoted to serious weightlifters and have generated the same type of negative feedback.
Sorry Nancy, I'm not a dinosaur. I'm actually a coach and educator who is not afraid to take an unpopular stance. I've actually coached some of the best female athletes in the world. I worked with the Gold Medal Olympic teams in Women's Ice Hockey in 1998 and Women's Soccer in 2004. Actually I think I'm very popular with the female athletes I coach. One reason I'm very popular with them is that we rarely did endurance training. And you know what, they stayed very healthy.
So while I'm generating hate mail, let me take my Neanderthal opinions a step further. I think most endurance training is questionable also. I don't allow my athletes to run distances. I think it produces primarily a negative response. Conditioning is developed far better by interval training than by steady state work. How's that for blog fodder. I wonder if women should run and if anyone should ever run far. Have fun bashing me. I'll be on the lookout.
PS- You can tell Julia that business is fine.
Should Women Run Part 3
This is the third and final installment of my "Should Women Run" series. First things first. I'm not saying stop running. The purpose of this series is to promote a cautious, thoughtful attitude, not to stop those who are running pain-free from continuing.
However, it is clear that the majority of those females who take up running do so as a weight loss/ weight control method. The point of these articles is explore the idea that running may be a poor exercise choice for weight loss as a participant and even worse, a poor recommendation for a client if you are a trainer.
A group of researchers at the Natick Army Labs in Natick, Ma published a 1994 study in which they noted, "Studies of runners and other physically active groups have consistently demonstrated that greater duration and frequency of exercises are associated with higher risks of injury" (1). In other words the more often and farther you run, the more likely you are to be injured. More importantly, they also noted that women were six to ten times more likely to be injured than men. Coincidence? I think not. It goes back to the anatomical concepts discussed in part one of this series.
I understand that people were offended by both my language and their perception of my views but, that does not change the facts. More is not better, particularly not for women. Women are six to ten times more likely to be injured in endurance training than men.
I didn't make this up. These are facts based on research. The risks for females are statistically greater. My detractors have called me a Neanderthal, and a "nut-case idiot". Other respondents have labeled my first article a "piece of crap. None of the personal attacks can alter the facts. As Bill Belichek is fond of saying, "it is what it is".
A few more facts to clear up. The previously mentioned Nancy Toby says "He (that would be me) "claims" to have "coached some of the best female athletes in the world." Sorry, I'm not trying to be self serving but I don't claim to have coached some of the best female athletes in the world, I have coached them. Check my resume. It is not a claim. Toby goes on to state that "it does nothing to substantiate my point". In reality it does everything to substantiate my point. My job was to prepare some of the best female athletes in the world and in doing so I study science like the above cited study. The results of my research have caused me to use running with great caution. Interval running is the best tool for conditioning available. However, distance running is an activity that should be approached with caution. You need to look at your goals or the goals of your client. Does distance running coincide with the stated goals? If the goal is to run a road race, then running is a necessity. If the goal is fat loss or increased conditioning, distance running may not be the first choice. It really comes down to choosing the right tool for the job. I have a saying that I like. "Chainsaws are a bad choice for moulding". Wrong tool for the job. Too rough for fine work. Distance running may be the wrong choice for most females if they are running for weight control or fitness.
References
