Jogging for the first time in 40 years - sheer torture!

[rijb]

9 minutes ago, Lokie said:

your knee joints were not designed to be carrying you jogging in later years

Source?  Maybe joints are not designed for obesity.

[Lokie]

1 minute ago, rijb said:

Source?  Maybe joints are not designed for obesity.

Source? - Common Sense, and I agree with your line also

[rijb]

4 minutes ago, Lokie said:

Source? - Common Sense, and I agree with your line also

“Common sense is what tells us the earth is flat.” 
― Stuart Chase, Language in Thought and Action

[tropo]

20 minutes ago, Lokie said:

  No pain no gain crap when your older is a bit daft... Use your common sense and listen to your body...

1

Wise words! It's a hard habit to break when you've been at it for decades, but it pays off when you ease off. To be honest, even in my 20's I should have heeded this advice.

 

No pain - no gain is bs at any age.

[tropo]

19 minutes ago, rijb said:

Source?  Maybe joints are not designed for obesity.

LOL> why would you need a source for that? Obviously, as we age the body deteriorates and eventually it stops and we die. There is no cure for it. The smart thing to do is to be kind to joints and exercise them in a non-destructive way. This is not the dark ages when walking and jogging were probably the only way to exercise. We now have technology on our side.

 

Also, it's body weight that we're interested in. You can be heavy and solid too. The feet, knees and hips don't care if the weight is fat or muscle, it's still force upon joints.

[rijb]

17 minutes ago, tropo said:

why would you need a source for that?

Because I found a number of sources that contradict previous statements in this thread.

 

Put Those Shoes On: Running Won't Kill Your Knees. Yes, it's true: Jogging, long thought to hurt knees with all that pounding and rattling around, may actually be beneficial for the complex and critical joint. There are caveats, though, especially for people who have suffered significant knee injury or are overweight.Mar 28, 2011  - - Google

 

 “A lot of concerns about age-appropriate exercise modalities have turned out to be more speculative than real over the years,”

 

https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/10/ask-well-is-jogging-bad-for-older-people/?_r=0

[tropo]

15 minutes ago, rijb said:

Because I found a number of sources that contradict previous statements in this thread.

 

Put Those Shoes On: Running Won't Kill Your Knees. Yes, it's true: Jogging, long thought to hurt knees with all that pounding and rattling around, may actually be beneficial for the complex and critical joint. There are caveats, though, especially for people who have suffered significant knee injury or are overweight.Mar 28, 2011  - - Google

 

 “A lot of concerns about age-appropriate exercise modalities have turned out to be more speculative than real over the years,”

 

https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/10/ask-well-is-jogging-bad-for-older-people/?_r=0

 

Let's analyse the NY times report carefully:

 

They sited 2 studies (I have bolded some key points):

 

This one:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Abstract

There is a dose-response relationship between physical activity and the reduced risk of some diseases (eg, cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus). At a certain "dose," however, the reduced risk of some diseases may be offset by an increased risk of injury and osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis can be caused by trauma to, or overuse of, the joints. Sports injuries often occur as a result of dysfunctions in balance or the musculoskeletal system operating in nonneutral mechanics. It is unclear if long-distance running causes the knee and hip joints to deteriorate. The results of animal studies reveal a pattern of increased incidence of arthritis in these joints when there is a history of injury or use in atypical environments (eg, laboratory settings). Human studies show an increase in radiographic evidence of osteoarthritis in endurance sports athletes, but no related increase in symptoms reported. Although there are not currently enough data to give clear recommendations to long-distance runners, it appears that long-distance running does not increase the risk of osteoarthritis of the knees and hips for healthy people who have no other counterindications for this kind of physical activity. Long-distance running might even have a protective effect against joint degeneration. The authors recommend further study.

==============================================================================================================================

There's a lot of mights and maybes there, and a recommendation for further study.

 

And this one:

===============================================================================================================================

RESULTS:

Of the 74,752 runners, 2004 reported OA and 259 reported hip replacements during the 7.1-yr follow-up; whereas of the 14,625 walkers, 696 reported OA and 114 reported hip replacements during the 5.7-yr follow-up. Compared with running <1.8 MET · h · d(-1), the risks for OA and hip replacement decreased as follows: 1) 18.1% (P = 0.01) and 35.1% (P = 0.03) for the 1.8- and 3.6-MET · h · d(-1) run, respectively; 2) 16.1% (P = 0.03) and 50.4% (P = 0.002) for the 3.6- and 5.4-MET · h · d(-1) run, respectively; and 3) 15.6% (P = 0.02) and 38.5% (P = 0.01) for the ≥ 5.4-MET · h · d(-1) run, suggesting that the risk reduction mostly occurred by 1.8 MET · h · d(-1). Baseline BMI was strongly associated with both OA (5.0% increase per kilogram per square meter, P = 2 × 10(-8)) and hip replacement risks (9.8% increase per kilogram per square meter, P = 4.8 × 10(-5)), and adjustment for BMI substantially diminished the risk reduction from running ≥ 1.8 MET · h · d(-1) for OA (from 16.5%, P = 0.01, to 8.6%, P = 0.21) and hip replacement (from 40.4%, P = 0.005, to 28.5%, P = 0.07). The reductions in OA and hip replacement risk by exceeding 1.8 MET · h · d(-1) did not differ significantly between runners and walkers. Other (nonrunning) exercise increased the risk of OA by 2.4% (P = 0.009) and hip replacement by 5.0% per MET · h · d(-1) (P = 0.02), independent of BMI.

CONCLUSIONS:

Running significantly reduced OA and hip replacement risk due to, in part, running's association with lower BMI, whereas other exercise increased OA and hip replacement risk.

===============================================================================================================================

The decreased risk of OA for runners in this study is correlated to runner's BMI, not the activity. It is fairly intuitive that heavy people would tend to walk and not run, so the results don't have a lot of significance to our debate here. Walkers are more likely to have pre-existing conditions that make running problematic.

 

Significantly, this study doesn't mention age at all.

 

Neither of these study change my conclusion: If you're a lightweight and young - knock yourself out and run, run, run. If you're heavy and/or old, walk, or find another exercise solution.

 

 

[rijb]

I suppose challenging you to a race, to settle this, is out of the question.

[tropo]

17 minutes ago, rijb said:

I suppose challenging you to a race, to settle this, is out of the question.

Yeah, I'd be walking. We could have a race on the rowing machine LOL.

[mommysboy]

I would say that jogging is best left to youngsters if we are talking about long durations and distances, but there's no harm in low intensity, provided of course there are no joint problems; this latter point should go without saying.  If you have a look, the real runners- who may go in to their 80's -are usually slim and even very slim, and they have a natural runner's gait.

 

I was out there today.  It's getting hot- even at 5pm. No place for the unfit imo.

[Aforek]

9 hours ago, mommysboy said:

Aside from Tropo we havent mentioned heat, and duration.

 

I'm not in to torture so I don't exercise while the sun is up.  I find 5pm onwards is ok.  I can't help thinking running during the day is dangerous.

 

There are two solutions: in the morning at 6h30 or at 5 pm ( I did both, and for 5 pm I know a place with trees and because sun is already down a little bit , there is already some shadow ) ; don't run in the afternoon , it's difficult and body doesn't like !

as said above, running can be addictive ( dopamine, and other hormones , all good for the health )

[tropo]

1 hour ago, Aforek said:

There are two solutions: in the morning at 6h30 or at 5 pm ( I did both, and for 5 pm I know a place with trees and because sun is already down a little bit , there is already some shadow ) ; don't run in the afternoon , it's difficult and body doesn't like !

as said above, running can be addictive ( dopamine, and other hormones , all good for the health )

I've exercised all my life and I can say with certainty that I've never developed an addiction for it, which is actually quite lucky. Addictions are likely to lead to over training. Your brain should be leading the way, not your hormones.

[Gerard052]

I am 71 years old and I run 10km a day, 6 days a week no problem.  There is a 68 year old man who lives not very far from my house and so far has run 100 marathons and has no intention of slowing down.  He looks very healthy and has no problems with his joints, I guess not everybody is built the same.

[tropo]

31 minutes ago, Gerard052 said:

I am 71 years old and I run 10km a day, 6 days a week no problem.  There is a 68 year old man who lives not very far from my house and so far has run 100 marathons and has no intention of slowing down.  He looks very healthy and has no problems with his joints, I guess not everybody is built the same.

 

How much do you weigh?  

 

I'd have to ask, why would you run 6 days a week? Why not 3 days and do other stuff to develop more rounded fitness. 

 

I think we've ascertained that if you're healthy, light weight and have been jogging most of your life, jogging to a ripe old age may work, but here we're dealing with a late 50's punter who hasn't run for 40 years.

[Gerard052]

16 hours ago, tropo said:

How much do you weigh?  

 

I'd have to ask, why would you run 6 days a week? Why not 3 days and do other stuff to develop more rounded fitness. 

 

I think we've ascertained that if you're healthy, light weight and have been jogging most of your life, jogging to a ripe old age may work, but here we're dealing with a late 50's punter who hasn't run for 40 years.

Well I play golf 7 times a week(walk) weather permitting and I bike to the golf course,(3km one way).  I am 1.72m tall and weight 72kg.

[tropo]

1 hour ago, Gerard052 said:

Well I play golf 7 times a week(walk) weather permitting and I bike to the golf course,(3km one way).  I am 1.72m tall and weight 72kg.

1

 

 

You are doing very well - that's a lot of exercise. I was just curious as to why you run 6 days a week. Do you think that if you rest more you're going to lose something? Rest is always an essential part of any exercise program - as important as the exercise. Rest is important to recharge physically and mentally.

 

Have you ever considered that if you rested more you could be in much better condition than you are now? 

 

If I had to suggest to people that in order to get fit and into good shape they had to run 6 days a week, most would never start. I would suggest 3 times a week or every other day of doing the same exercise as the ideal frequency to get fit and into shape. If more training days are desired, then do different exercises on the days off. Running with Swimming is a superb combination as it takes care of the upper body, which is neglected in running, and gives the joints some relief from the constant pounding. Running/rowing is another good combination.

[TKDfella]

As I have said before, we are all different and a person has decide what kind of exercise is best. In my youth I was a short distance sprint athlete but anything over 1/4 mile was definitely avoided. One only has to look at the Olympic games and the differences in stature between runners. One has to decide just whereabouts on the scale one is and exercise according to ones own physique. At 74 years old I still exercise in the Martial Arts (at least 1&1/2 hours every morning). I used to trot around the local lake and do other exercise inside the park but now the road around the lake is jammed solid all through the day and the air one breathes is sadly much polluted. I train barefoot on Olympic grade jigsaw and outside wearing suitable footwear.

It is important for any routine that you warm up before doing your main routine and then warm down at the end. Get to know your own body and limitations and realise that most of the time you might be working against Gravity but there are some useful exercises where you can use Gravity to help you. 

As other posters here have said, there can be lot to exercising so give it some thought first and don't rush it

[mommysboy]

19 hours ago, Gerard052 said:

I am 71 years old and I run 10km a day, 6 days a week no problem.  There is a 68 year old man who lives not very far from my house and so far has run 100 marathons and has no intention of slowing down.  He looks very healthy and has no problems with his joints, I guess not everybody is built the same.

 

You're not the average bloke, that's for sure.  I'd guess you have been blessed with exceptional natural fitness and ability.

 

Even in my sporty twenties I could not exercise every day without getting very tired and achy- max 3 times a week, less if there was a football match.

 

 

 

 

[Lokie]

Some good discussion and points made on repetitive exercise and appropriate rest intervals for body and muscle groups the latter being much neglected or not even given any thought by most people, like the benefits of good sleep also.

 

Myself have always been powerfully built, ran 100/200mtrs at school, done Shot Put/Discus and played Football and Rugby into my 20s (definitely not cut out for distance lol) I now walk a lot and in LOS eat quite healthy, do Gym 5 days p/wk mix of cardio and light weights (just to tone) I sleep like a Tot most nights and feel refreshed in the mornings, morning walks are one of best times of the day for me, seeing the same people out taking a stroll/jogging, locals going  about their business, all good stuff...

[tropo]

1 hour ago, mommysboy said:

 

You're not the average bloke, that's for sure.  I'd guess you have been blessed with exceptional natural fitness and ability.

 

Even in my sporty twenties I could not exercise every day without getting very tired and achy- max 3 times a week, less if there was a football match.

1

I'm sure most of us CAN exercise 6 days a week, but the question should be about what the optimum level is, not how often we can do it. 

 

I use performance as a guide. If I'm cruising along without showing any improvements (fitness, endurance or strength) I re-evaluate my program to try to improve it. That often includes altering the frequency that I do any particular exercise. One of the hardest things for many enthusiasts to do is taking days off when often this is all that is required to start improving again if one is stagnating. Less can often be more, especially when over training is leading to injury and stagnation.

[Gerard052]

5 hours ago, tropo said:

You are doing very well - that's a lot of exercise. I was just curious as to why you run 6 days a week. Do you think that if you rest more you're going to lose something? Rest is always an essential part of any exercise program - as important as the exercise. Rest is important to recharge physically and mentally.

 

Have you ever considered that if you rested more you could be in much better condition than you are now? 

 

If I had to suggest to people that in order to get fit and into good shape they had to run 6 days a week, most would never start. I would suggest 3 times a week or every other day of doing the same exercise as the ideal frequency to get fit and into shape. If more training days are desired, then do different exercises on the days off. Running with Swimming is a superb combination as it takes care of the upper body, which is neglected in running, and gives the joints some relief from the constant pounding. Running/rowing is another good combination.

I wouldn't mind doing some swimming but unfortunately I swim like a rock.  Golf is my passion and I am addicted to running and lucky for me so far so good, no sore joints.  I hope it stays that way for a couple more years. 

[tropo]

38 minutes ago, Gerard052 said:

I wouldn't mind doing some swimming but unfortunately I swim like a rock.  Golf is my passion and I am addicted to running and lucky for me so far so good, no sore joints.  I hope it stays that way for a couple more years. 

 

 

It looks like you have been lucky so far, but why rely on luck? There are better ways to train.

 

You say you're "addicted". What happens when you take some time off. Do you really run 312 days or 3120 km per year?

 

 

 

 

[Gerard052]

11 hours ago, tropo said:

It looks like you have been lucky so far, but why rely on luck? There are better ways to train.

 

You say you're "addicted". What happens when you take some time off. Do you really run 312 days or 3120 km per year?

 

 

 

 

Close to it. Sunday is my day off, I just relax after a round of golf.

[JSixpack]

Why You Should Not Be Running

[cornishcarlos]

42 minutes ago, JSixpack said:

Why You Should Not Be Running

 

Interesting article 

There are always conflicting theories though !!

[mommysboy]

I wanted to up my jogging, so for the last week have been running harder for consecutive days.  The upshot is I have worsened a minor, nagging hip/groin strain.  Nothing bad, but it does illustrate that jogging should be moderated and not undertaken with even minor injuries, probably even creaky knees.  Fortunately, I just need a few days rest.

[kiwiaussie]

Congrats on starting the jogging. I took up running in my 40's. I never considered myself a runner, and still don't.

 

I started like you, I couldn't run 100m without falling in an exhausted heap. There are some good 0 to 5km programs around. Basically it starts more walking than jogging. Walk for 2 mins. Run slowly for 1min. Repeat.

 

Basically you build up endurance very slowly. Over a period of 12 weeks, you'll find you can run 30-40 mins without stopping and easily knock over 5km without too much effort.

 

I've never been a fast runner but am up to doing half marathons. My times a pitiful, but that isn't what I'm after. I'm surprised that I can now run 2.5 hours without stopping.

 

The knees have held up fine. I've always invested in a reasonable pair of shoes, made sure to stretch, and cause I'm not going too fast, I think that helps too.

 

Al the best with it. I'm sure you can do it.

[tropo]

2 hours ago, cornishcarlos said:

 

Interesting article 

There are always conflicting theories though !!

 

 

What conflicting theories? That running is the best exercise and strength training is no good and we shouldn't do it? That would be the opposite of this article (conflict). I'd be interested in reading that theory.

 

Sarcopenia is one of the most visible signs of aging in people over 50. Muscle loss starts in the extremities - forearms, upper arm and legs and works its way slowly through the whole body. We should be doing all we can to hold on to or increase our muscle mass - not running it off in the mistaken belief that light body weight means low fat. It can also mean "no muscle".

 

I don't do long slow cardio exercise - ever. Everything I do focuses on working and strengthening muscles. In the process, the heart gets plenty of work and doesn't require separate "cardio" sessions.

 

Here's an example of a rowing circuit I do. This is 6x5 minute rows with 5 strength (weight training) movements in between the rowing intervals. I would consider this far superior to going out for a low-intensity jog to maintain my heart at a steady state and it works my heart harder. It's a full body workout that works every muscle in the body.

 

This particular session was 90 minutes long and chewed through approximately 1400 calories. The average heart rate was 133 bpm and max was 168 bpm. 

 

(this also demonstrates why I don't find exercise addictive. It's damn hard work LOL)

 

[cornishcarlos]

1 hour ago, tropo said:

What conflicting theories? That running is the best exercise and strength training is no good and we shouldn't do it? That would be the opposite of this article (conflict). I'd be interested in reading that theory.

 

Sarcopenia is one of the most visible signs of aging in people over 50. Muscle loss starts in the extremities - forearms, upper arm and legs and works its way slowly through the whole body. We should be doing all we can to hold on to or increase our muscle mass - not running it off in the mistaken belief that light body weight means low fat. It can also mean "no muscle".

 

I don't do long slow cardio exercise - ever. Everything I do focuses on working and strengthening muscles. In the process, the heart gets plenty of work and doesn't require separate "cardio" sessions.

 

Here's an example of a rowing circuit I do. This is 6x5 minute rows with 5 strength (weight training) movements in between the rowing intervals. I would consider this far superior to going out for a low-intensity jog to maintain my heart at a steady state and it works my heart harder. It's a full body workout that works every muscle in the body.

 

This particular session was 90 minutes long and chewed through approximately 1400 calories. The average heart rate was 133 bpm and max was 168 bpm. 

 

(this also demonstrates why I don't find exercise addictive. It's damn hard work LOL)

 

 

There are always studies coming out that contradict previous studies, no matter what subject....

Just last week a leading heart surgeon was advocating eating "more" salt !!

 

I didn't say there was a specific theory that strength training is bad, but different studies, at different times come up with different suggestions :)

 

Personally, I just mix it up and eat a varied diet but try to control the amount i.e. nothing in excess...

[tropo]

1 hour ago, cornishcarlos said:

 

There are always studies coming out that contradict previous studies, no matter what subject....

Just last week a leading heart surgeon was advocating eating "more" salt !!

 

I didn't say there was a specific theory that strength training is bad, but different studies, at different times come up with different suggestions :)

 

Personally, I just mix it up and eat a varied diet but try to control the amount i.e. nothing in excess...

 

 

 

Of course, there are always conflicting results of studies depending on how the studies were conducted. The biggest problem of all is that humans are very difficult to study. Degenerative diseases of the joints such as OA take decades to develop and the causes thereof are still debatable.

 

But the basic facts offered in that article are non-debatable. Sarcopenia is a universal problem among aging humans, and the only way to slow it down is through resistance/strength training. You will not slow down or reverse the effects of sarcopenia by running. You cannot build leg muscle mass from jogging and you certainly will not develop any upper body muscle mass. People who jog a lot usually resemble older people with advanced sarcopenia (skinny arms and legs).

 

Note: The article mentioned that strength training increases bone density. At age 50 I had a DEXA scan to determine my bone density. It was 2 standard deviations higher than average for a 20-year-old.