Skip navigation

Jockology

Will running ruin my knees?

From Friday's Globe and Mail

Studies show that non-runners are more likely to develop osteoarthritis than those who regularly pound the pavement ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Clive Gingell from Canada writes: Anecdotal evidence only, YMMV: I used to run over 100km a week, now I have osteoarthritis in the knees. But maybe I'd've got it anyway.
  2. Albin Forone from Canada writes: Good piece, corroborates a recent segment on the Australian public radio 'Health Report.' Apart from arthritis, I once asked an expert about elliptical trainers and other 'low impact' cardio alternatives to running, and was given the interesting warning that too little impact over the long term would decrease bone density, while impact forces bone to strengthen. On the other hand, the caveat about selection for committed 'long distance runners' who tend to a pretty distinct body type, is well taken.
  3. Paul G from Toronto, Canada writes: Clive Gingell from Canada writes: '...I used to run over 100km a week, now I have osteoarthritis in the knees.'

    In reality it takes an elite runner nearly a week to recover from a marathon. But according to Clive Gingell he ran three marathons a week.

    Interesting.

    ...
  4. Crash Bear Heads from Canada writes:
    @Paul G

    A marathon is 42.2km. Lots of elite runners train 150 - 200km per week.

    Terry Fox ran 143 consecutive days doing marathon distance. Others have done similar feats. Not out of the realm of possibility...
  5. Ace Frehley from Vancouver, Canada writes: Paul G: I don't think Clive is claiming to have raced in three marathons per week.

    Many elite marathoners train 100 miles per week, not km. They don't do them at race pace though. Race miles are far faster and thus require the recovery time. Training miles are, for the most part, considerably slower than race pace. Result: 42 km at race pace requires considerable recovery time (more like 3-4 weeks for most amateur runners). 42 km at training pace should require no more than a day to recover from.

    Maybe before casting aspersion on other people's posts you should do a touch of research. You come off here like a jerk.
  6. Paul G from Toronto, Canada writes: Crash Bear Heads from Canada: '...Lots of elite runners train 150 - 200km per week.'

    Try 150 - 200 km per month, and not every month of the year. An elite runner will run a marathon distance if he is not already scheduled to run a marathon that same month.

    You guys have to get out more.
    ...
  7. Ace Frehley from Vancouver, Canada writes: People who warn you about your knees are usually trying to rationalize their own avoidance of running. If you don't want to run, then don't. But why the need to psychologically sabotage those who do want to run?

    I see the same tactic employed by overweight people against those who are successfully losing weight: 'you shouldn't lose any more weight, you're getting too thin.' This is what I heard from a number of fat friends when I was 6'0' and 200 lbs!
  8. Emilio Garazgos from Canada writes: Paul G from Toronto, Canada writes: Crash Bear Heads from Canada: '...Lots of elite runners train 150 - 200km per week.'

    Try 150 - 200 km per month=====

    Paul G.

    I have a pudgy neighbour in his fifties who took up walking daily about two years ago, I'm guessing on the advice of his doctor (he looks like he would have been a candidate for a heart attack) and has recently begun running on that same route , up to the first sideroad, across to the next concession and back again, about 6 kms in total.

    I know this because I see him every day, year-round, either while I'm out cycling or running with my mutts.

    It doesn't take a math wiz to see that my portly, less-than-athletic neighbour accumulates the distance that you attribute only to 'elite runners'.

    Perhaps you should take your own advice and get out more.
  9. Ivan K- from Toronto, Canada writes: I run 35km a week on average and I'm a mid pack, recreational runner. That's 140km/month. Maybe I should turn pro Paul, wadaya think?

    On a more serious note: I really appreciate these Jockology collumns. It's nice to see articles on the science of running in the Globe.
  10. xxx xxxx from Canada writes: I'm more of a swimmer than runner. I run 15-20 minutes roughly five times weekly. It's not a lot but I do feel there's a compression benefit unlike anything else, and great cardio.
    I' hoping the benefits of running accrue quickly while the injuries take longer.
  11. Ace Frehley from Vancouver, Canada writes: xxx xxxx: 'I' hoping the benefits of running accrue quickly while the injuries take longer.'

    There's no need to get injured while running. It's not an eventuality if you are being reasonable about the amount and the intensity. For most basically healthy people, 15-20 minutes per session for 5 sessions/week is nowhere near enough to get hurt on, provided you aren't going balls-to-the-wall each time.
  12. R E from Vancouver, Canada writes: Ace, what sort of pants do you recommend for someone running with your balls against the wall?
  13. Cycling Commuter from Canada writes: Useful, safe paths completely separate from noisy, smelly motor vehicles would make running, walking and cycling far more popular. Treed paths inside long, thin, covered shopping malls that go for many blocks could be useful for getting some exercise during bad weather while going from A to B.

    Colorado has the lowest rate of obesity in the U.S. because they provide safe infrastructure for walking/running/cycling. See a cnn.com story about this via http://tinyurl.com/yvf39r

    Safe pedestrian/biking infrastructure costs far less to build and maintain than the extra roads and transit that runners/walkers/cyclists would otherwise be forced to use.
  14. Ba Ba from Toronto, Canada writes: Only 150-200 km per MONTH, Paul G?

    Maybe if you're training for 10K races, that would be fine. It appears YOU have to get out more if you are gonna do a half decent job of running that marathon distance, which you seem to profess knowing so much about.
  15. Ace Frehley from Vancouver, Canada writes: R E from Vancouver, Canada writes: Ace, what sort of pants do you recommend for someone running with your balls against the wall?

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

    Someone running with my balls to the wall? Hmm. I'd appreciate some protection against abrasion, but aside from that no particular recommendations.
  16. More or Less from Canada writes: Geez Paul G, I'm a running slug and manage to do 100km per week. I don't run marathons and rarely run races. I just run because it's a wonderful way to see the neighbourhood & countryside. And yes, it's every month of the year--winter is the best time: the perfect morning run is -10C, 15-18km loop and come back feeling reborn. Do that plus a long run on Sunday and you're up to 100km. My knees--well, the knees are okay, it's the bursitis in the hips that's going to stop me one day.
  17. Maaht Dayman from 250 miles or so north of America, Canada writes: More or Less, I too am a running slug, as a matter of fact, slugs have been known to pass me.
    Here in Edmonton the river valley provides some incredible paths to enjoy. I run 12 months a year only stopping at minus 25 or bellow.
    I do about 75k a week. Not sure what paul G is going on about, but the second post where he defends the indefensible gives one a little insight.
  18. emilio D from Canada writes: The MRI and the Stanford university studies suffer from selection bias which should not conclusively say that running does not cause OA. In the Vienna study, seven runners who had taken part in a previous MRI study do not have OA but the rest of the subjects did? There are probably over hundred subjects that developed OA in that study and only seven were picked out. The Stanford study is even worse because they did not mention if the subjects are suffering from obesity or not. Who will get OA more, obese runners or obese non-runners?
  19. R E from Vancouver, Canada writes: whoops...meant 'their'. anyway...friction reducing pants for sure.
  20. emilio D from Canada writes: In all of these studies, there is one thing they completely forgot: age of the subjetcs. OA does not happen in a short period of time. It(OA) starts as soon as you send your applications for Canada pension plan or old age pension. In some cases earlier. Don't run, just walk.
  21. D M from Canada writes: 'emilio D from Canada writes: In the Vienna study, seven runners who had taken part in a previous MRI study do not have OA but the rest of the subjects did? There are probably over hundred subjects that developed OA in that study and only seven were picked out'

    I know they condensed the results for this article, so you never know, but it never says they only picked out seven out of hundreds. Why would you assume so? It appears they only had the opportunity to follow up with seven of them. (Or maybe there were only seven to start with.) The bias was that they were all runners beforehand.

    The Stanford study is even worse because they did not mention if the subjects are suffering from obesity or not. Who will get OA more, obese runners or obese non-runners?

    After 18 years of regular running, how many of those do you really think are still obese?
  22. emilio D from Canada writes: DM, when somebody does a study, it is very important to present baseline data clearly for comparison with the result. In the Vienna study,
    they only presented 7 subjects. I am assuming there were more subjects and why they did not present them is already a bias or a major flaw in methodology. How did they select these 7 subjects? In Stanford study, they compared runners and non-runners but failed to mention if non-runners are obese, diabetic, have a heart condition. Not a very good study to derive a conclusion. Whether they are still obese after 18 years of running is not the objective of the study.
  23. C C from Canada writes: I need to start running! What I worry about my knees isn't arthritis (I'm 18), it's my patellar tracking problems. Oh well, I'll see how it turns out.
  24. Eat your Weedies from Canada writes: So I thik the point could be summed up as follows: exercising frequently and in moderation is good for the joints. I think any reasonable person might conclude this but it's good to have the notion reinforced.

    Personally, I have a condition that requires that I avoid high-impact activities. Nonetheless, I think small amounts of impact on a regular basis would do far more to help me conserve bone density in my joints than a sedentary lifesyle. I think that, to some extent, use it or lose it applies to joints, muscles and brains, too!
  25. Clive Gingell from Canada writes: http://running-marathons-races.suite101.com/article.cfm/marathoningandweight_loss

    Quote: 'Elite marathoners typically run 100 to 150 miles per week.' Unquote.

    I was a basic 7 minute miler, and ran 70 miles a week, (10 miles per day); elite runners, as noted above, will often do twice that, and at a faster pace.

    Paul G sounds like someone who won't change the TV channel if the remote is not within easy reach.
  26. JR CDN in NYC from United States writes:
    emilio D has a point. no study of 100 subjects would ever be taken seriously by the scientific community, let alone 7. They are merely starters to get funding for broader ones. Health and fitness articles in the G&M are great but it seems more and more like AH is the one with the bias towards running. I do too but a good article would address what I should tell my numerous friends that actually do try and run and get intolerable back and knee pains. Try a study comparing people that started running (or other high impact activity) in their teens, or earlier, when their bones were still growing vs their 30s when their bones no longer are.
  27. Joe xyz from Canada writes: Great article, and what a pleasant list of well-intentioned comments! There's no left-versus-right with knees (well, not politically). One hears so many different things, e.g. that runners (and sometimes joggers) get knee problems in later life, while astronauts who spend extended time in gravity-free environments get osteoporosis. There seems to be general agreement that standing up is better than sitting or lying down, or being weightless in space, because bone density and joint strength are somehow responsive to the stress imposed by gravity. Look at the leg-bones of huge dinosaurs – dense and thick, like elephants. To me, having knees but no medical training, the adage may hold true: if you don’t use them, you lose them. Yes, the article raised the point that many who excel at long-distance running are often very thin light-weight people with long spindly legs, which could skew the stats, and I applaud the fact that the topic was pursued beyond simple correlations. Maybe with a FORCED random sample, including the morbidly obese, running huge distances per month, the results would've been very different, and that the morbidly obese would've ended up in hospitals in traction with their knees ground to a pulp. Mostly I applaud the article as a wake-up call re knee health: it is important for younger people to keep fit without traumatizing their knees and other joints, and it is important for retired baby-boomers to get out of their chairs before their knees disintegrate…but I have no expertise at all, although I think that anyone with knees should be free to comment about them without their subjective experiences being construed as medical advice in any sense, i.e. that the idea of a “medical disclaimer” applies not only to the comments, but to the article itself, because reporting on a news release by a medical group cannot sanely be construed as offering medical advice. It was a thought-provoking article that raised awareness about knee health.
  28. Peter the Chanter from France writes: it's not arthritis that i'm worried about, it's those crunchy sounds emanating from behind my patellas. my doctor tells me my running days are numbered; i'm not sure if she's being overly cautious or whether i should begin to think about another way of keeping the weight off. any suggestions?
  29. Eat your Weedies from Canada writes: Peter the Chanter- knees shouldn't crunch! I'd say walk to a swimming pool 1-2 km away from home 3 times a week then swim laps while you are there for 20 minutes. You'll feel like a million bucks, keep some bone density with the (brisk) walking and burn the calories with the swimming!

    (Now, if only I took my own advice...)
  30. Clive Gingell from Canada writes: Peter the Chanter: I had arthroscopy on both knees 10 years ago, cleaned up the crunching but the surgeon said that the cartilage was gone and no more running, ever.

    Talk to an orthopedic-surgeon.
  31. Badges? We don't need no stinking badges from Canada writes: Running's OK..it's falling that ruins knee's.
  32. Darphin Cofa from Canada writes: This study is deeply flawed because of a chicken and egg problem: Is the reason that those people did not run was because when they ran they experienced knee problems so it was not the lack of running caused knee problems. Obviously people who are able to run regularly are likely not experiencing knee problems or else they would have stopped. Just because one set of people who are suited to running have strong joints does not necessarily mean that running was cause of strong joints, but rather, that strong joints enabled them to run regularly.
  33. Peter the Chanter from France writes: shout out to weedies, clive. thanks. dang...i love running, well, my facsimile of running. it's more of an optimistic trot...growing old sucks: where are the snows of yesteryear?
  34. Joe xyz from Canada writes: Darphin Cofa copy-catted what I wrote earlier about analyzing stats, but used slightly different words. Tsk tsk, Darphin, re the plagiarism. Badges made a great point about how falling on a knee causes more problems than any form of exercise, which is an important point to make given the slippery conditions created by the snow-changing-to-rain-dropping-to-supercold-flashfreezing-back-to-snow events this last winter. I bet that there were more falls this past winter, due to flash-frozen-ice covered by snow, than in any other winter in recorded history. People went out to shovel snow and were dropped onto one knee, maybe both, by the hidden ice.
  35. Joe xyz from Canada writes: Also, Eat your Weedies apparently either needs someone to give him reading glasses or remove his blinkers. But wait a minute, didn't Eat Your Weedies run in the Ozarks Derby? I know that horses can be trained to tap out numbers to arithmetic questions, so maybe EYW is a horse tapping a message onto the internet. If so, may his trainers give him an extra handful of oats for his efforts here.
  36. Valerie Spentzos from Vancouver, Canada writes: As one who started running at age 64 and is still road rumming competitive 10 km races at 76, I've never had any problems with knees. Also ran a half-marathon at age 70 in a respectable time. Only thing I've had a problem with was Achilles tendon in first year of running and people of various ages get this sometimes. Usually run around 30 kms a week when training for 10k races.
  37. D M from Canada writes: 'emilio D from Canada writes: DM, when somebody does a study, it is very important to present baseline data clearly for comparison with the result. In the Vienna study, they only presented 7 subjects. I am assuming there were more subjects and why they did not present them is already a bias or a major flaw in methodology.

    No offense, but the only flaw or bias here is the assumption they had hundreds of subjects and only presented 7 of them. Did they? Maybe.. but without evidence (such as reading the article), I would assume they only had seven subjects to begin with, and there was no selection made. IF they had more, I would assume (again, maybe we shouldn't) they would include them all, because 7 subjects isn't very helpful, and they would get much more meaningful data and better article from showing it all.

    emilio D from Canada writes: Whether they are still obese after 18 years of running is not the objective of the study.

    No, still NOT being obese is the objective of the running. :) You were asking about how many of the runners were obese. My point was, since they were running for 18 years, probably not very many.

    Should they include how many suffered from diabetes, etc.? Well, yeah, sure, but you could include a multitude of possible ailments which may or may not affect the results. And, some of these ailments might have developed during the period, so how do you judge that? Pretty impossible. That's one reason you pick many subjects, so you can draw trends regardless of other medical history. Of course, 45 and 53 runners isn't very big, so the conclusions might be taken with a grain of salt, but I would assume it's very hard to get bigger groups.

    Too bad they don't include a link (or reference) to the original articles.
  38. Joe xyz from Canada writes: Valerie Spentzos from Vancouver, Canada writes:' As one who started running at age 64 and is still road rumming competitive 10 km races at 76, I've never had any problems with knees. Also ran a half-marathon at age 70 in a respectable time.' You are an inspiration! Keep it up! I'm considerably younger than 64, but recently smashed my knee and also put my back out reaching for a pencil. I suspect that the key to your success is staying fit so that you are less susceptible to injuries and strains. As the adage goes, if you don't use it, you lose it, so people should get regular exercise whatever their age.
  39. Paul Thompson from Canada writes: It is surprising nobody has mentioned the type of surface one is running on as a factor. Surely running on natural surfaces such as grass or sand-and the latter will give you a very hard workout-will be easier on your knees and other parts than running on roads made of asphalt and concrete. My own health club has two old-fashioned treadmills that are basically just unpowered rubber bands. This rubber has a few inches give to it and I found it to be much easier on my knees and especially the achilles tendons. Regular treadmills with their hard surfaces are better suited for fast-paced walking than all-out running I think.
  40. Clive Gingell from Canada writes: Paul Thompson:

    Some like sand & grass for running, some don't:
    http://sportsmedicine.about.com/od/injuryprevention/a/runonsand.htm
  41. Paul G from Toronto, Canada writes: A lot of conjecture in this thread. Let's get back to reality folks.

    In terms of mileage, runners who train for a marathon will do their peak running of around 100 km a week for just 2 or 3 weeks, then cut back to just half that distance for 2 to 3 weeks to build energy just prior to the big event. These elite runners will do only two or three marathons a year.

    To claim that marathoners run over 100 km a week every week is a bit much. There's a good movie that came out earlier this year, a documentary of a recent Chicago marathon called 'Spirit of the Marathon'. It provides a lot of background for the marathon scene and what runner's go through. It takes many years to become an elite runner.
    ...
  42. Paul Thompson from Canada writes: Clive, I like running on grass but running on sand knocks the sh*t out of me. It's like running 2 miles on sand equals 5 or 6 on other surfaces.
  43. David Gibson from Hamilton, Canada writes: Running did in my knees, but I don't run now, I walk, including hills. They are fine, without running.
  44. Clive Gingell from Canada writes: http://www.runpunxsyrun.org/walterstack.htm

    Quote: 'Every day* for 27 years, until sidelined by failing health in
    1993, Stack would set out on his bike and ride the six hilly miles from his Potrero Hill
    home to Fisherman's Wharf. There he'd strip off his shirt - to display the tattoos of
    peacocks, wild horses, and bathing beauties muraled across his broad, rawhide
    chest -
    and run over the Golden Gate Bridge to Sausalito and back, 17 miles *.'
  45. Stude Ham from Outremont, Canada writes:

    So will running over to the tv to change channels, instead of pummelling the clicker, delay those nasty consequences of aging?

    and would walking to the local mart sporting an oversized pot belly be just as good as pummelling the marathons?

    there's got to be a study on that somewhere... and it will be pleasantly surprising to have the g&m publish these nobel prize winning studies.
  46. John Brown from Maritimes, Canada writes: Remember Jim Fixx, the jogging/running advocate; I have to wonder if he had Osteo-arthritis when he passed away of a heart attack. Exercise of any type is perfectly fine as long as it is done in moderation. Remember Arnold Schwarzneggar the Austrian body-builder now California State governor, a heart attack waiting to happen. Upon further reflection, maybe had I taken up jogging/running on my hands I would not have OA in my shoulders and neck now. Go figure as we age our body develops all kinds of little maladies which cause us havoc. My wife of 28 years has always been physically active albeit not a jogger/runner and she just had spinal surgery for a condition likely caused by Rheumatoid arthritis and she is no spring chicken either and surprise of all, our 21 year old daughter is no little porker like so many young we see today and damned if she is not inflicted with arthritis as well; not surprising when one considers the maternal grandmother and great grandmother had arthritis as well, heredity probably caused from not jogging/running daily not likely. Our tax dollars go toward funding these studies.
  47. Clive Gingell from Canada writes: Jim Fixx, before he began running, was an overweight two pack a day smoker with a family history of heart disease; and his body, as with all others, was subject to built-in obsolescence.

    All the running in the world won't change that.

    As the T-shirt says:

    Eat Well
    Exercise Regularly
    Die anyway
  48. jimmie rabbit from toronto, Canada writes: running is bad for your knees. watch tv instead and subscribe to a fitness magazine.
  49. varun xm from toronto, Canada writes: The article linked by Clive above is misleading. !! Running on sand, grass is not for all - but for those who can - it is FAR, FAR better than running on a treadmill or asphalt. One can run barefoot for one. That said, it is good to be cautious before attempting the same.

    A very simple check to see if you are ready for running on uneven surfaces is to look at the bottom of your running shoes. If your heel is even partially worn out, you have poor running form. The first thing to do would be to increase the strength of your iliotibial band and your achilles tendon. Then practice forefoot running. It is tough on the tendon, but immensely rewarding in the long run. You will BOUND rather than trot. Eventually, with the right strength training and yoga you should be ready to try out running on grass or on sand.

    I only bring this up because I personally find the barefoot grass/sand experience very pleasurable. dont want peeps to be dissuaded from trying out the same because of some worrywart on about.com.

    cheers.
  50. varun xm from toronto, Canada writes: Paul - another reason to bare it all. I dont run in 'sand' as such, but on the edge of the water, where the waves lap the sand. Another good way to find out if one's stride is right. If the print is more than the toes and the ball of the foot, there's something wrong with the style.

    happy running. it's a beaut of a day here in TeeOh.
  51. Jonathon Goodman from Cuba writes: PAUL:

    you are implying that your knee condition has something to do with your running. Not necessarily so. This could be for many reasons with a Psy... before the word or it could be 'bad luck genetics' or the result of poor diet or poor nutrition in your prime growing years. It could also be poor shoes, bad or uneven training paths etc. etc.

    I am not an expert but drawing that conclusion is not good advise as I suspect you are an intelligent person and keen athlete.
  52. Ace Frehley from Vancouver, Canada writes: Paul G from Toronto, Canada writes: A lot of conjecture in this thread. Let's get back to reality folks.

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

    You didn't know what you were talking about the first time you spouted off. You still don't know what you are talking about. You have no credibility on this topic so forget it.
  53. jim bob mahoney from toronto, Canada writes: started running 8 years ago with terrible osteoarthritis, and a bad patellar tendon. A slug at best, now run about 40 miles per week. Can put in 15 mile runs every week without issue. The strengthening effect, and natural lubing helps to cure the problem, not make it worse. What makes it bad is the super humans that expect to be able to do 100 km a week in the first month. Most research will tell you to not even attempt a 10k run until after a year of running experience, a 1/2 after 2, and a marathon after 3. It is a slow process of building miles and speed, but overall your knees will thank you for it. I proved it myself (after 4 cartilage operations) by improving my overall knee health.
  54. Paul G from Toronto, Canada writes: jim bob mahoney from toronto... finally a post with correct information and relative. Something that Clive and Ace could learn from.

    Clive Gingell, you still crack me up. You refer to a guy named 'Stack' from yesteryear??? How deep did you have to dig for that reference? Couldn't find something more current or mainstream to make your point? I wouldn't have laughed so hard if you had mentioned Forest Gump... he was a runner too ya know... LOL
    ...
  55. Eat your Weedies from Canada writes: You know, I think that some bodies are simply not as well designed for running as others. I see so many women- wide hips, heavy breasts- running. I can feel those gravitational forces pounding their poor hip joints and knees and the breasts, well, you know. Some people run that are simply not designed for it.

    Different body types are suited optimally for different activities. Why do so many people insist on running?
  56. M J from Canada writes: Wow lots of very informed people...in my teens (40 years ago) I belonged to a track club. My coach was a future team Canada Coach, I trained/ran 6 days per week, all through out the year travelled for track meets (including winter...indoor). I had some of the best training facilities available, yet at the age of 19, I was told by my orthepedic surgeon to quit running, otherwise within 5-10 years I would quit walking. Over the years, I had had to give up various sports because of the impact and damage done to my knees. I see people running on the side of the road, some I wonder if they are doing themselves more damage than good because of their form (throw back to my training) and yet the comments I see make me wonder, not about peoples knees, but about their brains....running like anything depends on the person, not the actual activity. Some people can run, others can't; some people swim, other's can't, some people ski others snow board. The important thing is not what you do to stay in shape, it's the keeping active that's important...not your weight, not what you do, not how you do it...just stay active in whatever you do. If you love dancing, don't run...dance and enjoy. You are still doing what's important...be active and happy...and forget what everbody else comments on, they don't know you.
  57. Clive Gingell from Canada writes: Paul G says 'Clive Gingell, you still crack me up. You refer to a guy named 'Stack' from yesteryear??? How deep did you have to dig for that reference?'
    ...............

    It will, quite obviously, come as some surprise to you but Walt Stack was pretty much a 'legend' , very well known in running circles, and the subject of numerous articles in running magazines.

    Your comment reinforces the obvious, (that other posters have commented on); that you are an uninformed child with no knowledge of anything.

    Best keep your ignorance to yourself.
  58. Paul G from Toronto, Canada writes: Clive Gingell from Canada, your comments reinforce the obvious; that you cannot defend your position because you have to resort to making personal comments about me particularly when you have no idea who I am or what I have done.

    Best try to stay relevant and on topic and try remaining objective too... and keep your personal comments about me to yourself.
    ...
  59. Clive Gingell from Canada writes: Paul G: I don't HAVE a position to defend. I said that I used to run 70 miles a week, and that is what I DID!

    And I was a middle of the pack, mediocre runner at best.

    You, however, on your first post, insinuated that I was lying, although YOU know nothing about ME. (And, evidently, little or nothing about running, as others here have attested.)

    Then, when I link to a guy who is/was a virtual running icon, you, showing your ignorance, scoff at his exploits. (If the topic was WWII would you also ask who 'that guy Churchill' was?)

    So, yes, I DO know about you. You're an arrogant, ignorant little twit, who's out of his depth.
  60. natural blonde from Canada writes: Paul G, by your comments I'm guessing you are not a runner. It's not uncommon for a recreational runner to rack up 100k/week. I am far, far from elite and regularly do 50-60k/week. A lot of recreational runners I know do ~80k/week, several do more like 100k/week. Anecdotal I know, but a fellow runner would recognize that 100k/week is not in the realm of the elite athlete. It adds up quickly when you run 5-6 times a week, including a long run.
  61. natural blonde from Canada writes: One further comment, about Spirit of the Marathon. This movie focused on 6 runners: 2 elites, 1 serious runner (Boston hopeful) and 3 casual runners. Enjoyable entertainment, but only skims the surface of running and marathon training.

    I think this article is targetted to average folks, not elite runners.
  62. Paul G from Toronto, Canada writes: Clive Gingell: Sorry you're upset. But apparently this guy 'Walt Stack' you mention was known to stop mid race to eat waffles and often crossed the finish line holding an open beer (or two).

    Walt Stack might be a legend but only in terms of his attitude. Have you ever thought about emulating this guy? He doesn't sound like the type who would attack someone.
    ...
  63. Clive Gingell from Canada writes: And calling someone a liar ('In reality it takes an elite runner nearly a week to recover from a marathon. But according to Clive Gingell he ran three marathons a week.'), isn't an attack?

    Now, (since you apparently don't run), take a hike.
  64. Paul G from Toronto, Canada writes: Clive Gingell: My comment was open ended, I had only called your data into question. I have made no personal comments in this thread.

    However, after several attacks against me I will say Clive that you are a piece of work.
    ...
  65. varun xm from toronto, Canada writes: this is not related to the flame war above - but mileage does not necessarily correlate to ability. Hey! Even bannister trained less than 40K a week ;-)

    i appreciate the idea that doing a 'marathon' gets people off the couch - and good for them - but have the folks on this forum considered trying for PB's in the 100m or even the mile?
  66. Eat your Weedies from Canada writes: Paul G and Clive- get a room!
  67. whatevah D from Canada writes: More or Less from Canada writes: Geez Paul G, I'm a running slug and manage to do 100km per week. I don't run marathons and rarely run races. I just run because it's a wonderful way to see the neighbourhood & countryside. And yes, it's every month of the year--winter is the best time: the perfect morning run is -10C, 15-18km loop and come back feeling reborn. Do that plus a long run on Sunday and you're up to 100km. My knees--well, the knees are okay, it's the bursitis in the hips that's going to stop me one day.

    If you're running that much, you're no running slug.
  68. whatevah D from Canada writes: natural blonde from Canada writes: Paul G, by your comments I'm guessing you are not a runner. It's not uncommon for a recreational runner to rack up 100k/week. I am far, far from elite and regularly do 50-60k/week. A lot of recreational runners I know do ~80k/week, several do more like 100k/week. Anecdotal I know, but a fellow runner would recognize that 100k/week is not in the realm of the elite athlete. It adds up quickly when you run 5-6 times a week, including a long run.

    When you say recreational runner are you still talking marathoners? I ask because I ran three halfs and I could pretty much guarantee I never hit 100Km a week. maybe half that... just curious. Here I thought I was doing well with those miles;)
  69. capt. peachfuzz from Canada writes: This is another unfortunate example of a pseudo-scientific study,that basically is not worth the paper it is written on.There is ,as some posters have mentioned,no data presented to indicate anything about test group,There are so many variables that could mitigate these results that as I said makes it worthless as any realistic indicator as to potential problems that could present due to distance running. For one thing do you think that the knees can be presented in total isolation,and not take in to account,hips ,spine,shoulders,neck,ankles,etc.they are all joined together you know. As a strength & conditioning specialist,I will not make a blanket statement like the one presented in this article,some people can get away with running distance,for a while,but others would be better served by participating in short track,or medium distance natural surface running. I could go on but I think my point has been presented.
  70. Alastair james Berry from Nanaimo BC CANADA, Canada writes:
    Seems to me that Marathon Runners WILL HAVE OA of the knees at age 75 regardless!

    But if a knee has been injured even to the extent of simple WATER ON THE KNEE OA will set in at least 5 years earlier.

    Now this is just from personal experience and observation as I only ran 1/2 marathons until 53 then hiked up hills until 70.

    Certainly I have never seen a good knee in later life if a cartelage was removed , surgical 'shaving' done or cruciate repair.
  71. Clive Gingell from Canada writes: Read the comments:

    http://www.coolrunning.com.au/forums/index.php?showtopic=17005
  72. natural blonde from Canada writes: Hey Whatevah D, I'm talking mostly marathoners, some halfers. I've personally never run 100k/week, not even when training for a marathon, but I know I run less than most marathoners. And I still think I'm doing pretty well getting in the miles I do.
  73. Paul G from Toronto, Canada writes: Clive Gingell from Canada writes: Read the comments:

    http://www.coolrunning.com.au/forums/index.php?showtopic=17005

    Yes Clive, marathoners do run 100 km a week but not much more and only during their peak training periods of 2 to 3 weeks... not year round.

    Spin, spin, spin...
    ...
  74. whatevah D from Canada writes: natural blonde: thanks for explaining. cheers.
  75. Trish Taylor from Canada writes: Paul Thompson: Clive, I like running on grass but running on sand knocks the sh*t out of me. It's like running 2 miles on sand equals 5 or 6 on other surfaces.

    Interesting comment. I did some beach running while nursing a foot injury (still had a need to get out there and run at least some) and I found that running on the packed sand was harder on my injury than running on pavement. Did not run near the water's edge and had my shoes on. My theory is that the sand dries hard like cement while pavement still has at least a little rebound to it. Any comments on that? (If anyone is still reading this!)
  76. Murray Braithwaite from Canada writes: I used to love running but gave it up because I could feel its impact on my knees and it was beginning to affect skiing. Instead I train on an elliptical, do weights, mountain bike (speedplay pedals to ease stress on the knee), kayak and ski. No knee issues since I quit running. If you are concerned about bone density, drink milk and lift weights. A good book on brain health--The Brain Trust--by a neurosurgeon-neuroscientist recommends against sports with continual jolting of the head, such as running. Obviously being fit improves brain health--running involves a trade-off.

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top