Why running is not for people
BMJ 2003; 327 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7429.1476 (Published 18 December 2003) Cite this as: BMJ 2003;327:1476All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
I must agree on the part about running barefoot. Studies
have shown that indigenous peoples who grow up without shoes
and regularly run barefoot have superior biomechanics,
better posture and certainly have fewer, if any lower
extremity overuse injuries. Wearing cushy shoes decreases
proprioceptive sense in the lower extremities, increasing
changes of injury.
I remember extensive discussion of this topic on the now
deceased Dr. Mel Siff's "Supertraining" Yahoo E-group. Dr.
Siff was a world renowned biomechanist and oftentimes
commented on the benefits of barefoot running.
As far as cavemen and hunter/gatherers running, I would
expect most of it was done barefoot or in primitive leather
shoes with very little "cushy" soles.
As far as the modern version of running, with running on
hard asphalt or concrete surfaces, with interval traininig
and excessive distances, I believe the modern version of
running creates more injuries than anything. While the
modern version of running is great for the cardiovascular
system, its not so great for the lower extremities.
I also strongly believe that ancient hunter/gatherer groups
spent more time walking long distances than running long
distances. The human body was designed to walk long
distances, not necessarily to run long distances. Walking is
probably a better activity for overall longevity compared to
running.
I dont know how anyone can claim that heavy modern version
running can contribute to health. If you show up at a
marathon, what a lot of the runners are talking about are
their injuries. Excessive long distance running such as
marathoning or ultra marathoning causes lowered testosterone
levels, higher cortisol levels, is catabolic and lowers
immunity. Not to mention the overuse pounding the lower
extremities take. It also tends to create an overfocused,
obsessive type psychological state, where runners feel
guilty and sometimes become anxious or upset when they are
unable to run for any reason.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Having spoken to Peter in person, he does make a very good case for
running with a forefoot strike action, rather than a heel strike.
This method is also much more condusive to a free flowing action,
whereas the heel strike causes constant deceleration with each strike
Since implementing this method, I have found all discomfort in my
knees has all but disappeared. Could it be that we are not designed to jog
on our heels and we are better suited to a method that more closely
resembles a sprinting technique? This would seem more pertinent to the
"hunter / gatherer lifestyle.
Ta Peter, ( English friend of your youngest)
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
In response to `But is it worth it?'
I refer back to my original post on 19 December.
I'm not all that concerned about increasing life expectancy, but
rather increasing period of independant living, and preventing disability
as we age. The effect of running (and exercise) is more likely to have an
effect here than on total life expectancy.
Is it worth it? Yes.
I dont find it boring when running in a group of other runners.
Competing interests:
I'll keep running
Competing interests: No competing interests
There seems to be ample evidence that running, like most forms of
exercise, is good for you. However, I have heard it suggested, although
admittedly not from a very reliable source [1], that the increase in life
expectancy gained from regular exercise is actually less than the sum of
time you spend exercising. If that is true, then you have to wonder
whether it is really worth it.
Does anyone know of any reliable statistics on this?
References:
1. A bloke told me this in the pub last night.
Competing interests:
I have tried running for the sake of my health, and found it rather boring.
Competing interests: No competing interests
The article published on the evolution of running in Humans is very
interesting.The controversy surrounding running can be compared to the
Atkin's Diet controversy.
It is very difficult in the present day to actually sit down and say that
running is not good for health or that humans are not 'designed' to run.
I am not contradicting the author on his research which says that the
two legged humans are not suited for long runs whatever the road surface
be. Well ofcourse we know that, we also know that humans are not suited
for cycling on metallic objects or swimming in water without fins or
gills. So why do we humans carry out such pleasurable activities. The
answer is pure fun.
Running on its own is not responsible for causing cartilage damage,
tendon and ligament injuries. Infact it is known to act as a positive
enforcer for strengthening muscle, improve coordination and balance and
thereby prevent falls,soft tissue injuries and fractures. These all points
have been proven time and again in the past.
So why is the controversy about running ongoing for so long?
From my observation there are currently three schools of thought
1. Those who advocate running, as a means of exercising and keeping fit.
Things like health of sporty and active children and adults positively
supports the idea of running.
2. The second school of thought is run by people who are against running.
Their facts are normally based on the evidence obtained from medical
journals where prolonged running or sports careers have contributed to
certain types of running specific injuries.
3. The Third school of thought, which comprises of the majority of people,
are the ones who honestly dont care about running or any form of exercise
at all. infact this group is commonly makes the sedentary group. they also
tend to support the 'do not run school'.Their motto is 'Less exercise the
better'
So what do we conclude from all the controversy? Like Atkins Diet, running
is here to stay. people like me that includes sportsmen, exercise fanatics
and keep fit people are going to run for life no matter what and how it
affects the human body. There are known benefits of exercise and running is
one such cheap, effective and enjoyable activity. And honestly it doenst
matter how our ancesters caught preys and survived.Its a different era and
we are living in a different world full of gadgets and equipments.So
better start moving and be active.
Competing interests:
Sports Medicine Physician
Competing interests: No competing interests
In reference to the article by Mr. Arnold, I think we should
remember that still today the controversy on wether running is good or bad
for people, still persists.. What it is clear and there is no doubt about
it is the fact that regular physical activity is has positive effects on
the health.
Nevertheless I believe that we, as doctors, should bear in mind the
need to differenciate the recommendation from the prescription, in the
case of running.
There are usually a great number of doctors who recommend physical
activity but only a few can prescribe it correctly, thus the patient lies
only on himself the moment he begins a physical exercise programme.
There are persons who will turn out to benefied from it and will
enjoy feeling the wind on their faces and the sensation of flying ,
whereas for others this will be a cause of damage.
It is our responsability as professionals of the health, to know whom,
where, how much. This is the part of medicine related to the art, the art
of knowing that every person is unic.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
I expect humans in evolution used a variety of techniques to hunt.
Peter Arnold strongly suggests that stealth was the primary method used
for hunting. Indeed, I think this is the major method used by the Kalahari
Bushmen today.
However, I also think there may be strong evidence of the need for
running in human evolution. We must not forget that humans were on
occasion hunted as well. A chance encounter with a pride of lions would be
one example where sprinting may be advantageous.
Running therefore I argue is one of the necessary behaviours that
humans have displayed as it forms part of the well described "fight or
flight" response.
Running may also have been required if a single beast from large group of
animals was the indended quarry.
Incidentally, having spent the first seven years of my life in
Zambia, I can confirm that I ran quite frequently, barefoot. As such, most
of the surfaces encountered were acceptable for such activity and I
sustained no running injury in the course of my first seven years.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
I admit that running all the time on hard surfaces is not optimal for
the human skeleton BUT there is no evidence base for Peter Arnold's
assertion that this running leads to innumerable meniscal tears and
articular damage in the knee-these problems are actually associated with
football-with the soft surface of grass and the constant twisting on a
fixed lower leg of the thigh.Running is the easiest and most beneficial
aerobic exercise for anyone to access and to pursue it regularly is
probably the most beneficial preventative health measure anyone in the
developed and undeveloped world can follow.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
The suggestion that man was not designed for running contradicts the
beliefs of some anthropologists who believe man evolved as a diurnal
endurance predator. This is supported by the evolution of an anatomy
featuring long tapered limbs with more mass concentrated near the hips,
energy conserving spring-like tendons, and the cooling effects of sweat
glands working with a nearly hairless body giving us a being that was an
adept endurance runner.
Our barefoot ancestors would have been free from the troubles of
ankle sprains mentioned by the author, if you concur with the studies that
suggest footwear use is responsible for ankle injury. The bare foot, in
fact, is also a superior transportation mode because of the increased
shock absorption it helps provide. Throw away your shoes and you will
have a runner with fewer overuse injuries and one who easily adapts to
irregular ground surfaces thanks to the increased suppleness of the foot.
Competing interests:
A coach of runners
Competing interests: No competing interests
Re: Why running is not for people
In a book which is a treatise on how to run well, Gordon Pirie states that injuries straightforwardly stem from a flawed running style. Little remembered now, Pirie was the most consistently solid runner of 1950s Britain. There has been no dearth of books on track-and-field since the Olympics began in 1896, but works by pioneer athletes, record-breakers such as Pirie amongst them, possess a certain weight because each page seems to be a crystallisation of gladiatorial sweat.
Over his sixty years (1931–1991), Pirie worked out the kinetics of the human form in motion and lived into a decade, the 1980s, in which the competing nation of “Great Britain (GBR)” became the epicentre of the running world. That 1980s vibrancy came from the triumvirate of Sebastian Coe, Steve Ovett and Steve Cram, a generational blaze of excellence which was inextinguishably brilliant, in part, because of the close proximity of a 1950s precursor such as Gordon Pirie. In the glossary of terms that he coined, Pirie called a victorious sprint-finish a “Fini Britannique.”
Hailing from the north of England, Pirie, “the lion from Leeds,” was first awakened when he watched the electrifying kinesis of Emile Zatopek on the track of the 1948 Olympics in London. From the stands, he cheered for the fair-haired, broad-shouldered figure from eastern Europe as he gunned round the bends of the 5- and 10 000 metres. Renowned for his crucifyingly tough system of training, Zatopek was called “the Czech locomotive” by the running fraternity, and in some minds who have lived the existence of competitive running he has been labelled the most ruggedly accomplished of all the distance specialists. The Czech’s runs from the middle of the twentieth century are monuments. In his Olympic appearances at Helsinki in 1952, Zatopek won triple gold for the 5 000 metres, 10 000 metres, and in a kaleidoscope of locomotion even had the doggedness to beat the world record-holder in an event outside the bounds of his remit – the marathon.
“Zatopek! Zatopek! Zatopek!” shouted the obstreperous crowds. With the Herculean athleticism came the hospitality of eastern Europe, as experienced by the nimblest runner of the 1960s, Ron Clarke, who had occasion to visit Emile Zatopek at his home in Prague in 1968. Although the Australian had broken several world records, a gold medal had always eluded him at the world championships. On parting at Prague airport, Clarke had a small parcel knuckled into his palm by Zatopek. Once on the flight, Clarke was intrigued by what he had been given, and took the parcel to the toilet and tore through the layers of wrapping. It was Emile Zatopek’s 10 000-metre gold from the 1952 Olympics, the yellow surface of the medal engraved with Clarke’s name. Sitting in the claustrophobic space, the Australian wept.
Gordon Pirie also visited the Czech locomotive in Prague and called it “the merriest” household he had ever known. In the 1950s, Pirie was the athlete who was working unflaggingly at improving distance running in Britain and is arguably the first national heavyweight in this category, with a dispersion of his running across four gruelling decades. Such longevity meant that Pirie the athlete was not a momentariness of lightning, but more an undulating roll of thunder. The lion from Leeds inflicted major damage on five world records, and ran past all the urgent souls of his time including the great Emile Zatopek.
With the first half of the 1900s blemished by World Wars, it was only in the second half that the social environment was opportune for any progress in athletics. Most of the running in Britain from the 1950s to 1980s, however, was the work of amateurs who had only three days a week in which to train because of the bind of their occupations. Pirie toughmindedly showed himself no leniency and trained every single day. Continually irked by the belittlement of athletes, Pirie found the “amateur status” imposed by sports organisations a fatuous rule because it meant that athletics were construed as recreation rather than a discipline worthy of remuneration. Not until as late as 1981 was the status of “amateur” wholly eliminated by athletics officialdom, and the British athlete finally viewed as a professional entitled to the living offered by sponsors and advertisements. Commercialism appeared in British athletics from the 1960s onwards as mass media, especially television, infiltrated more widely and deeply into the lives of people. As the attendances increased, sports events could no longer be sustained on grants from government and the small-change raked in by the ticket-office. Private finance was becoming noticeable.
Pirie ran in a way that was diametrically opposite to that of his Czech idol. The biomechanics of Zatopek in motion were once described by a commentator as “a man wrestling with an octopus on a conveyor belt.” Pirie, meanwhile, wanted fluidity of movement from gun-to-tape : a measured start, versiform cornering, and a finishing stanza of speed on the home-straight. One part of “the Pirie engine” was concerned with the legs running with the knees fractionally bent – by half-an-inch or so. The aim of this was to provide shock absorption for the running skeleton : to establish what Gordon Pirie termed “the system of quiet running.” A subsidiary function of the flexed-knee style was to create an elastic springiness that would translate into forward momentum for the running physique.
Vitally important to “quiet running” was the avoidance of a duck-footed landing onto the heel, such that the runner would pointedly strike the ground with the forefoot. Pirie recommends that the athlete should not buy shoes with heavily cushioned heels, but should instead take a running shoe with a well-braced front section. Unifying the faintly bent knee with a landing onto the forefoot, the Pirie-trained runner ostensibly acquires the mechanical smoothness of a cheetah and renders minimal the chance of any injury. The caveat is that the heel should be used when the athlete is moving downhill as typically encountered when running cross-country. Underpinning all movement is a marinading of the muscles in oxygen, and the importance of mouth-breathing is emphasised by the runner who dismantled five world records and who epitomised "grace under pressure."
“Lastly, I want to say that of all the locations where it is possible to run, I prefer to run in wide, open spaces, and to do it with abandon according to, and as an expression of, my moods and feelings. Up hill and down dale, through woods or along beaches - this is truly the most beautiful way to run.”
(from “Running Fast and Injury Free” by Douglas Alistair Gordon Pirie (1931-1991))
Competing interests: No competing interests