When running for exercise was for weirdos | Hacker News Reader

When running for exercise was for weirdos

vox.com

77 pointssebkomianos75 comments

Open articleView on HN

Reminds me of Back to the Future Part III:

Doc: And in the future, we don't need horses. We have motorized carriages called automobiles.

Saloon Old Timer #3: If everybody's got one of these auto-whatsits, does anybody walk or run anymore?

Doc: Of course we run. But for recreation. For fun.

Saloon Old Timer #3: Run for fun? What the hell kind of fun is that?

>In 1968, Sen. Strom Thurmond found himself stopped by a police officer in Greenville, South Carolina. His suspicious activity? Jogging.

Funny. Happened to my dad too. He started jogging in 1970 and continued (almost) every day for 40 years. That very first year he was the only guy out there and people occasionally got freaked out and called the cops. He had to explain this 'jogging' exercise thing.

But within a few years it had caught on like wildfire.

This reminds me of the 1951 Ray Bradbury short story, 'The Pedestrian'. The outside runners may someday again draw suspicion, when people prefer jog-questing in their home Oculus Rooms.

What is the "jogging" of today? Gluten free diets? I could see it become mainstream once science has studied it more extensively, but today if you don't have coeliac disease and decide to go gluten-free, you're labeled as nuts right away.

I don't know if you're labelled as "nuts" right away but you are sometimes assumed to be prone to the latest dietary trends. As this article points out jogging actually did have measurable, real health benefits. It's not clear if going GF if you don't suffer celiac does. BTW my child suffers from celiac at I've gone GF with her for extended periods of time. Turns out going GF usually also means dramatically dropping your intake of salt and sugars (processed pastas, breads, desserts etc) so I believe that many people really _do_ feel better. Of course with the widestream acceptance of GF there are now many straight up substitutes/replacements so that benefit will likely disappear.

Of course with the widestream acceptance of GF there are now many straight up substitutes/replacements so that benefit will likely disappear.

It's a double-edged sword. Yes, lots of grocers and chefs now provide gluten-free substitutes. And some of those options are quite good. But, with the wide-spread fad, I have to very careful when ordering that the wait staff knows I have an actual allergy and not just a preference.

I really don't understand the whole "hate," in particular on the internet, for people who eat Gluten free food. Who really cares? It doesn't harm you or I if someone chooses to avoid Gluten, it doesn't hurt the environment, it doesn't cause a public health issue, and so on and so fourth.

But people get really upset about the oddest stuff that have no impact on them (e.g. others playing the lottery, vegetarians, how others dress, their games console of choice, their phone maker, etc). None of it matters, people could do well by just minding their own business more.

As to Gluten, I myself won't be doing a Gluten free diet, but people who wish to more power to you and as a positive spin it might make foods more accessible for people with coeliac.

People generally react strongly (and negatively) to what they perceive to be irrational behavior in others. I think there's a strong human instinct to want to set the correct precedent for others and for future generations, which leads to this sort of reaction when we feel as if someone else is setting the wrong precedent. The (very implicit) fear might be that the GF trend will lead to many resources being wasted on something that doesn't matter (special GF products, restaurants, marketing materials, etc.).

However, with dietary trends there's a second and possibly more powerful factor, which is that those not following the trend feel as if they're being implicitly judged by those who are. This feeling is often completely incorrect, but it's there nonetheless for many people. Ironically, the feeling itself is irrational, yet it feeds into one's own distaste for another person's (perceived) irrationality.

I think it's the implicit judgment that is more powerful. If you were to declare, "I'm a summer; I can't ever wear yellow!" no one would care. When you refuse someone's bread, though, that's a different question. Food has historically been a way to bond, in some particularly ritualistic ways. (We "break bread together", history has people eating from the same dish to symbolically and practically show trust, etc.)

Much of the current GF stuff is not that good, whether you're looking at environment, cost, culinary quality, or health benefits. Why eat a bar of tapioca starch? It tastes terrible. And my delicious almond-flour brownies are destroying the aquifers of California even though they give me a delightful 300+ calories per serving. On the other hand, the proliferation of GF goods allows people with real problems to sit down with family and friend and eat crappy sandwiches together without anyone feeling judged by the presence of a lettuce wrap, and that has its own benefits. Irrational, or not? Yes.

I really don't understand the whole "hate," in particular on the internet, for people who eat Gluten free food. Who really cares?

You get the same reaction from any kind of health based diet. It makes people feel judged, like they don't eat healthy. It's also a diversion from the normal, which allows an "us vs them" line to be drawn. People are still, at their heart, tribal. It's instinct to draw those lines because, in theory, at one point in time those instincts kept their ancestors alive.

tl;dr: it's human nature to hate the unusual.

As for gluten-free specifically, I was gluten free for years. Eating it would provoke a systemic inflammatory reaction, yet I don't test positive for any wheat allergy, gluten intolerance or celiac.

After many years of feeling pain when I eat my favorite food (pizza), I tripped on some research that suggested it may not be the gluten that was causing the problem. The research suggested that the supplementation of iron may be causing issues with some people. I also stumbled on anecdotal reports of gluten intolerant americans traveling overseas and being able to eat french pastries and italian pasta without issue. Armed with those two facts, I decided to do an n=1 experiment.

I bought some italian flour and used it to make bread and pizza. My allergic-like inflammation symptoms went away and I lost 10 lbs in a week. When I ran out, I went back to store bought bread. My inflammation symptoms came back immediately.

Just food for thought.

Italian flour has gluten. Gluten is the stuff that makes the dough rubbery so you can stretch it out with your fists. Pizza flour has less gluten than some other kinds, so that the elasticity is lower, which lets it be stretched flatter with greater ease, with a less of a tendency to shrink back. But the gluten is there, nevertheless. Without this gooey protein, it would probably tear and fall apart. (Imagine trying to roll out a pizza crust made out of nothing but starch and water.)

You missed the point. The gluten isn't what was causing my problems. It was whatever monkey business american companies do when processing their wheat. I don't know if it's the iron enrichment, the bleaching or the GMO stock, but I can tell you this: something is rotten with american wheat and it isn't the gluten.

I think GP is saying that in his case the iron supplementation in U.S. Flour was the cause of his problem.

I'm not sure why people have down-voted this response. All wheat flour contains gluten. Gluten does provide much of the texture to baked goods (try some gluten free bread - it's mouth-feel isn't the same).

That isn't to say different varieties of wheat or flour might cause different reactions in people. But that isn't the gluten; it's something else.

I really don't understand the whole "hate," in particular on the internet, for people who eat Gluten free food. Who really cares?

The same argument can be applied to crystals, or fortune tellers, or homeopathy, or any number of other examples of more or less harmless pseudoscience adopted by the public as a result of a poor understanding of science and a weakness regarding the latest fads.

I view the gluten-free fad as just another instance of mindless herding. "A friend of mine told me their aunt's cousin's friend went gluten free and it cured their diabetes and their lazy eye!" It's simply further evidence that people, in general, aren't equipped with the harsh skepticism required to operate in a world where the internet makes it so easy for this kind of BS to spread like wildfire. Fighting these fads is a (largely futile) attempt to try and educate folks, to make them possibly a little more resilient to being duped in the future.

Of course, it rarely works out that way, which is why you're better off expending your energy in more productive pursuits.

It makes life harder for people with celiac.

Why? Because people following a gluten-free diet by choice are inconsistent. They'll make a big deal of asking for gluten-free pasta, then order a fruit tart for dessert. Or they'll order a hamburger without the bun, and a beer.

It trains wait staff that gluten-free is not a big deal to get exactly right, when in fact a person with celiac does need to get it exactly right.

Eating gluten free when you're not gluten-intolerant is like using crutches when your legs are fine.

> Eating gluten free when you're not gluten-intolerant is like using crutches when your legs are fine.

^ And you're not a cute Japanese girl in a lolita costume, also wearing an eye patch and some bandages. In that case, crutches "work" for you.

A big, juicy beef steak is gluten free, and so is the sunny side egg on top of it and the bacon. I like gluten-free! :)

My wife brought home some Glutino brand crackers. They are delicious. (Neither of us care about "gluten free").

If you want to really sock it to the gluten-free movement, you can buy fried gluten in a can. This is an import item you can find it in Chinese grocery stores.

See here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheat_gluten_%28food%29

Scroll down a bit.

I've known about and eaten this stuff long before the silly gluten-free fad; not a knee-jerk reaction or anything!

I've also known about people with gluten issues long before the fad. I remember a co-worker telling me about her sensitivity to wheat circa 1991 and that it was the gluten. She was not self-diagnosed either. There was no reason not to take her seriously; though I hadn't heard of it before, it was entirely plausible to have an allergy to a protein in wheat. Today, most of the people who think they have a gluten problem are making it up, and that's what supports "gluten free". However, it's probably helpful to those people who do have the allergy --- assuming the foods are even for real. Half of them probably have gluten! Is this "gluten-free" designation even regulated and enforced?

>Today, most of the people who think they have a gluten problem are making it up

Citation please? I've yet to meet anyone who was making it up. Most people just don't want to talk to a stranger about their poop.

Stand up desks.

I remember the Hall of Fame Golfer Gary Player being ridiculed by his peers during the 60's because he believed in working out and strength training. The standard of the time was that this was counterproductive for golfers. (iirc one of the arguments was that strength training would cause loss of "touch" in one's game)

Fast forward 50 years, and every professional golfer is a fitness and strength training fanatic.

I'm not familiar with golf but I'm pretty sure I've seen pudgy golfers... A bit of googling turned up Keith Horne who doesn't look like an athlete.

I agree, he doesn't. However, I wouldn't discount somebody as being a lifter because they are pudgy. This guy[0] (the really large one) was the first person to bench over 1000 lbs[1].

[0] - http://static1.sfd.pl/1/images2004/20040721160457.jpg

[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxtkUI5Wsnw

I don't remember criticism of Player in particular, but I do remember the general criticism of strength training for golfers. John Daly in particular was held up as being a prime example of someone who was all power, no touch. Strength training was not Daly's problem, though...

Quick Google Search:

"There was only one other player back then — Frank Stranahan — and we did weight training. We were told that we were crazy. That you were nuts. That you shouldn't lift weights. That it affects your short game. And we had to live with this.

"Now they all work out.

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20130119/OPINION03/301190...

John Daly imo has great chipping and putting touch. I wouldn't call him a great ball striker though given his lack of accuracy.

I wish I could run, but 1) it hurts - and not in a good way 2) it's extremely boring. The only thing that's kind of fun is running up hills.

The nice thing about running is that you can pack a decent amount of exercise into a relatively brief period of time, and at least you're outside. Gyms feel like gerbil wheels to me.

What I really love to do is ride my bike, but that takes more time and better conditions.

I love hill sprints. It's Anaerobic, but it still stresses your cardiovascular system, so it's a decent replacement. I also do jump rope in lieu of running on top of sprints/hill sprints.

You are pretty good at complaining, now if you can figure out how to do it with arms and legs instead of fingers and mouth...

Listening to podcasts and audio books is an excellent way to pass the time while exercising.

I can't say that running itself is fun for me, but the extra hours of Hardcore History I've listened to while exercising have made the process much more tolerable.

Sometimes running kills me, sometimes it's a bliss. My philosophy in physical activity: smooth waves. I start slow, push it very slow as long as I feel flowing[1]. I wave around the sweet spots.

BUT, I try not to control it too much, every time I start to focus about something else[2], I feel like flying. The minute I start thinking back about my body, the pleasure vanish.

My goal is to tighten my sensitivity to these two ideas so I can reach flow faster and longer.

[1] except min 5 and 15 where I often crack down a bit, maybe the body shifting sugar supplies.

[2] a rant, a fantasy, a job idea, some music...

It's still really weird. Why an exercise as high-impact on the joints and as potentially injurious as this hasn't been stopped has to be purely because people enjoy it so much, or they don't see an alternative.

We have machines designed to mimic the exercise and reduce or eliminate the impact. We have studies that show a multitude of other exercises that provide similar or the same health benefits without the stress. There's less expensive gear to buy. There's less risk of injury and it's more convenient to exercise indoors. Yet I can't walk down my tiny sidewalk on a sunny day without somebody in nylon shorts flying past me down the concrete path.

Now, don't get me wrong, a mile jog/run is not a terrible way to warm up for the rest of your workout. But the distances most people run, and the regularity of it, probably has more downsides than upsides. Heart health can be achieved without the above factors, as can endurance, and we can finally end the tyranny of the running path (i'm mostly joking).

You mind elaborating at all on these other exercises you mention?

If you're not asking about running replacements in particular, there are books and books on primarily bodyweight exercises. That seems to be the appeal for running, that you can just do it with very little investment.

My personal suggestion is the ergometer, or rowing machine. Low-impact, cheap as exercise equipment goes, (a brand-spanking-new Concept2 will run you about $930, which is much less than a gym-quality elliptical or treadmill) and useful for everything from long-distance to high-intensity training. Plus, a large number of gyms have them, and no one uses them because they don't allow you to slack off like an elliptical machine or exercise bike.

Just don't put the damper at 10 like the Crossfit folks do.

Why is that?

Quick background - the damper controls how quickly the flywheel comes to a stop. A typical rowing stroke is mostly a leg exercise. You build up momentum by driving with your legs, and then finish off the stroke with your back and then (at the very, very end) your arms. By the point that you're using your back and arms, however, there is enough momentum in the flywheel that you don't put much load on them. During the recovery, (when you're bending your legs and preparing for the next stroke) the damper slows the flywheel back down. Wash, rinse, repeat. The load is repeatedly taken by the legs, with the back and arms adding a little extra at the end of each stroke.

Putting the damper at 10 knocks this all to hell. The damper removes enough of the momentum during the stroke that you're putting a significant load on your back at the end of each stroke. At best, this will tire you out early. At worst, it can injure you.

You want the damper to be between 4 and 6. I usually row with it halfway between 4 and 5. If you want a more intense workout, drive harder and pick up the stroke rate.

Exercises to give the same effect as running?

The simplest is HIIT, or high intensity interval training. You work at a very difficult pace for short bursts of time, with small rests in between. The exercises are almost all done standing in place and are all lower impact than running. You can add resistance to build lean muscle, and increase the reps for added endurance training. Other forms of this include P90x and Crossfit.

It's funny, because this very activity is what led to me hurting my knees via running. I used to be in a pretty intense martial arts conditioning class which used HIIT and circuit training. I did it so much that one day I decided to see if I could run more than a mile (I had never done so before). I ran 17 miles. The next few days afterward I couldn't walk. Nobody had told me this would be a bad idea, and I had only ever heard that running was good for you...

> I ran 17 miles. The next few days afterward I couldn't walk. Nobody had told me this would be a bad idea, and I had only ever heard that running was good for you...

Well, that at least explains your ill-informed original post that I downvoted. If you've never run a mile in your life, and don't see why doing 17 all at once is a bad idea, and use that as a basis for your argument, you might want to hold off on holding court about how running is bad for you.

It explains perhaps my opinion that running can be dangerous. However, my opinion isn't ill-informed.

Let's say you're running at 5mph on concrete and you trip on something. Amazingly, of all the anecdotal evidence I collected about falls while running, almost all of them were simple scrapes and bruises. A couple were sprains or knee injuries, and virtually none of the collar bone breaks I expected when people try to stop themselves with their arms. A few people hit their heads pretty hard, though.

There's also more self-inflicted injuries that are common for runners, such as Runner's Knee, tendonitis, hamstring pull, plantar fasciitis, shinsplints, ITBS, lower back pain, and stress fractures. And while all these things can happen to non-runners, they are much more common with people who run frequently or for long distances.

People with problems such as hyperextending knees or other pre-existing conditions are often encouraged to try exercise which is easy on the knees, by doctors. But the repeated impact of running might not be what's causing the pain in their knees when they run. It might be knee fairies.

And while knee osteoarthritis hasn't been found to be significantly higher in runners vs non-runners, hip osteoarthritis has. It's commonly held now that the lower BMI of runners contributes more to their lack of increased osteoarthritis, rather than the assumption that running doesn't have a negative effect on the knees. Also, mysteriously, doctors recommend those over 45 to substitute some of their running time for swimming, cycling, and other less knee-impact-prone activities. But maybe old people just get bored quickly or something.

It is also understood that trying to run before you're ready can result in injury, much like trying to weightlift a lot before you're ready can. But there are no guidelines about how to know what you're ready for, and certainly no warnings anywhere i've ever seen about running before you're ready. In addition, people who are encouraged to jog or run as part of a getting-fit program are at higher risk of injury due to a lack of muscles supporting the joints and bones, and adding additional stress to the knees.

Alternative exercises avoid these common issues by providing a structure from which to safely begin and increase progress, provide the same health benefits, remove almost all of the potential for common running-related injury, and don't involve spending lots of money on running gear, not to mention take less time and are more convenient.

But I guess I just don't know what i'm talking about.

" A couple were sprains or knee injuries, and virtually none of the collar bone breaks I expected when people try to stop themselves with their arms."

Thanks, Mr. Self-Taught medical expert, who thought running 17 miles without prior prep was a good idea.

"It is also understood that trying to run before you're ready can result in injury" This is also true of HIIT.

"don't involve spending lots of money on running gear" ?????

> However, my opinion isn't ill-informed.

Yes, it is. Let me illustrate.

> But there are no guidelines about how to know what you're ready for, and certainly no warnings anywhere i've ever seen about running before you're ready.

There has been so much accessible literature written on the subject over the last 50 years I can only conclude that your search skills are poor, or you're cherry-picking your data. The mere fact that you went out and ran 17 miles for the your first time makes that crystal clear. I'm simply at a loss to come up with a more appropriate term than "ill-informed", sorry.

As for all the harm that can befall a runner, for $DEITY's sake don't look up things like soccer, cycling, or even tennis. Even typing comments on HN can give you RSI.

> But I guess I just don't know what i'm talking about.

At least we agree on that much.

Look, if you don't want to run, then don't. I'm sure not going to judge you based on that. But given your insistence on doubling-down, I'll leave you with something I've never said on HN: you can have the last word, because you're not worth arguing with.

You aren't defending your position with facts or figures, you aren't even saying anything other than "the truth is out there", and you continue to assert that because I hurt myself, nothing i'm saying is correct. I made points which plainly show HIIT to be less dangerous than running - and less dangerous than sports altogether. You haven't addressed them either because you're emotional and can't rationalize the argument, or are just willfully ignorant.

Facetious as you are, it's true. There are real impacts to it, and it's recommended that you not train for several months after a training and running a marathon. And not to do more than a few a year.

I think it's partially because Nike ran a lot of ads for running shoes that was selling the idea of it as a sport. And it's one of those sports that seems rather natural and "free" as it were.

I have trouble figuring out a sport that I can do regularly to improve my health. Though I never considered running because I frankly can't keep my motivation. I stop running for an instant, and I'm done.

> I have trouble figuring out a sport that I can do regularly to improve my health.

Swimming is all the good parts of running with ~none of the bad parts. Requires a pool, which isn't as "free" as running.

Rock climbing and weightlifting are both pretty good too.

Context: I currently train weightlifting with a former US Olympic Team weightlifter and someone who has been to Olympic trials many times for swimming and has since switched to weightlifting. My wife is quite a good climber.

While pretty much all exercise is better than being sedentary, you didn't really pick the the sports without "bad parts" :)

Swimming has a pretty high shoulder injury rate, though as best I can recall, it's a much lower total injury rate than running. Weightlifting is safer still, but it's definitely not without injuries. And finger pulley tendon injuries in climbing happen _all the time_.

[edit for clarity]

Well sure, they all have their faults. Just like anything else, if you do it poorly/with bad form, you're probably going to hurt yourself.

Everyone should learn how to swim, properly. For safety reasons if nothing else, and this would reduce injuries I think. I was a competitive swimmer for ~12 years, and learning how to swim correctly, I never injured myself.

Weightlifting, same deal. I've been lifting for ~8 years now, and having someone teach me how to squat and deadlift _correctly_ probably saved me countless injuries.

Rock climbing, same deal. Don't use a hangboard for the first 2-3 years you climb, you're going to get hurt. Learn to crimp correctly, or you're going to blow a pulley.

Running even, bad form is awful for your joints, really really bad. For whatever reason I did cross-country in highschool, and I grew ~6 inches that season, destroyed my hip flexors. =((

I appreciate and agree with all your points, but I do not think there is many active ways in which one could not injure themselves without proper technique. =))

Pool implies chlorine which isn't quite healthy.

I guess we should all quit breathing too [-1]..

The other 3 links [0][1][2] might be enlightening.

If you really are curious, all pools are required to have a certified pool operator on site at all times the pool is open, and their job to to keep the pool as close to a pH of 7 as possible, where close is a federally mandated standard [-2]. Water purity, saftey, and whatever else you were trying to imply by bringing up chlorine in pools, ironically enough, is affected by the amount of pure hydrochloric acid acid pumped into the pool as much as it is the chlorine. Just 'picking' on chlorine amounts shows your ignorance quite a bit.

[-2] http://www.poolsafely.gov/industry-operators-professionals/p...

[-1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_toxicity#Causes

[0] http://kbda.com/c3/library/enhancing.html

[1] http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basicinformation/dis...

[2] http://www.livestrong.com/article/338677-foods-that-contain-...

American standards might be better, but I know for sure that my eyes and nose get irritated from the Romanian pools even if chlorine is not to blame.

I used to do martial arts and group exercise to keep myself motivated. Music also helps a lot. You just have to find something that 'gives you energy', or with a beat that matches your preferred pace. Good opportunity to expose yourself to genres of music you wouldn't normally listen to :)

Do you know if running on the beach (or sand) is better on the joints? It seems like it would be better on the joints, plus it seems harder (better exercise). And hey, you're on a beach.

I would guess worse, but in different ways. Your foot can shift in the sand left/right when landing, causing havoc on other joints (knee, hip) when you apply pressure and they're getting unexpected horizontal motion.

I run barefoot all the time on the beach, at the water line when the tide is lower so it's nice and flat and you can see surface well.

I have no problems with my shins and knees since I'm running mostly mid to slightly forefoot strikes. The forefoot absorbs the shock rather than pounding the knee and hip with a direct impact. When I run with shoes on pavement, I get some knee and hip issues, especially if I don't pay attention to my foot strikes with respect to changing pavement.

Do be cautious that you go both ways, as the beach is usually angled, and running at just the one angle supposedly isn't good for you (crowned roads being the other thing to watch for). I heard this "tip" years ago, so who knows what the source was or if it's even valid.

My anecdotal data says that if you don't live near a beach, dial back a bit while on vacation at a beach. I can't say why, but too much leaves me with connective tissue soreness. Probably just not being used to it, because I otherwise typically run a lot.

All this "bad for the joints" stuff is mostly urban legend. One ref but there are others: https://fitness.stackexchange.com/questions/6298/do-joints-w...

Running in sand usually causes quite a bit more load on your achilles tendons. The pitch also causes one foot to underpronate and one to overpronate which is also usually a bad idea.

Most of peoples' issues relate to bad form, muscle imbalances, etc. Although I will grant if your form is terrible you are probably going to put weird stresses on your knees, etc. I blame our incredibly sedentary lifestyle. I sit probably 60+ hours a week (job, commute, home, etc.) and run only about 4 hours a week (~30 miles). I have been racing and running for close to 25 years and most of my current issues came from very hard training in the past and not taking time off when I got injured. When I just run 4 to 6 miles "easy" I am basically injury free as long as I supplement with a few other exercises such as single leg partial squats and monster walks with a rubber band. These are mostly only required because of my sedentary job and not the running though.

That running automatically results in hip and knee injuries used to be commonly believed in the medical community. Then this study (and others since) have changed that thinking. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23377837

From my own personal experience, I know that running too much, too soon, before my body had adapted, resulted in various muscle strains and sore knees. But as I got smarter about my efforts, I discovered that all I had to do was allow time for my body to adapt to the workload. I also run mostly on softer trails and buy new shoes periodically and that helps too.

For me, there is nothing that can compare to running outside on a trail through the woods, especially if there are friends alongside.

Stress is the point. You apply stress to your body and it adapts. Antifragile and all that...

The tone of your post is odd, as if you normally would expect everyone to do exactly what all the most current science suggests (nevermind that there are usually multiple conflicting theories). "Hasn't been stopped?" Stopped by whom? Lots of things that are far more harmful than running have not yet been stopped. Not everyone wants to use fancy machines for exercise...I'm just kind of baffled by this "how can people still be running?!?!" perspective.

I'm also confused by the part about expensive gear...running is one of the few forms of exercise you can accomplish with literally no gear at all, all you need is your body. That is probably one of the main reasons for it's enduring popularity - it is a basic and instinctual animal movement, there's no overhead, no setup time, no instructions, you just move your legs until you're in shape. Some people prefer that simplicity to all the fancy science and machines.

Being outside and free, partaking in what is a natural human activity, as opposed to being inside working some type of machine like a hamster?

No comparison.

Nothing beats a good run for a workout. Simple, fast, effective, natural.

> Why an exercise as high-impact on the joints and as potentially injurious as this hasn't been stopped has to be purely because people enjoy it so much, or they don't see an alternative.

I'm not surprised that injuries are common. My wife recently started on a running course that is being promoted by the NHS in the UK, Couch to 5K. It involves running at increasing duration interleaved with walking and is targeted at people who have not run before.

Within three weeks she had to drop-out because she had injured her knee.

Despite being 'coached' by a noted local runner, the course offered no advice on running technique. It involved being told to 'run'.

Imagine starting a Learn to Swim course and being told to just get in the pool and swim...

This article seems to think being stopped by the police because of jogging is a thing of the past. I live in a state university town full of joggers but I've been stopped 3 times for my "suspicious" jogging just in the last year. I guess it's because I do it at weird times with normal clothing instead of the standard exercise uniform.

They always say something along the lines of "I thought you were in trouble." to justify themselves.

What do you mean by normal clothing? Do you go running in jeans?

If you're running for exercise rather than racing is there anything wrong with running in jeans?

In my experience, yes: they chafe.

Cargo pants and a t-shirt usually.

> "to justify themselves"

Is it really impossible that they genuinely though you might be in danger?

Are you detained or do they just stop you and ask if you were being chased/are ok?

Well, they require me to identify myself (by name) and what I'm doing so it seems to me that the stated justifications are post-hoc. But no, I've never been detained for more than a couple minutes.

The article seems to imply that a cashmere pullover would be inappropriate for jogging.

Cashmere or merino are both fantastic textiles for athletic wear.

However, this athletic merino or cashmere textile has nothing to do with the traditional thick wool sweater, socks or mittens.

We're talking stuff like this: http://www.smartwool.com/stay-comfortable/mens-nts-micro-150...

Not what comes to mind when we think "cashmere pullover". :)

No mention of native americans, south americans, africans, etc that were all running for a long time...

Those cultures are probably running more for necessity than fitness/recreation.

The Tarahumara indian long distance runners ran for communication and also had a tradition of running for ceremonial and competitive aspects.

It's still pretty weird to see someone running in New Delhi, for example. I know heat and air quality are part of it but there are days where it would be perfectly fine. I think it's just considered weird to run.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com