Is Running Good or Bad for Your Health?
npr.org
npr.org
I have experienced some of the described symptoms (irregular heartbeat and etc), but wouldn't have done much differently. Honestly, this article basically boils down to 'do what your body can handle'.
People are different. Bodies are different. Some people can handle 120 miles per week. Some people struggle to run one. Running is obviously good for your health, just don't over do it. And stretch and foam roll, that's as important as anything.
Yeah, until I couldn’t run through the pain any more. Quit running track, bloated up like Pacheco’s pig. Found out later that I wore grooves through the cartiledge and into my bones.
Also, discovered that if I ran on my toes instead of heel strikes I can run now without pain. Its juts ingrained to hate it now.
I was heel striking, which was encouraged by equipment (thick padded shoes) and by coaching. I took years off, learned to row, and came back literally running barefoot and on my toes. Tired of pulling glass out of my feet, I started using racing flats and then vibrams when training.
It took five years to get to where I could do the same mileage as before. Now my knees don't hurt any more than any other part of my body after running. I think the soft landings of toe strike running make all the difference.
Those early years definitely did damage. In my case I feel I have overcome it. I hope you will too. Running is a beautiful thing and a shame to lose.
When I first heard about the book "Born to Run", and how the Tarahumara use their legs/feet as the natural shock absorbers that they may have evolved to be, I said, "This is the style for me. I'm not a fan of running, but I do love efficiency, and this sounds like a fun way to give it a shot." It didn't really pan out--I have some Vibrams that get used once or twice a year--but I do like to sprint on rocky trails a lot, and going downhill is a lot more fun using something like BRT.
Interestingly, the only other comment besides yours mentioning "barefoot" is one from neilsharma, who writes that he had lots of problems from running that he chose to ante up on the footgear, which ended up further weakening his feet. I don't know if there have been studies done that show how our current shoe designs are bad for our feet--only that Vibram got in trouble for claiming that their shoes are better for you without anything backing them up--but it seems like something that ought to be looked at.
Often times the body's limitations are caused by problems that can be fixed or worked around, allowing you to push yourself farther and harder without hurting your health.
The way you're moving the goal post surely counts as exercise as well.
Running does improve health in some aspects, but it also causes significant health problems as well. Running isn't the only form of exercise.
The guys who do my bike fitting (basically, ensuring your bike is properly adjusted so as not to cause undue stress on your body) also do running coaching - I recently did two sessions with them which I found useful.
(If you're in Sydney, it's The Body Mechanic in Milson's Point)
One of the big takeaways for me was increasing my cadence - where previously I was around 150-170 bpm, I now aim for around 180 bpm. The higher cadence seems to have helped me put less stress on my legs with each step.
Also, I'm working on having good posture, and ensuring my feed land under my torso (as opposed to in front or behind me).
And what mpol said about keeping your torso/head stable is correct - you do not want your head bobbing up/down as you run.
But yeah - if you are keen on running, definitely go see a professional, who can give you good advice based on your own individual running style.
Many people seem to bounce up and down on every step, putting shocks of weight on their knees at every step. That will hurt you in the long term, probably even in the short term. You should have a certain flow in running, where your upper body just remains at the same height, and your legs are the only moving parts. Like your upper body is just sliding forward, that is the effect you want.
And you might think you do it right, but chances are you don't. I do not run myself, but I can imagine there are running trainers who specialize in ergonomics and health. You might want to have someone like that take a look at how you are running.
The main exercises to correct this were one legged squats, leg extensions (again, one leg at a time), and several balance exercises to help me position my hips properly while running.
Obviously, though, if there's one thing we've learned, it's that there's a lot of variety in our bodies, so if you're having pain, see a doctor first and if they think it's necessary you can get a referral to a physical therapist or another doctor that specializes in that area.
We used a lot of this stuff in college. I don't know if it's perfect, but it's a good place to start.
Note that this is a preventative exercise. Iirc if you already had shin splints this would make it worse. Those with shin splints either swam or biked, but mostly iced and rested. Running was strongly discouraged so that recovery could happen.
I can't for the life of me understand how people bear to run landing on heels. The whole ankle system is "designed" to recover as much energy as possible by loading up the Achilles tendon while at the same time saving both the knee and hip joints.
Since I’ve switched to shoes with minimal padding and a level foot bed my knee pain has decreased (oh and my feet are stronger too).
As a result, I have two bum knees (the breastroke kick puts so much lateral force on the knees that they separate), a pair of dodgy hips (again, I blame breaststroke), and shoulders which literally dislocate at will (I pin it on butterfly and bad form). Too much focus on the major muscle groups, and none on the muscles which keep all of those joints where they should be.
> Some people can handle 120 miles per week
after you...
> ran 80-90 miles per week [...] I'm really looking forward to knee surgery in October)
Apologies for being a bit harsh but the cause-effect-relationship is crystal clear. Extensive running puts a tremendous strain on our knees. You don't need to be a doctor, scientist or professional runner to know this. And just 20-30 miles/week over a long period is already way too much for the majority. Most will write, 'nah that works great for me, I run that amount for many years and my knees are in perfect shape'. Just wait till you're older and then it's pay back time.
[1] Eliza Chakravarty et al. "Long distance running and knee osteoarthritis: A prospective study," American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 2008, 35(2), 133-138
[2] David Felson et al., "Effects of recreational physical activities on the development of knee osteoarthritis in older adults of different weights: The Framingham Study," Arthritis & Rheumatism, 2007, 57(1), 6-12
I wrote 'extensive running'
Is it 20-30 miles/week over a long period, which you claim is already way too much for the majority? If I read study [1] correctly the runners were running 3.5 hours a week at the beginning of the study, which would be around 20 miles/week. That same group had a lower incidence of osteoarthritis than the control group.
Do you have any evidence to back up your claim?
our bodies require challenge, otherwise they get weak and fragile. challenge too much, it will break. this point of diminished return is again different for each of us, and varies over time for same person.
BUT - if you give it enough time to fortify itself - I don't mean muscles, they grow faster than rest of the body. I mean when bones, tendons, ligaments and generally joints catch up (ie for climbing it takes years of gradual progression to train your fingers), they hold the body together better (knees, feet, spine etc.) and can manage stress put on it, even till high age. I have a friend who is 80 year old mountain guide and he still climbs easier stuff.
But to find the balance, the edge of benefits vs losses that is never stable and unique to each of us is very hard
Bad knees can be the result of many, many things, including an injury which may have been the result of twisting your knee rising from a chair.
I haven't been running like that since I was in college. I wore down cartilage in my knee while running through pain I had been having for a while. I wasn't taking care of myself the way I should have been. If you take the time and care to make sure you stay healthy, 20-30 miles a week is nothing. If your logic held than 'pay back time' should have happened for my peers a long time ago, they all ran more mileage than I did and some still run 100 plus miles per week. If there is some magic number of miles knees get, they would have hit it a long time ago. That is not how it works. People are different, bodies are different, you just need to make sure you take care of yourself and don't ignore the maintenance.
Why are you getting aggressive? You have your opinion, I have my opinion, no need to snap.
> People are different, bodies are different
Ok, I agree. But why do you then generalize yourself few sentences before and tell us that '20-30 miles a week is nothing' and treating everybody the same? I think, I was more differentiating, I said 20-30 miles/week for a long period is already too much for the majority—not for all.
> I wore down cartilage in my knee while running through pain I had been having for a while
Ok, doesn't really make your stance better. Who says that every other runner is so wise and stops running while having a pain? Maybe most of them do the same mistake like you did? Maybe they just want to win, just want to outperform other runners, just fear loosing or just want to prove themselves that they can run more than last week—all while slowly crushing their knees. And maybe it's the dynamics or game mechanics of running itself—it's not that easy to stop.
Sorry, but the cause-effect-relationship is getting even clearer with your last comment. Extensive running can get quickly dangerous and the problem is that the runner might realize this too late.
I hope you don't think that counts as aggression, hardly. And while you are certainly entitled to your opinion, considering you know nothing about me, my running history, or my medical history, it's pertinent that people know your opinion is based on zero knowledge of the situation.
> Ok, I agree. But why do you then generalize yourself...
I was not generalizing. The conversation is about distance running. For a distance runner, 20-30 miles per week would be nothing, considering the shortest distance race is 5 miles long.
I honestly don't know how to address your last comment. You jump wildly from conclusion to conclusion and then just dismiss everything outright. And your argument isn't based on anything other than the fact that I personally got hurt, which is a dumb reason for others not to run. I don't have a great singing voice, but just because my singing hurts my ears, it doesn't mean others shouldn't sing to their hearts content. Really, the only cause-effect relationship that is clear is -> cause: be nbschulze for 25 years effect: need knee surgery. Which people can take with and do what they want. Yeah, knee surgery is a bummer, but I've enjoyed my life other than that and will continue to enjoy it.
The only stance I've taken is 'If you're going to run, make sure you take care of yourself'. I was trying to help others learn from my mistakes. If you want to argue with that, feel free. We don't caution people from buying cars just because a select few choose not to get the oil changed and ruin their cars. And you should not be caution people from running just because I personally ignored persistent and intense knee pain and damaged my knee.
That must have been one of the most ignorant statements I read on HN.
> Just wait till you're older and then it's pay back time.
Well guess what, I know 70-year-olds still running a sub 3h marathon.
As for the 70 year-olds still running marathons, I've heard of plenty more 25 year-olds dying of heart attacks. Anecdotes are not enough here it seems.
The trouble is, when someone signs up for a big race, they feel pressured to stick with their training plan in spite of any discomforts.
Either way I think the health benefits of running clearly outweight any damage they do to your knees.
Of course, the cardiovascular benefits of running mean you're a lot more likely to live long enough for pay back time.
So to sum up, running is way way better than doing nothing. More than 40 miles a week may have not only diminishing returns, but negative consequences.
I'd guess most people here don't realize what a crazy time commitment running 40 miles a week actually is. Even if you can pull off 6 minute miles (4 hours/week), there's still a need for rest after the run, more sleep, more food, replacing shoes and clothes as they wear out. The extra time adds up.
Absolutely.
52 yo here, averaging about 15 miles/week running + 4-7 miles/week hiking. It takes major dedication just to work that amount in, I have no idea how I'd spin up to do 40 mi/week.
And as far as I'm concerned: The cardio benefit is pretty minuscule compared to what it does for the head.
Then again, it's something that just has to be done. Some form of exercise is necessary to stay healthy and sane. I need to sleep and bathe, I need to do housework and pay bills, I need to do all that other adult stuff . . . and I need to exercise. Any option will take time. Like every other obligatory thing, that means less time reading or surfing the web or playing video games or watching TV or whatever. Oh well. Life's like that.
Slowly, and do a little every day. Or at least, that worked for me. I do 3-4 miles a day (longer on weekends) for 25-30 mi/week total. I've worked up to that from zero over 18-24 months.
Me personally, it takes about half an hour around every run, getting dressed, getting water, stretching before and after, showering and changing clothes. longer runs leave me lethargic for a while. A two hour run leaves me exhausted. A two hour run leaves me worthless for an hour or possibly three.
40 miles in 5 hours is amazing. My bare minimum around running time would be 15 minutes a run, and i can't run 10 6 minute miles 4 times a week. I could maybe do 4 10's@9:00. But if i put in the effort, that would come down.
40 miles at 5 hours/week is just phenomenal. You must have world class biomechanics. I can't imagine how fast you run. You are a stupendous badass. I hope you recover soon.
(As a much slower runner, I can maintain 7:30 for a mile or two. Just not 40. :-))
A very good but not world-level time for the marathon is 2:20 or so for 26 miles. That's more like 5:30 per mile. World record pace is an even more insane 4:41.5 a mile (http://www.runnersworld.com/newswire/dennis-kimettos-maratho...). So yes, 6:30 should be easy, if you're at that level (must be, given that I could do 10k in 40 minutes, which is around that pace, when I was a lot younger, and I'm not a running talent)
The 7:30 pace had my heart rate at 145 on flat ground in cool weather at age 40 for a 13 mile run which from what I understand is the right pace.
I do it because my sanity needs it. Been through a very painful heartbreak after having the guts to fall in love again. Now back to square one again. But I want to get better and love again. and again.
I'm a big believer in the idea that motivation trumps all other considerations when it comes to exercise though, so you should run if you like running.
and if you do road biking, depending on location, you are at mercy of car drivers on narrow roads. even if 99,9% are good and paying attention all the time, sooner or later someone won't. if you do other types of biking, there are other safety issues.
by all means do it if that's your thing, but don't call it super healthy, or safe. take 2 steps back - most of us sit on our a__es all days, so you go and do sport where you... sit on your a__. right.
So, the question of "is an alternative form of exercise, that has fewer damaging side effects, better?" is an important one to ask, and better would need to have a definition around it. However, answering that question wasn't the goal of this article.
Biking is my personal go-to exercise but it's not without its risks from traffic, pollution, or in the winter, black ice. Still, it's otherwise nonproductive commute time being made very useful.
It doesn't get below freezing where I live so I haven't had to contend with this personally, but when my friend lived in Boston and cycled throughout the winter, he got the Finnish studded snow tires for his bike:
http://www.icebike.org/the-ultimate-guide-to-winter-bike-tir...
He said it made him feel a lot safer. (That page mentions a concern that there are failure cases related to inappropriate tire pressure that may reduce traction compared to regular tires, but it seems like they normally increase traction by a huge amount.)
> The health benefits of running short or long distances are so overwhelmingly positive that they swamp potential dangers.
When headlines can't be answered "no," the most boring possible answer is correct.
A headline posed as a question with an OR operator can be rewritten as a statement with an AND operator.
"When Battridge's law does not apply, you can safely answer the headline with It depends".
Its disingenuous to claim that running is awesome because someone is willing to trade some major cardiovascular problems with other health problems. Running still triggers major health concerns that aren't associated with other forms of exercise.
For example, you just implied you are not "moderate" in some things. So what are those things? Why did you choose to not be moderate in them? How is that better than not being moderate in running? And what is "moderate"?
You've spoken a platitude.
If you are personally having joint issues and you want to continue to run I encourage you not to give up. Try different shoes, have your gait analyzed, even see a physical therapist who specializes in running. I obviously don't know if you are in this situation or if you have tried any of these things, but I know even a simple thing like changing the type of shoe you wear and a little rest can help resolve a lot of minor joint pain issues.
http://www.npr.org/2011/03/28/134861448/put-those-shoes-on-r...
I did not try to change the shoes or see a therapist. I also think I tried to run too often/much, like min 30 min every day :-|
Doing the ball strike puts an immediately noticeably less of an impact load on your knees/hips.
For this, I also got low drop (4mm) shoes, which made adapting the strike so so much easier.
The knee pain is now gone and I feel that my leg is in better shape--strength better distributed--because of the front strike.
Bah.
But recently I developed a new kind of pain... it happens when I bend my knees. The worse part it now hurts even if I cycle longer than 10 min! :(
I guess I will keep digging on this subject. Thanks for your advice anyway!
I try to remember the following from the book:
1) Easy then speed - A mistake all rookies make is they go for speed. A thumb rule for easy is, you should be able to breathe easily i.e. easy enough to have a conversation with a co-runner. Not easy, I keep lapsing into running fast, but time and again remind myself of this.
2) Be upright: In your comment you mention you lean forward. Thats a wrong posture. The weight should pass vertically through your body, right uptill the foot. As somebody above said, even the strikes should be below your body. Not too much forward. Head should be straight.
3) Barefoot: I am not fanatic about this. My wife runs with shoes and she does 30km every week, and she is fine with it. But before starting (in 2009) I did use to get some knee pain, perhaps because of trying to run fast. Perhaps it was longer stride (like teenagers run for short distances). Or perhaps it was just lack of belief & practice. Or perhaps it was the heel-strike. Once an old gentleman in the park, I'd developed friendship with, commented that I was heel striking. And I thought, what the heck, just some random old school & out-dated thought. My bad.
But anyway long story short, the book convinced me to run barefoot. And so I started, first with shoes itself, but very consciously toe striking, and it was quite difficult. I could definitely go upto 2-3 km, but my calf muscles used to pain like hell. But knees were perfectly fine. So it happened what the book predicted, and I was encouraged.
And I have been persistent with it. Fast forward to today. I do 41km per week (13, 13 & 15-17 on alternate days). Use a vibram for muddy trails. On concrete do bare foot.
Also I encouraged my wife to start running and after initial resistance, she started in 2013. Then she could barely do 200meters. But now as I said above, she is also a serious (albeit in amateur/recreational category) runner. Her pulse rate dropped from being 80/90 to now in the 60s.
So if you want to, keep at it, and it will happen.
edit: some typos
I will keep trying and adjusting.
BTW, do u run on snow? Jogging is my favorite winter activity hehe. I run up to -25C (-13F).
I am curious to hear if you have any experience running in winter.
Oh man, I can't even imagine how it would be in -25C. As I live just below tropic of cancer, so its always warm - 13-15C in winters (just for name sake!) and 35-37 in Summer - these are day time temperatures.
Did you do anything different to achieve that?
Here are my recommendations:
Shoes -- keep experimenting until you find pairs that don't cause aches and pains. Some shoes caused knee pain in me, but others didn't. Find two different brands that work for you and use both pairs alternating between them. Each manufacturer's shoes feel a bit different and alternating you will lower the chances of overuse injury.
Form -- learn to feel like you are hitting the ground very lightly with your feet. Don't pound, land on your heels, or over stride. Thinking of contacting the ground directly under your body with your foot fall will keep you from landing too far in front and will reduce the strain on your legs.
Mileage -- limit long runs (over 5 miles) to one per week and once they get over 12 miles to once every two weeks. For most of my training I kept mileage to under 40 miles per week. Plan on taking over six months to build up to being able to run a marathon even if you start out in good shape. Build mileage slowly.
Frequency -- take days off to allow your body to recover. Most of my weeks I ran MWF about 3.5 miles each day, one day at the track doing intervals or hill training, and one long run on the weekend.
Run/Walk -- my first marathon was one of my fastest. Although the conditions were ideal that day, I also credit using Galloway's run/walk method [1]. During a race or long run I would walk through the water stops and walk for say 45 seconds to 1 minute during that time. This really gives your legs a nice break and I was surprised at how fast my overall times ended up being using this method.
Lose Weight -- I will never be a good weight for distance running (even in college as a gymnast with very low body fat I weighed about 150). However, distance running helps one lose weight and losing weight helps one with running. Being heavy greatly increases the stress on your body.
Finally, I would take aspirin or Advil for aches when needed to help keep inflammation down. Warm up before running, but don't stretch before running.
Whether it actually helps reduce injuries and pain is also somewhat questionable according to a recent 538 article[0].
[0] http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-achiness-of-the-long...
Tried biking instead, but indoor biking is the most mind-numbing activity ever, and outdoor biking proved to be equally damaging (lots of falls) and far scarier (going downhill on a road with cars).
Basically I want an outdoor elliptical machine that moves at a reasonable 5-8mph.
Consider, for example, a swim meet. If you look at the competitors in prelims, you'll see a variety of body types. By the semifinals, you'll see a smaller variety, and by the finals, you'll likely see a field of competitors with similar builds. Most look at that and assume a build like that of those in the finals is the result of an intense swimming regiment, when actually it's that body type that enabled swimming success. The entire field of competitors may have put in similar levels of effort, but the physiological advantages genetically granted to the better swimmers is what resulted in their relative success.
Exercise can change your physique dramatically. I've been a state-level bicycle racer (170 lb and skinny), master swimmer (195 lb brick shithouse), triathlete, road runner for decades.
Different distances lead to leaner or stockier builds.
http://www.runnersworld.com/sweat-science/the-incredible-shr...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_average_human_height_w...
Feyisa Lilesa is 5'9" Galen Rupp is 5'11" Mo Farah is 5'9" Bernard Lagat is 5'8" Matt Centrowitz is 5'9" Paul Chelimo is 5'11" Tamirat Tola is 5'11" Taoufik Makhloufi is 5'9" Nick Willis is 6' Evan Jager is 6'2" Mahiedine Mekhissi-Benabbad is 6'3"
Really, my point was that running 15-20 miles a week won't give you the body of a Kenyan Olympian. Running can be incredibly rewarding, I was simply trying to state that if I had to run 90 miles a week to be barely underweight, 15 miles a week shouldn't scare anyone off if they're just trying to be healthier.
This is not a yes or no question, thus I believe the answer is unequivocally "yes."
> "yes"
I find it enjoyable when people respond with answers that don't match the question. Often I find they provide an answer that would match if the question were cut short, e.g.
> Is Running Good?
> "yes"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline...
That doesn't mean you should stop running, just that it is a decision with consequences like any other.
The point being once you get into serious mileage like the 30+ miles per week, doing 15-20 mile training runs and racing 1/2 and full marathons its best to view them as personal performance goals vs health goals.
Also, as someone who has run long distance for about 10 years now, take it from me that rest is as important as the miles. Making sure you have rest build into your training plan and after your goal race. This will help you avoid burnout and injuries. Remember, all training really does is takes your body to a stressing point. Its the rest portion that allows your body to respond and adapt to the stress which in turn allows your body to perform at a higher level of performance.
For a very rough wedge, suppose there were some other activity which didn't have all the positive perceptions around running, which created painful and debilitating injuries requiring medical attention as a matter of course, whose participants could all expect to require specialized medical equipment to go about their lives for a period of weeks to months, several times in their careers in that activity. Imagine there were a whole cottage industry of doctors specialized in patching these people back up and sending them on their way to go get injured again, driving up insurance premiums for the rest of us in the process. Imagine that this activity, and this industry, primarily targeted children and adolescents.
We'd go apeshit. There would be immense moral panic.
A cross country runner at my high school was newly on crutches every other week, sometimes for the third time, and no one batted an eye. Orthopedic surgeons make their careers on relationships with the families of athletic teenagers, and no one bats an eye.
Coming from a background where painful, traumatic injuries are not just something that happens to everyone on a regular basis, statements like "I don't see any harm" are insane.
(Yes, I know it is possible to exercise in ways that mitigate this risk, and I do so. Still, if you really think about it, it's kind of crazy how much we tolerate sports injury).
Maybe that coach had some bad ideas.
Also, in my experience, a vast majority of pupils and students who were injured did it during a sport activity and not because of other kinds of accidents.
I see you're new here
The current available evidence found no significant difference in all-cause mortality or CHD mortality, resulting from the dietary fat interventions. [2]
[1] Intake of saturated and trans unsaturated fatty acids and risk of all cause mortality, cardiovascular disease, and type 2 diabetes: systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. BMJ. 2015 Aug 11;351:h3978. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h3978. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26268692
[2] Evidence from randomised controlled trials does not support current dietary fat guidelines: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Open Heart. 2016 Aug 8;3(2):e000409. doi: 10.1136/openhrt-2016-000409. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27547428
http://www.nhs.uk/news/2016/07July/Pages/Study-finds-link-be...
(the linked article talks about these various studies; have a quick read of it)
All that said, though, I agree that the impact of saturated fat on health is hardly clear-cut. As someone else in the comments mentioned, the best advice is probably the oldest: Moderation in all things -- including moderation.
The down side is it is easy to get injured.
More importantly, fitness also helps the mental side of things. Kung fu and physical yoga (apocryphal or otherwise) helped monks/yogis to get fit enough so they could concentrate on the mental/spiritual side of their pursuits, and not to forget the various greek philosphers (I'm sure others will chime in with more examples).
I tried various things: cycling, personal trainer for "big lifts", running, elliptical machine, rowing. I found running to be rather hard on my joints, so I never really got into it; but I put a lot of time into the other activities, mostly doing them on my own. And, frustratingly, I didn't get out of them what I hoped.
What ended up making a huge difference was regular attendance at a variety of group fitness classes: weights, diversified HIIT, circuit training, indoor cycling. What posed a bit of a mental hurdle, but only at first, was that most of the other participants were/are women in their 20s, which made me feel awkward. As a guy, it was a little frustrating for me to be in a room of women, many 10+ years younger, who were "kicking my butt" when it came to endurance, form, and intensity. But my fitness level eventually caught up, and I'm even going for my second certification as an instructor/coach of a couple of the formats I enjoy the most. I've lost and kept off over 30 lbs., and I'm constantly motivated by the dedication of other folks who take the classes with me. In addition to regular group exercise, I've found tracking calorie input-output to be helpful, both for weight loss and maintenance. Make sure you're eating enough protein, it's really important!
Some brands I can recommend, from personal experience: Les Mills BodyPump and Grit[1], Orangetheory Fitness[2], Spinning[3], myzone monitor[4], Fitbit (Charge HR and Blaze)[5].
I also recommend buying a high-density foam-roller[6] and some balls of various densities (tennis, racquet/squash, lacrosse). I've found huge relief from post-exercise aches and pains in spending about 20 minutes after each exercise session "rolling out" my muscles. It really hurts when you're not used to it (as in teeth-gnashing, grunting discomfort!), but it eventually starts to feel good and improves recovery.
[1] https://www.lesmills.com/?findaclass=&ici=Find-A-Class-Near-...
[&] https://www.lesmills.com/workouts/fitness-classes/bodypump/
[&] https://www.lesmills.com/workouts/high-intensity-interval-tr...
[&] https://www.lesmills.com/workouts/high-intensity-interval-tr...
[&] https://www.lesmills.com/workouts/high-intensity-interval-tr...
[2] http://www.orangetheoryfitness.com/Studio-Locations
[3] http://spinning.com/en/take_a_free_spinning_class
[4] https://buy.myzone.org/products/
[5] https://www.fitbit.com/chargehr