Hacker News Reader

Comment by dbuxton | Hacker News Reader

Can anyone actually point me to a study that provides significant evidence for this? As a non-specialist with quite severe meniscal damage from an old rugby injury, swimming has often been suggested to me, but I found it the very most painful and upsetting activity of all. Whereas running (in Fivefingers, for the last four years) has more or less brought my knees back to normal.

I'm not challenging that for some value of "severe" this is true, and I'm sceptical that my own experience represents anything useful at all for anyone else. But my question is: is there actual clinical evidence that this is the case, or is this actually just an old wives' tale?

There are plenty of things online that suggest the opposite[1] - but can anyone who actually knows what they are talking about chime in with the state of the art?

[1]: http://www.runnersworld.com/injury-treatment/joint-myth?page...

View on HN

Not an expert, but a confusing aspect is open chain vs closed chain exercises.

Open chain exercises leave the foot or hand free to move (like swimming) and because of the lack of support they can actually exacerbate injuries. Instead of putting a joint under compression they put it under tensive strain.

Closed chain exercises are the opposite, the hand or foot is rooted in place (pushups, running, squats, etc) and because of this they add stability through the compression, BUT because of the compression they can also exacerbate injuries (especially because closed chain exercises are often weighted or involve repeated impact).

In the end, like most things, there is no one size fits all. In some situations closed chain is better, other open chain is better. For the average person it doesn't matter as much as most people think. If you're injured consult an expert for exercise to do, if you don't want to do that avoid exercises that cause joint pain.

Most of the studies are injury-specific and not in 100% agreement.

This isn't exactly what you're asking about (I think you're challenging swimming as a go-to activity for someone too injured or otherwise unable to run) -- but there is a related myth, which is that running ruins your knees. Studies have shown evidence the opposite is true: that running strengthens and thickens bone. I mention this by way of saying that, with the amount of myth and half-truth out there as relates to running and the impact on the body, I'm never surprised by what people believe anymore.

I was always under the understanding that running (potentially) ruins your knees by damaging your cartilage - bone thickness or density isn't the issue. That's why swimming is often recommended because there is no impact on your cartilage.

I'm running cartilage mapping MRI sequences on knees today - and while its hardly scientific, I would have to agree. The big runners I scan have some pretty munted hips and knees. So very messed up that I can't find any decent cartilage to use as baseline normal for the scanner.

This is precisely why I'm a cyclist and not a runner. I like to think that I gave running a sincere effort, but the little aches and pains just bothered me constantly. Maybe I had poor form, or maybe my body just isn't built for it, I don't know. By contrast, after tens of thousands of kms on the bike, all I ever get are sore muscles after a hard effort.

I recall that the research I've seen on this in the past showed reduced bone density etc. only in serious endurance runners (e.g. multiple marathons, ultra-marathon) and indicated improvements in your "average" runner.

Bone density is definitely an issue, especially for women.

"A study at Boston University School of Medicine looked at the continuous impact of the foot with the ground and the commonly accepted belief that running causes degeneration of the knee and can lead to all sorts of arthritic conditions.

Said lead researcher and epidemiologist David Felson of BU: “We know from many long-term studies that running doesn’t appear to cause much damage to the knees. When we look at people with knee arthritis, we don’t find much of a previous history of running, and when we look at runners and follow them over time, we don’t find that their risk of developing osteoarthritis is any more than expected.” Felson added that recreational running doesn't increase the risk of arthritis."

Quoted from: http://www.mizunousa.com/running/blog/article/the-planet-wav...

Running is vary dependent on age, stride, body size and style. For example a tall and slightly over weight runner with a poor stride has far more impact stress than shorter, thinner, runners with a more efficient stride. Add to that the importance of not running every day to tive the body time to heal and you end up with wide range of issues.

I don't have the study, but I do have my own experience. About 5 years ago I was lucky to survive being hit by the propellor of a speedboat. I was struck across the sacrum, crushing nerves and fracturing both the sacrum and tailbones, as well as a deal of laceration for good measure. There is always a pressure, stiffness and dull spinal ache and occasional acute pain - though fortunately not too often for the latter.

Anyway, I find now that if I do any duration of impact-based activity that I will pay for it; I feel each impact in my spine, though that is bearable for a while, but the next day my lower spine and sacral area will be stiff and sore. Whereas when I swim there is neither immediate nor consequential pain relating to the injury.

It's lucky that I'm a lazy bastard and didn't intend on running anyway :p

Reply on news.ycombinator.com