Interesting Article on Running in Time Magazine

Selection Bias? The people who severely injure their knees are going to drop out of the "runners" category. Conversely, only runners who don't experience knee problems keep running.

Hey guys, exercise makes people healthier on average.

I really hate articles that follow the 'aphorism rebuttal' paradigm. They're predicated entirely on the silliness of aphorisms in general. The articles have no information for anyone whose thoughts go beyond platitudes. Here, I can write a few articles off the top of my head: 'Are videogames bad? New research says maybe not.' (find studies about hand-eye coordination and problem-solving) 'Is text-speech interfering with language development? Linguists say it's a natural progression.' (basic language change articles cited) 'Does pork have to be fully cooked? Science says no.' (lalala trichinosis modern pigs lalala) I especially love how the writers usually anthropomorphize the 'rebuttal' aspect to keep the rebuttal as unspecific and useless as the aphorism itself ('Science says no'. 'Science'? That refers to what?). Imagine if the Time running article had actually stated 'Is running bad for your knees? A study is inconclusive because of poor evidence, but runners tend to live longer than non-runners likely because they exercise.' (Also note the use of the word 'bad' in the article's title -- a completely meaningless word in the context of exercise science especially since it's apparently specific to my knees ['your knees']. I'm a good person in good company who likes good food so I have good knees. Thanks for your concern though.)

I was chatting the other day with a professor at Emory's School of Medicine - a specialist in sports, ortho and rehab medicine - when it came up that we're both avid amateur cyclists.

He commented that he used to be a serious runner until he started having knee problems (he's probably about 50), problems which were alleviated as he shifted into cycling. I mentioned that I was planning on working more swimming into my schedule, and he pointed out that while swimming and cycling are both excellent for cardio fitness, you actually *need* to work some impact into your routine, because low impact exercise alone does nothing to mitigate bone loss with age... so running really is important.

"Running" itself isn't a problem - it's pavement that wrecks your knees. Trail running is great because (i) it's not on pavement and (ii) the less-certain terrain actually gets people paying more attention to where they're running, so they're actually less likely to have other kinds of running injuries (sprains, etc) that can happen when you zone out running on pavement and hit a hole or askew paving stone.

I know at the Y near my house, they have an indoor track with a kind of rubberized floor, probably also a way to run with impact but not "injurious" impact (though I'd be bored out of my mind running an indoor track.) Something worth considering, though.

DH

Because of this, I try to only run up-hill. A run up for about 20 minutes then walk down (there's lots of hills around here). I heard running up-hill is a lot better for your knees, but I'll report back in 40 years to tell you if it's really true...

Running uphill, like you said is supposed to reduce stress on joints. Another thing to mention though that somewhat contradicts this, is that running up hill can also cause stress fractures in your feet. When it is all said and done, it is all different strokes for different folks. You have to take into account, different strides, different sizes of people and so on, Running is going to have different effects on everyone.