How many miles did you run today? - Page 17

Sit-ups are a shitload better than half the other crap out there. If there's any ab-'specific' exercise I'd recommend it'd be sit-ups.

7.25 miles in ~56 minutes this morning. First run in a 12 week lead up to my first marathon.

5kms in 36 minutes. A real improvement from when I started a few weeks ago.

I'm thinking of "crunch" type movements. Crunches are not the same as sit-ups as sit-ups causes you to use more of your hip-flexors, rather than your abs.

Any variation of a crunch movement (i.e. curling your spine toward the middle while tightening your core) will be a more focused and effective ab workout than sit-ups, although sit-ups can have their place. Leg lifts, crunches on an ab ball, hanging leg raises, etc. are all good.

Leave the sit-ups with Richard Simmons.

You rang?

I ran zero miles today. I have walked 81 holes over the last 4 days, though. Does that put me in the running for any sort of merit badge?

I always try to run between 4-6 miles depending on my knee. Sometimes it says "Let's go!" sometimes it says "Stop it, right now!"

So what does the fact that hip flexors are a prime mover with sit-ups have to do with overall abdominal development?

Running isn't going to help with definition, unless you include losing weight within "getting definition." Distance running will only make you lean, including muscles. If you primarily want to lose weight and also gain some muscle, then keep running and also keep up with core exercises generally. Those will give you a bit of definition, and you'll be less prone to running injury if the rest of your body is strong enough to absorb some of the shock from running. If you just want muscle, stop running.

If you're interested in definition, diet is key, but look into doing sprints. LSD running makes me (and most people I've seen) skinny. It literally eats away your muscle. This is kind of simplistic, but: who usually has more definition, sprinters or long distance runners? I see plenty of distance runners with little to no definition. Of course, to really have definition, you'd actually have to have some muscle to define.

What the hell?

No it doesn't. And sprinters lift weights.

Some bad science and misinformation floating around. Running does not "eat away" muscles.

Long distance runners do lift weights as do sprinters. the basic science here is caloric deficit. Longer distance runners tend to prefer to be thinner because one can be faster over longer distances if one has to move less weight. Just dropping ten pounds can make a significant difference in a half-marathon. Weight is far less of an issue in shorter distance races and runs where the muscle mass aids the sprinting and shorter runs.

Running does burn calories. A 150 pound person will consume approx. 350 calories running at a 6 mph pace for 30 minutes or ~ 700 calories at that pace for one hour. (Running a bit faster or slower will not have an appreciable difference in calories consumed). After about 30-40 minutes of exercise, the body will increase the percentage of fat utilized as a source of energy. Prior to that, assuming no food consumed during running, the body will utilize more tglycogen, which drawn from liver, muscle, etc., than fat.

If you wish to not lose bulk and run longer distances - eat. If you wish to lose fat, run longer distances and eat less. in other words, control the calorie deficits.

Irrespective of the interest in bulking, resistance training ought be part of the routine for all runners. It strengthens the body, helps bone density, assists in upper body movements that help one run more efficiently, and will make one faster. Definition is achieved by stripping fat from muscle. Assuming the existence of muscle, one will have definition. If one has little muscle, the definition will reveal that fact.

Are you serious? If I want to give my abs an effective workout, why would I choose a movement that strains my legs, neck, and lower back while using my hip-flexors? I'm not saying sit-ups aren't hard when you do 100 of them at a time, but if given a choice, I rather do exercises that will effectively develop my abs. Ad nauseum research has shown sit-ups are not the "go-to" exercise. Look, if you want to keep doing sit-ups, go right ahead, I couldn't care less.

Everyone should lift weights, but why would weightlifting cause most sprinters to have more definition that most distance runners? Definition is a result of low bodyfat and has nothing to do with lifting weights. Why do sprinters have lower bodyfat than distance runners? Could it be that brief, intense cardio burns fat more effectively than LSD?

I didn't literally mean it (LSD running) eats away your muscle. What I meant is LSD is going to cause you lose mass (because it's doubtful that you'll eat enough to make up the deficit). I ran a 15 K this past weekend. It looked like a scrawny guy convention. Most of them didn't have any muscular mass at all; they were just skinny! If you saw them shirtless at the beach, it would never cross your mind that they are fit.

When most inquire about definition, they want a certain amount of muscle mass with low bodyfat so the muscles can be seen. Sprinting burns fat like crazy yet doesn't cause the calorie deficit that strips muscle mass.

Please re-read my prior post. Sprinting does NOT burn fat like crazy. Sprinters have larger muscles in their legs and upper bodybecause of the way they train. Sprinters build mass for short bursts of speed.

Long distance runners seek to trim weight. Most prizxe longer, leaner muscles. Sprinters do not have more definition that other runners, they just have more mass than other runners. They have more mass because of they manner in which they train and eat.