Surely, that's a pretty ridiculous exaggeration, isn't it? As you later admit, no treadmill is anywhere near this uneven. But let's assume that you're correct, and even a 0.125" imbalance on one side (an eight of an inch) will cause injury after a couple of miles running. But in that case, what about the imbalances on the road, which can sometimes be as bad as 1" for short stretches? Or what about running up an uneven incline, like a hill, where one foot is constantly higher than the other? Isn't that comparable? If not, then what's the difference? A 0.125" difference isn't going to be the main cause an acute injury. It's going to create/add to an imbalance. An eighth of an inch doesn't sound like much, but it is a lot when you're talking about the stress that it has on your joints. The difference between the road and the treadmill is that the road changes and the treadmill doesn't. That's the bottom line. I don't think it's possible to break it down any further than that. If you can't accept that, then there's really no other way of explaining this very basic concept. From anecdotal evidence, I've run on both treadmills with steep inclines and up and down hills, and I can tell you my legs hurt far worse after the latter. If you were running on concrete, then yes, a treadmill is softer than that. Some of that could be attributed to the spring. But, part of that is probably because you're actually using your muscles. I'm not going to be sore talking a 3 mile stroll down the street. I'm going to be sore doing sprint or hill intervals.
My question is why the former is better than the latter on a biomechanical level. You keep saying that it is, but I'm curious why. Ah, but stress is exactly that; extra pressure on your muscles. So the stress of running up a hill is greater than a treadmill, right? And I agree that running up a hill is absolutely a far better, more intense exercise than running on a treadmill. But for that same reason, it's also more likely to cause injury by what you wrote above.
I am not running to lose weight necessarily (although like most females I will say that it would be nice to lose a few pounds) and I do watch my diet (how you got the fact that I was obese and needed a diet lecture from that post I will never know). I run for both the clarity of mind it produces (granted, that is much greater when running outside vs. treadmill), stress relief, and and health and heart benefits. I am sure there are many other cardio things that could do the same, but for me running is something that I started, stuck with, and saw great benefits from. Plus, during the nicer months I have several friends who I meet up with weekly to do at least one longer run during the week. We used to meet at a bar, sometimes we still do, the conversations that you have on a 12 mile run with a couple of friends are so much more genuine then any I have had at a bar. At this point, I am just trying to "maintain" fitness so I don't have to start from scratch during the spring and struggle to finish a mile. I kind of hate the treadmill a little bit for the monotony of it, but see it as a necessary evil right now and wanted to learn more about increasing my risk for injury. I have also used this wonderful winter season to try to balance out some of the very real imbalances that you guys have pointed out running produces. As far as I can tell, this occurs with both outdoor and treadmill running. So I have added a couple days of yoga and/or pilates per week. I was always bored with yoga, then I found Vinyasa, I love it.
How many people run up a 3 mile hill at a single time, I think that is her point, outside you get the stresses on certain joints, then you get a break, like the natural rolling hills produced in nature.
Maybe you just phrased your arguement wrong, but would you like to explain why you feel calories in vs. out is retarded? You realize that the reason you've yet to see someone get obese from eating meats, fruits, vegetables, and nuts is that they are much more filling, and thus people are less likely to eat as much? That's why many athletes don't eat paleo, they have trouble getting enough calories in. I don't know, but it kind of sounds like you drank the paleo kool aid. I will agree though, that for people who don't train much and want to lose weight, taking on some characteristics of the paleo diet can help.
I am going to chime in real quick on something I've used a lot, and which someone posted a link bashing: I LOVE elliptical machines. Yes, they are kinda lame. Yes, they don't burn calories how they say (after all, what machine really does?) However: If you are coming off of a MAJOR injury, they are fanfuckingtastic. When I blew out every ligament in my knee except the ACL and had to have three surgeries over 4 years to correct it, guess which machine helped me get back to basketball and volleyball? Yep, the elliptical machine. I was able to put my knee through full range of motion at full speed without pounding on it like running would have. The only thing close would have been water jogging, except the resistance on the elliptical was much better for my leg. And, I could run the elliptical machine in reverse, too. When I had to have my ankles operated on, guess which machine I turned to again? Yep, the elliptical machine. Full range of motion on my foot, again with no jarring impacts. Then, the best part of all: I was able to put my body weight on my hands a bit and sprint on the machine faster than I could have done on the ground. I could put my legs through the sprinting motion faster on the machine than I was able to if I were on a track. When my rehab was done and I went back to basketball, I was actually faster than before my injury, and had added about 2" to my vertical jump. The only thing I had done was PT and the elliptical machine.
My question is why the former is better than the latter on a biomechanical level. You keep saying that it is, but I'm curious why. Ok. Take a 1" difference between your legs. You're most likely going to compensate at the hips and your SI joint is going to be pulled from its neutral alignment (if you were even there to begin with). Also, because of the dip to one side to compensate, the glutes on one side are relaxing and/or you're using your QL to "hike". So, you're overdeveloping the QL on one side; weakening the glutes. If you do this for 4 miles on a treadmill, that's going to affect your body. If you do this for 1/8 mile and then the road changes, that's obviously going to have less of a detrimental effect on your SI joint/not cause as much of a muscle imbalance. Is that clear? I'm home from an extended happy hour and continuing the festivities. Ah, but stress is exactly that; extra pressure on your muscles. So the stress of running up a hill is greater than a treadmill, right? And I agree that running up a hill is absolutely a far better, more intense exercise than running on a treadmill. But for that same reason, it's also more likely to cause injury by what you wrote above. Yes. You're right.
Ignoring everything else that's wrong with a treadmill, the imbalance you can start developing from running on one will be constant, as other people said. If you run to a specific location and back, retracing your path, you can balance out the imbalances on your path. That's why I reccomend there and back runs, rather than circular routes. If you always follow a path where one leg is slightly below another (running on a sidewalk that slants towards the street, for instance), you are likely to get hurt after a period of time (which would be a manifestation of the unbalanced forces you've been subjecting your legs to). As for running on hills, running up is actually easier on your joints than running down. When you run up, your legs receive less impact because they aren't traveling as far downwards. Running down is very hard on your joints. Your legs will be moving further down than is usual, and you are going to be landing on your heels, which is worse for your lower body than a forefoot landing. Sprinting down hills has advantages though. Because you can get your legs moving faster than normal, you can arguably train your legs to get used to moving faster. This type of training should not be done often, however, as its more stressful than regular sprint training.
Okay, both good explanations, but in that case, I have a follow-up question; what do you consider a good cardio exercise that keeps stress on a roughly constant level, like a treadmill/hamster wheel does when setting a speed? With running outside on a mostly level surface, you alternate going fast or slower. What would you recommend for running cardio? Running up hills? Something else?
I'm not sure if I understand your question. Are you asking how to replicate being able to set or maintain a pace without inputting it on the treadmill? If so, there are quite a few things you can do. I'd do a warm up applicable to each type of running before starting the workout though. I'll give some examples: 1. <a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fartlek" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fartlek</a> Fartlek is essentially a type of interval training. You warm up by walking or jogging, then start mixing in a few steps of sprinting. Once you are ready, you jog at a steady pace. If you are doing a long session, for instance, you'd jog at a slow-medium pace. Every so often, pick a landmark. If running on the street, a street sign in the distance could suffice. Sprint to the sign, and then resume your pace until you feel sufficiently rested for the next sprint point you choose. This type of cardio can be applied to the sport you are training for, and you can change the intensity to match your goals or workout. 2. You can do hill repeats, walking or jogging down between reps. 3. You can do an interval workout on a track or any relatively level surface, mixing in sprints with slow jogging or walking to help recover. 4. You can do long slow runs to build your cardio. This would be maintaining a relatively easy pace for a long distance. It's important to keep the pace relatively easy though, or you'll stress your body more on the run than is necessary for this type of workout. It is good to get a mix of surfaces in (as long as you use a progression when trying out a new surface), including grass, dirt, sand, the street, hills, and whatever else you can think up. 5. CHI runs. CHI stands for continuous high intensity. This can be 1-3 reps of 10-20 minute runs at a 95 percent effort, with half the time of the rep added in as rest between reps. The most important thing you can do if you want to get off the treadmill is use a slow progression. You may not get injured immediately if you start pounding more pavement than your body is ready for, but that doesn't mean it won't happen down the road. The general consensus I've heard used is don't add more than 10% per week on to what you are currently running. Rereading your question, though, it sounds like options 4 and 5 would be the best fit for you.
This is the answer to your original question, KI. Very few people actually have the proper strength ratios between quad and hamstring. This causes compensation throughout the entire PC. Back and knee problems manifest because of it.
A question for the experts: What are your thoughts on snatch-grip deadlifts? A friend of mine recently recommended them. Are they worth it or just pointless added strain? I haven't tried them and am coming off a back injury so I wanted to get some opinions before I try something new.
One of the best kept secrets for rehabbing and strengthening your lower back and improving your deadlift. You can also do snatch grip deads from a deficit by standing on a 3" block.
Yes. I usually do them immediately after my normal deadlifts. Start with a moderate weight (about 60% of your 1RM with standard deadlifts)and do 3 sets of 5-8 reps. Increase the weight over time like you would with your deadlifts or squats. You should eventually be able to do 80% or more of your 1RM on standard deadlifts. Also, this is not a 1RM type of exercise. Use it as an assistance exercise in the 5-8 rep range.
Did anyone else buy & read The Four Hour Body? I just threw up a rave about it. While I know I'm not gaining much functional strength, the mass gains I've seen already using the "Geek to Freak" material are very pleasing. After the 12-weeks I'm spending to add size and then cut 3-5% bodyfat, I'm going to go back to lifting heavy and building strength, but it's an interesting book.
My favorite part of 4-hour body was where he documents the cocktail of steroids he used for "Reversing Injury". Of course, he wasn't using any of that when putting on 34lbs of muscle in 4 weeks. That was all from kettle-ball swings. Spoiler
You can't be serious... you're not actually buying into that bullshit are you? 34 pounds of muscle in 28 days with minimum exercise?
Oh my Gawd, I know right? Everything that is true about exercise has been discovered, obviously. It's best to remain blindly cynical of something that goes against your beliefs. Nevermind that in interviews he's said he dieted down before his own experiment and was probably 10-15 pounds under his normal weight. I'll leave the 17 pounds I've gained in 3 weeks out of it as well. Thanks for your snarky answer to my complete innocuous question, though. Nutrition is so much more important than exercise when it comes to body composition anyway.