Couch to 5k - any good?

[ORD]

egor110 said:

Increased cardiovascular fitness and loosing a bit of weight has to be the most important thing you can do for your health surely ?

Re damage to joints you buy correct trainers for your gait and gradually up the mileage or run trails/off road.

Running doesn't make you lose weight any more than does any other way of reaching a calorie deficit - any exercise or even self-restraint will get you there.

Increased CV fitness is good for your health up to a point, but it's not going to make you live any longer or any healthier a life being able to run 5k in 20 rather than 30 minutes.

I'm not saying running doesn't bring advantages. It's just does not bring much bang for its buck. Lots of time, lots of wear and tear and not huge benefits.

A more general programme of fitness involving aerobic elements, anaerobic elements and resistance training elements would be much better for most people most of the time.

As I have said, there's just a cultural thing that makes running the default.

All that said, if you are not old and cannot run a 5k in under 30 mins, that's a bit of a red light for general fitness.

[johnwilliams77]

ORD said:

All that said, if you are not old and cannot run a 5k in under 30 mins, that's a bit of a red light for general fitness.

I would say 25mins is a more reasonable benchmark for someone sub 40. Should be possible with minimal training.

[ORD]

johnwilliams77 said:

I would say 25mins is a more reasonable benchmark for someone sub 40. Should be possible with minimal training.

That may well be right. I dont run much so am just going by what I remember was considered a reasonable time for untrained people.

I did 10k runs once a year for a few years and could get a 21 minute 5k after only a few weeks of training, but I was lean and in my late 20s then. Older and lazier now!

[egor110]

johnwilliams77 said:

I would say 25mins is a more reasonable benchmark for someone sub 40. Should be possible with minimal training.

That works out a 9 min mile then.

I think the whole point of couch to 5k is to encourage people then get them onto a park run.

If they previously did nothing then what min miles you do isn't important it's just the fact your now running.

[johnwilliams77]

ORD said:

Running doesn't make you lose weight any more than does any other way of reaching a calorie deficit - any exercise or even self-restraint will get you there.

Increased CV fitness is good for your health up to a point, but it's not going to make you live any longer or any healthier a life being able to run 5k in 20 rather than 30 minutes.

I'm not saying running doesn't bring advantages. It's just does not bring much bang for its buck. Lots of time, lots of wear and tear and not huge benefits.

A more general programme of fitness involving aerobic elements, anaerobic elements and resistance training elements would be much better for most people most of the time.

As I have said, there's just a cultural thing that makes running the default.

All that said, if you are not old and cannot run a 5k in under 30 mins, that's a bit of a red light for general fitness.

I do not agree that running does not 'bring much bang for its buck'. If you compare it to going to the gym, cycling or going swimming that would take most people significantly more time. Within 1hr I can get changed, go and run from my house for 10km, come home and shower (easy 45min 10km run) and even have some time for a bunch of press ups.

If I want to just burn a few hundred calories I can do hill repeat sprints which burns a lot of energy.

Interested on what a 'more general program' is and how that would improve fitness?

You are missing out that lots of people get a lot from running socially too: parkrun, running clubs so doesn't really matter as a sport on the benefits, the fact that you're active and socializing is good for the mind.

[johnwilliams77]

egor110 said:

That works out a 9 min mile then.

I think the whole point of couch to 5k is to encourage people then get them onto a park run.

If they previously did nothing then what min miles you do isn't important it's just the fact your now running.

I agree with the purpose of couch to 5k - that is exactly what I used it for. I don't know how it related to my point or indeed, what point you're making but I agree with both of your statements

[ORD]

johnwilliams77 said:

I do not agree that running does not 'bring much bang for its buck'. If you compare it to going to the gym, cycling or going swimming that would take most people significantly more time. Within 1hr I can get changed, go and run from my house for 10km, come home and shower (easy 45min 10km run) and even have some time for a bunch of press ups.

If I want to just burn a few hundred calories I can do hill repeat sprints which burns a lot of energy.

Interested on what a 'more general program' is and how that would improve fitness?

You are missing out that lots of people get a lot from running socially too: parkrun, running clubs so doesn't really matter as a sport on the benefits, the fact that you're active and socializing is good for the mind.

I certainly agree with your last point - I am sometimes tempted to take up running for that reason alone - to simply get some exercise with other people (like I used to when I did martial arts). I think that's a hugely beneficial element.

A more general programme would include aerobic, anaerobic and resistance elements. You can get a cracking total body workout in 45 minutes - one that will make you faster, more mobile, stronger and fitter, rather than just fitter.

I agree on convenience, though - being able to just pull on a pair of trainers and leave the house is a massive advantage. It is the hassle factor that stops me swimming. I think swimming is awesome exercise (and vastly better than running), but it is a hassle and takes up a lot of time. Swimming is probably about 50% faffing about and 50% exercise if you include getting to the gym and getting changed, etc.

[egor110]

Re the more general fitness , once somebody is doing 5ks the next logical step is 10k/half marathon.

Look at most training plans and they include weight lifting and some cross training , so that's the general fitness covered.

[ORD]

egor110 said:

Re the more general fitness , once somebody is doing 5ks the next logical step is 10k/half marathon.

Look at most training plans and they include weight lifting and some cross training , so that's the general fitness covered.

10k and marathon running is the same as 5k running - just running for longer.

Agreed on the last bit, but how many runners actually do the resistance training and do so properly? I know 1 guy that does. All the other runners that I know squeeze out all other training in the pursuit of miles on the clock.

[johnwilliams77]

ORD said:

I certainly agree with your last point - I am sometimes tempted to take up running for that reason alone - to simply get some exercise with other people (like I used to when I did martial arts). I think that's a hugely beneficial element.

A more general programme would include aerobic, anaerobic and resistance elements. You can get a cracking total body workout in 45 minutes - one that will make you faster, more mobile, stronger and fitter, rather than just fitter.

I agree on convenience, though - being able to just pull on a pair of trainers and leave the house is a massive advantage. It is the hassle factor that stops me swimming. I think swimming is awesome exercise (and vastly better than running), but it is a hassle and takes up a lot of time. Swimming is probably about 50% faffing about and 50% exercise if you include getting to the gym and getting changed, etc.

I am glad we agree. You can be a decent runner and have a couple of gym sessions too (I do this!) to keep some strength up also. They are not mutually exclusive!

As for your more general program in 45mins running can: make you faster, more mobile (whatever that is?), stronger (hill repeats) with squats between (and makes you fitter!)....

[johnwilliams77]

ORD said:

10k and marathon running is the same as 5k running - just running for longer.

Agreed on the last bit, but how many runners actually do the resistance training and do so properly? I know 1 guy that does. All the other runners that I know squeeze out all other training in the pursuit of miles on the clock.

On your last point, yes, fair enough, this does happen with many. Hence the skinny gaunt look many have which is rather unhealthy looking and not something I would want to ever look like (like you couldn't lift a tin of beans)

[egor110]

ORD said:

10k and marathon running is the same as 5k running - just running for longer.

Agreed on the last bit, but how many runners actually do the resistance training and do so properly? I know 1 guy that does. All the other runners that I know squeeze out all other training in the pursuit of miles on the clock.

Depends what you class as proper resistance training.

3 sets of 10, 5x5, 3 sets of 20.

To run faster your not going to do the same as someone who purely wants to get bigger.
Being able to lift a weight 5 times doesn't really aid running being able to do something like body pump where your squatting for 3-4 mins is far more useful.

[ORD]

egor110 said:

Depends what you class as proper resistance training.

3 sets of 10, 5x5, 3 sets of 20.

To run faster your not going to do the same as someone who purely wants to get bigger.
Being able to lift a weight 5 times doesn't really aid running being able to do something like body pump where your squatting for 3-4 mins is far more useful.

Yep. Because you are then not training strength but just using weights for cardio. So it's no longer resistance training of the right kind to offset the running a bit.

Sprints are a different beast - great exercise that makes you faster as well as fitter.

[johnwilliams77]

ORD said:

Yep. Because you are then not training strength but just using weights for cardio. So it's no longer resistance training of the right kind to offset the running a bit.

Sprints are a different beast - great exercise that makes you faster as well as fitter.

Running long distance makes you fitter
Running lots of sprint repeats makes you fitter
I am still not clear what your point is
Running isn't for everyone? No st. That's fine.
It's not as good as other types of exercise? Your view, fine. I disagree.

[The jiffle king]

I wanted to add to the couchto5k topic because my BiL and a friend have just gone through this and both had done zero exercise for 20 years and both made it to 5k. One is now working to 10k and the others already done 6k and is looking to improve his 5k time. Neither are what I would call fitness people, but the program has helped them both into regular exercise and they are enjoying it/ Both have also lost weight so it's worked for the 2 people I know who have gone through it.

Is running bad for you? I can make a case for everything being bad for you and running is cheap, easy to do, can be done solo or with people and Parkrun has made a difference to the fitness of the nation by providing a platform for people to exercise. C25K is great as it's getting people moving and whilst its not for everyone, I think it's great

[ORD]

johnwilliams77 said:

Running long distance makes you fitter
Running lots of sprint repeats makes you fitter
I am still not clear what your point is
Running isn't for everyone? No st. That's fine.
It's not as good as other types of exercise? Your view, fine. I disagree.

It's a discussion We don't have to agree.

My point is merely that running brings with it fairly narrow fitness benefits and is relatively damaging to the body (principally in terms of joint injuries and wear). That means, in my view, that's its not a great choice for most people.

[OMNIO]

Started this program this evening.

I knew I was unfit... but wow haha. Thought I was going to die by the halfway point. But things can only improve right?

I did a total of 2.28 miles split 0.89 walking and 1.39 running. Walking pace 17:55 per mile and running pace of 9:20 per mile.

[johnwilliams77]

ORD said:

It's a discussion We don't have to agree.

My point is merely that running brings with it fairly narrow fitness benefits and is relatively damaging to the body (principally in terms of joint injuries and wear). That means, in my view, that's its not a great choice for most people.

Like all the people who do park run every week?

Edited by johnwilliams77 on Wednesday 5th April 22:25

[OMNIO]

ORD said:

It's a discussion We don't have to agree.

My point is merely that running brings with it fairly narrow fitness benefits and is relatively damaging to the body (principally in terms of joint injuries and wear). That means, in my view, that's its not a great choice for most people.

It's a discussion about the program.

I wouldn't go to the Ferrari forum and post about how Lamborghini was better. How about you leave us to it?

[ORD]

The thread is titled 'Is it any good?'

But you can have your safe space!