I’m 45. I’ve been a runner for twenty years. I mainly do it to maintain my cardiovascular health. I run two to three days a week, running about four to five miles each time I go out.
I’ve heard over the years that running will destroy my knees, destroy my joints, cause foot problems, etc.
I’ve never had any knee, foot, or joint problems; my legs are strong and I’ve never had any pain. None-the-less, am I prematurely aging my joints by continuing to run?
My stepfather ran most of his life at about the same level you do. He made it until his early 60’s in great health. However, he is 65 now and has lots of osteoarthritis especially in his knees and hips (wear and tear). It isn’t debilitating yet but it is painful. I don’t know if that is reassuring because he made it to a fairly old age with few problems but it looks like he is going to have lasting and painful damage from it as he gets older. Of course, most people have some joint problems as they get older regardless of whether they were runners or not.
How are you built? Are you a lean bodied person? If so, the weight of pounding the road will do less damage than it does for someone like me. I haven’t run in years (I hate it), but I ran 4 days a week for 11 years through ROTC in college and then on Active Duty in the Army. Even when in great shape, I have a stocky build, and was usually around 215 lbs when in the Army, so I put a great deal of pressure on my joints. My knees are OK, but my lower back was adversely affected from the running. In addition to being a thick, relatively muscular guy, I am VERY long waisted, and so my lower back took a pounding through all the running. As a result, I’ve had some back pain since I was about 28. I’d imagine if I had kept it up for another 9 years, I’d have some serious joint and back pain (though I’m sure I’d be thinner than I am now).
I know a LOT of people in the Army who ended up wearing leg braces once they hit about 35 because their knees were essentially destroyed.
I don’t have a “runner’s physique”; short , stocky, and muscular. I’m 5’ 6" and weigh around 160 lbs.
Only if you store them in your socks.
I highly recommend this book.
Time Magazine article detailing a Stanford study.
Have you considered cycling?
Probably - they can unwrap and spill their contents…
Unfortunately, as is common with the media, Time’s article missed a key point.
The Stanford studyfollowed patients starting at age 50 years old and older. The study’s chief author, James Fries, is an enthusiastic runner, so perhaps he can be forgiven for some of his more enthusiastic quotes. And of course, many pro-running articles are quick to pick up on any good news about how good running is for you.
Why is a study for old guys not very useful to answer your question? Because by age 50, the people who shouldn’t be running excessively, and whom running has injured, have already crapped out. Go watch a marathon. Plenty of young, big guys, some obvious footballers wanting to prove they still have it. Now check out the 60 year olds: small-framed, light of feet, good of technique…they wouldn’t be running at that age if running was the wrong sport for them.
I’m not saying running trashes your joints, but my gut is that your frame does make a difference, as do your joint mechanics and your genes, especially if it’s more vigorous running. See Jman’s post in this thread for some anecdotal comments around this idea. I can tell you in medicine we see joint injury all the time in vigorous exercisers, and of course a long term prospective study needs to include what percent of people dropped out of their exercise regimen because of injury–you can’t just look at everyone who ran for 40 years and see how they are doing against people who didn’t run. Maybe those who don’t exercise now used to, but it wrecked their joints.
I should also mention that, while knees are a popular item to look at, other joints–especially hips, but also feet and backs–are equally significant.
Here are a few more studies to look over.
Full disclosure: the Pedant is a fat and lazy geezer, praying for the comeuppance of his haughty marathoning neighbors (whom he otherwise loves).
Do you (or anyone else) really find them to be comparable exercise? I enjoy both, but I can’t really get out of breath from cycling. My lungs/heart are by far the weakest link when I run and I can’t find any other way to exercise that feels the same at all.
For many years, I did moderate hiking on mountainous hiking trails – 3 to 7 miles, once or twice a week, monitoring my pulse rate and mostly maintaining that at 120-140. That seemed to keep me in good cardio condition for many years. I began to have joint problems (from other causes, I think) and now I don’t do much exercise any more.
ETA: I should add: It always seemed clear to me that walking uphill is an entirely different exercise than walking on level ground – uphill not only is much more work, but it seems to use different muscles, with the power stroke coming at a different point in the stepping cycle than walking on flat ground.
Yep; different muscles involved for each: uphill, downhill and flat ground.
Walking and running are great cardio workouts, but cycling is less stress on the knees and ankles and hips and spine. It’s not as good for your abs, tho.
There was a news story on TV last night about running. A runner with a long stide has a higher impact when running. The advice was to take short faster strides.
It depends on your shoes, your stride, and the surface you run on.
My husband joined the Army in 1968, and at that time, the recruits ran in combat boots on pavement.
His arches are crap, and he’s had almost constant foot pain for over forty years.
Recruits wear running shoes for PT now.
~VOW
Yes, that and also: The nature of the work is different. Walking on flat ground, each step must (at some point in the stepping cycle) propel your body forward. OTOH, walking uphill, with each step the power movement comes when you straighten your knee (not the same point of the power movement when walking on level ground), and the work involves lifting the entire weight of your body against gravity – something that isn’t involved in level walking.
I’ve discussed hiking as a cardio conditioning activity, with several doctors over the years. From the remarks they made, I got the impression that none of them knew this.
I read the results of a long-term running study (probably the Stanford study) and they did MRIs on long-time runners and found the cartilidge (sp?) to have ‘grooved’ in a way that prevented joint injuries. I was pretty surprised by the results as I have experienced knee and hip pain from running over the years (nothing serious) and expected runners to have more joint issues than a control group
Also, regarding shoes, I have noticed a return to more ‘barefoot’ running advice with running shoes actually providing less cushioning than other shoes. This is supposedly to promote more healthy striding that naturally prevents joint issues rather than providing lots of cushioning and allowing poor stride technique to persist. I don’t know what’s right, but it’s an interesting approach.
The Science of Sport:Running shoes, barefoot running and muscle tuning
Umm, that IS a runner’s physique, or close enough. The ideal long distance runner is 5’6" - 5’8" and 150-160lbs or so, at least that’s what we were told when I ran track, but that was before the Kenyans hit the scene.
Is it possible to run until you’re 90 without issues? Sure. I doubt it’s probable for most people, who are not going to have the genetics or the ideal body type to do so. I’m 6’1" and 190lbs, and I quit marathoning when I was your age because I could feel the toll it was taking on my body, piled onto the miles I’d already accumulated (I started running track when I was 11).
Currently I do a mix of weight training and calisthenics, plus run just 2-3 miles about 3 times/week, but more and more I’m leaning towards walking as my cardio, which is about 80% as good but much easier on the body. The Browns typically live to 100, which means I’ll need my knees for another 50 years.
Of course, if you’re going uphill, you are probably not pounding your knees like you would with a run on flat pavement.