Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Primal evidence FOR Chronic Cardio

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Primal evidence FOR Chronic Cardio



    I'm a huge believer in the Primal Blueprint. Since adapting it in May of this year, I've lost 10 lbs (I wasn't particularly overweight beforehand) and feel and think better than I have in years. One area where I haven't followed the blueprint closely is in continuing my trail running. I felt guilty about being one of Mark's Chronic Cardio gang, but I've loved it too much to give it up, plus it FELT right intuitively.


    Yesterday (10/27/09), there was an article in the NY Times that seems to support the running habit FROM A PRIMAL PERSPECTIVE. Entitled "The Human Body is Built for Distance" (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/27/health/27well.html), it reads almost like a chapter from Mark's book, citing anthropology, anatomy and biomechanics in support of the argument that human beings are meant to run long distances.


    There are caveats, such as avoiding high-tech, highly engineered running shoes, but at its core, like Mark's book, the argument makes sense to me. I'd be interested in whether others (and Mark?) think there's enough evidence here to re-examine the rule against running.


  • #2
    1



    Mark has previously addressed one of the studies mentioned in the NYT article. Read his take on it here:


    http://www.marksdailyapple.com/did-h...tance-runners/

    Everything in moderation, including moderation.

    Comment


    • #3
      1



      There's a perfect example of why Tiny URL is useful on this site.


      Could you redo that, jbr613?


      Without saying all I'm tempted to, maybe we do well on running 5-10 miles when we really, really need to. But not marathons. And if we are such natural long distance runners, how is it that running has been considered painful and something to avoid for most of civilized history? It's only been the last 30 years that so many average folk have taken up running. Complete with all that body damage and even death. Hmmmmmmm.......

      Comment


      • #4
        1



        we are built for distance (look at the big migrations, from africa to south america... long distance anyone?), but not necessarily running it! rather a slow walk, which is a big part of the primal blueprint anyway (and exactly what mark says in the quoted link)

        Comment


        • #5
          1



          I agree that we are built for distance, but not running it. Apart from the chronic cardio issue, it is bad for many of your joints, because of the high impact nature of the activity (ankles, knees, hips, lumbar spine, etc).


          Not that I haven't done it myself, I might add!

          Comment


          • #6
            1



            Yeah, I think there's a big difference in impact on your overall health between running 26.2 miles nonstop on a road surface with high-tech shoes that provide lots of "support," and running the same distance barefoot or in minimal footwear, stopping to walk along the way.

            Check out my blog here.

            Comment


            • #7
              1



              For what it's worth...I think shorter distances (5K or even maybe 10k) might be fine...I think these may qulaity as short, intense running distances..but remember the Greek legend about the marathon...the original marathoner suppossedly dropped dead after he had run the 26 miles...


              Uggg!

              Comment

              Working...
              X