Running's 9 Biggest Myths Debunked! 

Most people couldn't run 10km at all. I'd say that definitely qualifies you as a runner!

If you do all 3 together, yup, you’re a triathlete.

Brussels

Imma guess Lanzarote

I would say Playitas at fuerteventura

Thanks for flagging Seb, we'll get that updated

Thanks Georgi!

You immediately look at the extreme. Pro ultra runners are doing 100+ miles a week.

Finding degenerative changes in a joint does not correlate with pain and discomfort

@@OmahaTonyG yea but thats what you'd need to do in a study if you wanted to find out if running causes damage. Find the limit. I guess a good follow up study will be to find out what aspects of running contributes to damage be it mileage, type of training, trail conditions etc. But to completely say it is a myth that running can cause damage is false. Running in the wrong way can cause damage. Running excessive mileage can also cause damage. What defines excess is most likely dependent on the individual be it genetics or preconditioning. (I work in healthcare and am an ultrarunner myself so my colleagues were telling me that im destroying my health. I wanted to prove them wrong so i did my literature review 5-6y ago. I dont remember the details but my colleagues were right in some ways. The short of it is that too much running can cause permanent structural changes in the heart and joints. I dont remember the parameters, such as training volume, of the cohort they were studying, which were obviously different for each study. Additionally, in another study that looked at scans of knees after a run, there was damage to cartilage. They even looked into how long it takes to repair these and its about 24-48hr. All part and parcel of remodelling for adaptation as well which is good. However, accumulated damage over time can lead to early degenerative changes. Ask any vet runner though and they will admit to be prone to injuries/long term aches. Conversely, they will also likely be more mobile than their nonexercising counterparts. I still run 100 mile races so yea... knowing this did not change my behaviour.... except maybe less keen on junk miles and more motivated to keep lightweight to save my knees.

@@karinaniskanen1386 yes. It was just a way to make an objective vs subjective assessment in the study i guess.

Agree completely. Was quite surprised to hear this from GTN, I would always recommend stretching post-run. I agree incredible flexibility isn’t required to run, but stretching is an important injury prevention and recovery technique, regardless of if a particular muscle is hurting.

I had to start stretching after every run and do a 30 min yoga once a week to stop all my niggles. One time my hips were so tight I lost half my stride length and had to stop before my first mile. I don't think you need to be able to kiss your own ass, but you can become wound up tight real fast.

I believe here they meant "classical" running stretches vs light mobility work like yoga.

What if they are crocs? 😂

@@jonathanzappala crocs are just the best lol

Not true, its been shown some runners roll from the heel to the front of the foot. This acts like a cushion.

@@daigriffith4465 Maybe, but still isnt natural. Just look at sprinters or even 800-1500m runners.

@@mikeprice3705 More speed - less ground contact. Thats the equation proved in nature.

@@janosik4984 The majority of distance runners are heel strikers. This is true regardless of elite or recreational status, with at least 70 percent hitting the ground first at the heel. This may be because heel striking has been found to be more energy-efficient at slow to medium speeds. There are suggestions that a forefoot strike is less efficient, given the increased energy expenditure. Variation in foot strike exists at all levels of distance and competition, and will depend on what movement pattern the individual has optimized. Most recently, many claims have been made that forefoot striking is more common among elite athletes and therefore must be faster. In sprinters, this has found to be true. Due to their extremely high speed, most sprinters use a forefoot strike, with its shorter ground contact time. This ends up being efficient over shorter distances, but the amount of energy expenditure required has been found to be inefficient over longer distances. Heel striking at slow to moderate speeds has been found to be more energy-efficient, hence why a majority of distance runners may be heel strikers. Additionally, no link has been found between elite runners and a certain type of foot strike. Even among elites, there’s variation in foot strike, with the highest percentage being heel strikers. There’s even some anecdotal evidence that the best runners in the world are proficient at using all different types depending on terrain, fatigue, and other factors (I change my foot strike depending on different factors). Landing heel-first may be efficient for many reasons. The heel bone, also known as the calcaneus, is naturally curved. This curve allows for an efficient roll forward during a heel-first contact. This phenomenon is known as the heel rocker of the foot, which, along with the midfoot and forefoot rocker, improves energy efficiency in distance running and walking. Forefoot strikers may get a boost from the elasticity of loading their calves like a spring, but doing so takes a high amount of energy. Additionally, landing forefoot-first means that you miss out on appropriately utilizing the heel rocker. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, and different runners can optimize each of the strategies to incredibly high levels. It does, however, mean there are benefits and negatives to each foot strike. It’s often said that forefoot striking is more natural. Proponents of barefoot and minimalist running claimed that barefoot runners tend to run with a more forward initial strike. It was even claimed that everyone who switched out of traditional shoes immediately began forefoot striking. Better studies demonstrated that this isn’t true. Additionally, anyone who has done gait analysis or worked in a running store and watched people suddenly run barefoot knows how variable this response is. Those who run barefoot or in low-heel, light minimalist shoes still heel strike at a fairly high rate and have variable foot strikes just like those wearing traditional shoes. What most people do instead of switching their foot strike is shorten their stride and increase their step rate. Doing so decreases the impact with each foot strike. Changing step rate also changes the angle of inclination, or the angle of the foot relative to the ground. This has been suggested to be more important than foot strike, as even slight variations in the inclination angle during a heel strike has been shown to change impact forces. The final point about foot strike is something that I run into often in my clinical practice. People will proudly proclaim that they’re midfoot or forefoot strikers. They’re almost always wrong. Studies and clinical experience have suggested repeatedly that runners have poor body sense when it comes to knowing what part of their foot hits the ground first. Even experienced runners have frequently been shown to be wrong about this. So don’t believe them. No one needs to be embarrassed about their foot strike, and there are far more important things to worry about.

@@daigriffith4465 Hill striking actuality deactivates whole calf, I dont see this more efficient. Running forefoot engaging whole leg, gives more dynamic movement. Dont agree hill strike gives more cushioning and as I sad above, for me running forefoot is natural. I started with whole foot (hill striking) but with time changed and it was not based on any theoretical studies, it happened naturally, I just needed this to run with natural fluency. I run forefoot always, even running slow. Only keep in mind to contact the ground under the center of gravity. I switch to high hill only to relax the calf, kind of exercise it.