Sure...women that run grimace and their faces bounce.
That has more to do with extremely poor running mechanics than the nature of running itself. Exceptions may apply if we are talking about races in which the runner is pushing the boundaries.
And they don't wear good enough bras either. It is not rocket science.
Wardrobe Malfunction, A la Janet Jackson
This is something that can be easily fixed.
I think exercising on your back, with a happier expression might be better. or a bicycle, swimming...anything but running.
Why would that be?
Check out male or female marathoners..they look old. I respect runners---but it is no beauty treatment.
The grand majority of committed marathon runners (not those who run once and call it quits) spend a great deal of time outdoors, taking a beating from the elements, the most significant being UV rays. They may start with sunscreen but sweat eventually reduces its effectiveness. I think we cannot doubt the aging effects of excessive UV exposure. Just take a look at your typical sun worshipers and you'll know that a lot of sun ain't no beauty treatment.
Also, the grand majority of those long distance runners carry low levels of subcutaneous fat, which can make bony landmarks more pronounced. Add to that the effects of nature elements, and it is easy to see why they may appear prematurely aged.
Though there appears to be correlation, this actually DOES NOT show causality and it is an unfair conclusion. It is like saying that because the number of car accidents and icecream sales both increase in the summer, then icecream is the main cause of car accidents. Let's not confuse the influence of environmental elements with the nature of the activity
vertical and bounce, bounce, bounce--your face just wears out.
Again, that is POOR running technique, the result of poor conditioning, or both, and if this is the case, a worn-out face will be the LEAST of this individual's problems. A skilled runner has smooth strides and good force distribution, and you will never see any of the jarring that you mention. I would venture to say from my experience that only 1 of every 100 runners has proper technique.
Much better to walk uphill as fast as you can.
Is this statement still relevant if the runner has superb technique? Did you know that somebody with a significant leg-length discrepancy (5 mm or more) will DESTROY his hips and knees doing that kind of activity (both feet in contact with ground, uneven distribution of forces) than by running properly (in which leg-length discrepancies are not relevant since both limbs are never on the ground at the same time) Or did you have some other issue in mind? Would you please elaborate a bit more?
Also, you can't run while tightening your abs or pelvic floor.
And you shouldn't. Doing so would disturb breathing mechanics, force absorption and distribution mechanics, among a myriad of problems. This "tightening" of the abdominal wall and overemphasis of the TvA (the worst one being "suck-in your abs") is unfortunately the result of the misinterpretation of the works of Dr. Paul Hodges, and serves no purpose during real life activities.
Older women have the issue of organs heading south
VERY true, more so if they have multiple children, and even more significant if the pregnancies occurred one right after the other.
and I think exercise that requires a tightened abdomen and pelvic floor is much better than running, which is like dumping the socks out of a drawer.
In that case, nothing better than heavy lifting that involves valsalva and engages your trunk muscles in the way they are designed to work. Better yet, a well performed heavy squat clean will engage those abdominal muscles in a way very few things can. I'm referring to neuromuscular efficiency, which should be the goal of every functional program.
And once again, running will be like dumping socks out of the drawer only if it is performed poorly. Kind of like watching the untrained diver with console and octo dragging on the sand, thrashing about the reef with silt bombs and fins, flailing the arms wildly vs. watching a highly skilled diver hover motionless in the water, completely relaxed. The two of them can be called divers, but only one is actually a diver.
You have brought up a really good topic Catherine. Thanks!
Happy Diving
that's a good one Missus.
