Running

I started running competitively as a school kid, and most of how we ran was not based on science at all. For starters, I never had a coach even approach the topic of running form. There were kids who ran with the most bouncy gait that robs so much energy from you, and coaches never pointed it out. I wasn't like that, but only cause of luck.

There was also, and this definitely still exists today, almost exclusively training focused on high intensity, 110% effort workouts. Whether it was running 800 m intervals, or a 6 mile run, or a hill workout, the only objective was to do them faster. Anyone who actually looks into any science will tell you that it's a terrible approach; you need varied intensity to recover and build endurance. There's not a magical reset each night that let's you get up and do high intensity workouts day after day; that's a recipe for feeling like garbage every day. I think the widespread proliferation of smart watches is helping with this though, and I would encourage anyone to get even a really simple/cheap watch that can display heart rate.

Lastly, what I think is a vitally important distinction that no one makes is that increasing athletic performance does not equate to improving health. Many people recognize it in sports like gymnastics or wrestling, where tightly controlling your weight will help you win, but obviously, running laps while wearing a trash bag and not eating for week is bad for you. The same principal applies to running. There are plenty of things runners do to be faster that either don't have a benefit for overall health, or they are a net negative for health. Look up the "female athlete triad" for a good example.

Another example is flexibility. Many people equate greater flexibility with greater health and greater performance. Evidence has not shown this to be true. There's certainly circumstances where greater flexibility of a particular joint can improve specific performance capabilities, but it's not an across-the-board improvement. A range of motion that you might consider "flexible" in one sport, you could call "unstable" in another. You can find studies saying that there are performance and injury prevention benefits to certain stretching regimens for certain sports, but you can find just as many that report no benefits or a negative correlation. Just look at anyone with Ehlers-Danlos syndrome. Meta-analyses on the subject of stretching and flexibility are often inconclusive. Part of the trouble is that analyses are often done looking for a linear relationship between flexibility and injury, when the most likely (in my opinion) truth is that being too inflexible is bad, and being too flexible is bad, while being "average" is probably best for general fitness and injury risk reduction.

In a similar vein, shoes can be designed to make you faster, but that does not mean they are better for you. There's a lot to say about shoe design, injury risk, and performance, but rather than rant more, I'll just post a good review article.

Long story short, I think everyone needs to consider why they run. Is it to be the fastest, or is it to just have an enjoyable hobby that keeps you healthy?

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fspor.2022.815675/full