Running isn't even the best option for weight loss, as it's highly inefficient for a calorie burning activity. Hell, I would argue it's not even a good option. Running has much more to do with economy and managing resources and efforts, than a mere extra energy expenditure for people trying to wave their beer belly goodbye.
I've been deeply in love with running for a little short of a decade now, but never have I ever suggested it to anybody. Run if you like it, but if you do it just for weight loss, there are far better ways with which to employ your time, e.g. powerlifting, calisthenics, or HIIT if you really want to stick with podistics. And always get your diet in check, that solely is more than half the work for really any kind of weight loss program.
Yeah I understand that diet is the best way to lose weight, then lifting weights. Thing is, I hate both of those options far more than swimming or running, which I do both of.
I can swim very quickly for someone of my size. I do about 1200m straight through a couple of times a week during summer and less during winter, I didn't swim last week.
I currently run four times a week, Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and a long run on Saturday.
That said...
That's 8'50"/km, I'm not even sure it's not walking, really.
What kind of aspired weight loss are we talking? If you're not quite vastly out of shape, I would strongly advise you to focus on quality now, as in pressing the pace up with repetition training - at least until you'll be around 6'00"/km average on your 7 km run (which you'll continue to do once a week), and only then thinking of increasing the mileage again. I'm talking 2 rep. training sessions and 1 long run, weekly, always with a full recovery day between sessions.
It's definitely not walking for me. I slowly overtake all the walkers I go past as well.
I'm short and obese according to bmi (I am strong from swimming and playing water polo in my youth, but have a beer gut. I'm currently 31 years old). I wear size 36 pants but XL t-shirts. I'm very solid, but not fat. I play sport (cricket) and a bit of indoor soccer.
I my weekdays trainings are currently about 4km long and take 34mins. I do this running without stopping.
The point is: why even bother doing 5k at 9'/km? What's that doing for you? Those are 350 kcal burnt if you're 80 kg, the rough equivalent of a PBJ sandwich. Again: not a good weight loss activity.
Even if you're starting from the absolute zero, and wanting to get into running, I would set 30' training sessions, consisting of alternate walking and running (no slower than 6'30"/km) until you can finally do a full 30' run, nearing 5 km in lenght. At that point I would suggest getting your 5 km under 30' as your next goal, and only thereafter upping the workload (by adding slightly more mileage).
Transitioning from sedentary to a running form equals not only to train cardiovascular efficiency and muscle tone, but also to getting your body to tolerate trauma, as in hitting the ground with your feet repeatedly for (sometimes) a hour long sessions. That's why proper footwear is a must when getting serious about running. Now consider this: the slower you're running, the longer the time that you're touching the ground, the bigger the strain that kneecaps and joints and bones have to put up with. Also, running slowly (6'/km or more) limits the range of motion that your legs go through, and that too is bad for the knee joint. It's not a mystery that, in the running world, slow pacers are those who get injured the most.
My motivation is not weightloss but is more fitness. As I said I play cricket and are desperate to hit a century (a milestone in cricket) before I finish playing. To hit a century it takes a lot of effort. 99% of people who play cricket will never hit one because it is hard. We play during summer where temperatures are over 100deg F and you need to wear protective gear and be out there for about 3hours batting. I have been close a few times but my fitness is what is killing me. I'm easily skilled enough, I'm the best batsman in my team over the last four years, but get too tired and make mistakes. I could be better.
There is a 12km fun run on 20th September and my cricket club is entering a team for the players who want to do the run. It will be for charity and keep me active over winter, so that is a good thing. I am training With that date and distance in mind.
So I started the c25k in February. I finished it in about 3 month. Since then I have been slowly increasing my run times to make sure I will get to sept 20 and can run 12km without walking.
Yeah, I was hoping the running would help me lose weight but it was not the primary reason for taking up running. Having stronger legs helps a lot in cricket because you are standing up, jogging sporadically, for six-seven hours during a game. I wore my gps during a game last season, and I clocked up about 5km without taking into account my batting (couldn't wear my watch batting). A lot of this is walking around though.
It is, that's why when referring to a 9'/km pace as "a walk" what I'm really doing is just stating an hyperbole. Figures of speech are functional to effective communication.
As for the jogging/running dualism, would you say they're exactly the same thing? I don't think you do, you just don't want to appear rude or elitist. But there's nothing to be offended of, really! It's sometimes useful to distinguish, and I personally use two criteria in order to do so. Generally speaking, these are also the premises of athleticism:
- Do you plan your training? (As in: set goals, divide, differentiate, keep track, evalue.)
- Is your movement intentional as a whole? (I'm speaking posture, take-off, landing, arm swing, breathing.)
If the answer to these previous question is both yes, then you're most certainly a runner.
But if your only care is to get out of the house to take your mind off of things, just putting a foot in front of the other while knowing that you're doing something much healthier than chair-sitting, then you're a jogger.
And I don't say that in a bad way, it just happens to be a definition for a slightly different activity than running. And of course these are two extremes, feel free to fill in what in fact is a spectrum.
r.
By your definition then I am definitely a runner. I am in a nikeplus challenge with some friends from overseas. The goal was to run 400km from May 1 to December 31. I am currently sitting second out of 15 people with about 180km down.
What I find is that my first couple of kms are slow, around 9mins. The when I am warmed up I am running the last km at about 7.5mins. By the time I finish I am definitely out of breath.
So would you suggest I keep my weekday runs around 4km or should I keep increasing it? I want to increase it by another 1km or so so that I am running 5km three times during the week.
I also like running because I do find it relaxing, unlike working out in the gym - full of other people and bad music. Probably why I like swimming too.