Running vs. HIIT: The endurance running cult faces challenges

"Running 10k in 50 minutes is useless": running is being questioned

Running ten kilometers in fifty minutes is almost useless, according to a participant in the debate. A decade ago, this statement might have sounded like an excuse from the couch, but it now circulates naturally within discussions among those who have swapped continuous running for short intervals, sprints, and pull-ups. The trigger was an article with more rhetoric than evidence—even its proponents acknowledge its pseudo-scientific veneer—which claims that long-distance running wears out the body, raises cortisol, and leaves runners unable to handle explosive efforts.

The tone soured when a forum user recounted, citing local press, that on March 21, 2016, a 37-year-old runner died during the Gijón Half Marathon, and another 52-year-old suffered a heart attack just meters from the finish line. Witnessing resuscitation up close, as a bystander did, doesn't solely argue against the sport, but it raises an uncomfortable question: how much wear and tear is being marketed as health?

Short sprints versus endurance: what you gain and lose

The core of the disagreement is simple. One school of thought argues that explosive strength—sprinting 800 meters at maximum effort—is more useful for daily life, while pure endurance for ten kilometers seems pointless. The anecdotal evidence from proponents: losing more fat and achieving better definition with pull-ups and sprints than with hours on the asphalt.

On the other hand, a technical nuance is raised in the thread that is often overlooked. At low intensity, between 50% and 60% of capacity, almost all energy consumed comes from fat, although not in greater quantities. When the pace increases, the body draws on glycogen and, if not careful, on muscle mass. The recurring conclusion: high volume does not equate to better results. The counterargument also surfaces: HIIT, with its brutal peaks, also spikes cortisol.

Weight and knees: the two recurring costs

One point that is almost taken for granted is the arithmetic of weight: every kilo counts in long-distance running. According to a calculation circulating in the thread, losing ten kilos can shave between 18 and 20 seconds per kilometer, and gaining weight does the opposite. The classic comparison—marathon runner Dennis Kimetto versus weightlifter Dmitry Klokov—epitomizes two opposing physiques. The extreme thinness of the distance runner is not about aesthetics; it's pure physics.

The other cost is articular. Some argue, supported by a traumatologist's opinion, that running damages the knees in the medium term. Others add that both long-distance running and sprinting create unappealing bodies, and that by age 45, distance runners are left with no cartilage.

A body made for running or walking?

Here the discussion turns anthropological. A recurring thesis in the thread: if humans were designed to run, they would have four legs, and bipedalism favors walking over jogging. Quadrupeds only run to hunt or flee; they trot the rest of the time. The objection comes, within the same debate, from evolutionary biology: chasing prey for hours until exhaustion was one of the advantages that gave the species its place in the food chain.

What they do agree on is that moderate exercise of any kind is not harmful. The problem isn't running; it's the dosage and the dogma.

The swimming alternative (with fine print)

If running damages the knees, swimming emerges as a refuge. It moves the body without joint impact, and some recall that doctors prescribe it for minor issues. The fine print: swimming poorly can lead to rotator cuff, cervical, and spinal injuries. Butterfly stroke is contraindicated for the back, and freestyle requires attention to the neck.

To swim seriously requires highly refined technique, and in that regard, running has an advantage: although it's hard on the body, almost everyone has some notion of how to run, leaving long-distance running to those who truly enjoy it.

The soft consensus—a bit of everything, without dogma, with strength and some endurance—is what generates the fewest headlines. And the abandonment of the marathon myth as the pinnacle of health emerges: some combine hypertrophy with 200 and 400-meter intervals. If the trend consolidates, long-distance running will be left for specialists.