It also has a lot of advantages:

- all you need is a pair of decent trainers and shorts

- you don't need a partner

- you make obvious and steady progress

- most people unused to exercise need to work on cardiovascular stuff, not six packs

- you get to go outside, not stuck inside a hall or somewhere

> It has all the unpleasant effects of exercise

That's subjective; I like running outside. It lets me clear my mind like no other form of exercise. (I hate running int he gym, though)

> it destroys your knees

Only if you do it wrong. Unfortunately, 99.9% of the people do it wrong. I had started to develop some knee pains (only while running) after a healed knee injury. And then I discovered the Vibram Five Fingers, and after two weeks the knee pains were gone for good.

They take a while to get used to, but they're worth it.

It's not the shoe that's solving your problem, though. The trick is to run on your forefoot and roll back to your heel. That's it. That said, it's true that the key difference in the average running shoe and the Vibram line is the lack of heel-cushioning, which as a result encourages correct running, but I felt it pertinent to clear that up.

tl;dr run with an impact front-to-back, toe-to-heel.

That's right. I knew that long ago, but I was unable to maintain that pose while running 10km -- old habits die hard. After about one month of walking and running with the Vibrams, my step changed from heel-first to front-to-back, as it should -- and it stays that way even when I don't use the vibrams (I hardly use them at all during the winter -- they're not good for running in city puddles)

front-to-back toe-to-heel is the key. The vibram is a way to get there.

Wouldn't any shoe with no heel cushioning be a way to get there?

One required feature is the flexible toe-ball connection (so that you can comfortably use the toes to balance when the weight is on the balls of your feet), which not every shoe without heel cushioning will provide, though some probably will.

The other important feature is "high-resolution" impact transfer - you need precise ground feedback for your muscles to compensate for an uneven terrain.

If you have (as an extreme absurd case) a super-hard graphite/plexiglass sole, then you have no cushioning, but are not likely to avoid delivering impacts to your knees even if you run on the balls of your feet.

Supposedly, Vivo Barefoot, Nike Free and Newton are as good. But I only have experience with the Vibram FiveFingers, which is why I recommended it.

I own a pair of the Merrell True Glove trainers and love them. I thought they used basically the same sole as the VFF, although obviously not with separate toes. I just couldn't buy into having plastic between my toes, or not having option of wearing some liner/socks, also since mine look more "normal" or let's say less "goofy" I can confidently wear them in any environment.

Never heard of these - I will look them up.

> I just couldn't buy into having plastic between my toes

Me neither, but I just had to try, and I actually like it, even though I don't like "toe socks" inside a regular sneaker.

> or not having option of wearing some liner/socks

There are injinji socks; but I prefer the VFFs unsocked if I can properly wash and dry them (I use socks when I don't have wash-and-dry facilities).

> since mine look more "normal" or let's say less "goofy" I can confidently wear them in any environment.

That's a definite plus. (On the other hand, if you're looking for a conversation starter, the vibrams are hard to beat!)

+1 for the Vibram suggestion. I had a similar experience, and running barefoot-style is a world away from hammering along pavements

> ... and you still don't have a sixpack.

Most forms of exercise will not give you a visible sixpack. The biggest thing that matters for a sixpack is body fat %, which requires a healthy diet more than anything else.

Rock Climbing is probably a better plan then. It is fun in the way that you're not supposed to be having fun anymore at your age, to the point where you find yourself rearranging your schedule so that you can do more of it. And it absolutely will give you a sixpack by the time you're any good at it.

The only downside is that it won't actually get you fit in the traditional sense. I can pull into a front lever using two fingertips, but I can't run a mile to save my life.

Still, it's exercise that you'll actually do. And unless you live in Nebraska, there's a climbing gym within a 20 minute drive of you right this minute.

Rock climbing is fantastic, but as your claim that it doesn't make you 'fit' are a bit misleading. As with anything there are correct techniques and if overall 'fit'ness and being able to run a mile are related then you're doing it wrong in respect to your goal and you've probably chosen the wrong form of exercise.

Continuous bouldering again is a great way to work your cardiovascular while also stimulating your core. Slow top roping on the other hand won't be the same.

As seems to be the grandparents goal, you will definitely get a sixpack from rock climbing.

For cardio, you could also do top-rope laps. Pick a route slightly below your peak, climb it, descend, climb it, descend, climb it, descend. It's fun to see if your technical improvement by the third time compensates for climbing slower because you're tired.

And FWIW, I've been climbing 2 times/week for 3 years now and have no where near a six-pack :)

> it destroys your knees

This is a myth.

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/11/phys-ed-can-running...

The problem^ is that the biggest predictor of knee pain/problems is previous knee pain/problems. So you could run for years (or even decades if I recall the research) with no problems but once it occurs it can be hard to recover from or avoid in the future. As someone with plenty of metal in my legs and interior surface damage to my knee joint, I'm acutely aware of my need to find non-running exercise.

^ as I understood the paper I read last year, which I now can't find but it might have been mentioned in the NYT

Agree. I'm very active but don't do any cycling/running/gym work. I participate in sports for the enjoyment and adrenaline of the sport itself. Way more addictive - no need for training schedules and the like. I just HAVE to get to the beach when the wind is right.

Still, that's not taking away from running, many people really enjoy it and there is no denying it a cheap way to get fit.

I just like to go places on a bicycle. Not Lance rides, just use it to get stuff done; it's very good for people with knee problems because it strengthens your knee ligaments, as far as I know. And it's been a good way to stay in shape!

I'm not a runner, but I do enjoy a brief walk when I'm stuck on something, feel uninspired or just feel like my brain is slogging. The break away from the screen is really welcome.

At the moment I usually walk up, across and down a few floors in my building.

I agree... to each his own, but I find running very boring. If you're into the Paleo movement, it's recommended you focus more on slow movement such as walking, hiking, biking as well as full body exercises: squats, pushups, etc. Running for prolonged periods of time regularly can do our bodies more harm, especially if we're unfit in the 1st place. So it's just not a sustainable form of exercise. Better find an activity that's less stressful and more fun.

I'm a Paleo guy, though I typically suggest that people should do whatever physical activity they actually enjoy. Paleo's recommendation of functional training just happen to coincide with what I like.

As for running, I HATE running for any significant amount of time, and I chalk this up partially to my body-type - I'm very good with short sprints and have large muscle mass in my legs, which is the opposite of most serious [distance] runners who have leaner legs, but similar to track stars who do the 100M and such.

There is plenty of evidence that running is good for your knees as long as you aren't making an injury worse.

Also the only way to have a six pack is have low body fat, one of the many ways to achieve that is through running.

I don't think one should assume exercise means running but your points against running are wrong as well.