Running vs jogging

One thing that I've occasionally thought about is the difference between running and jogging. Naturally the internet disagrees with itself and I haven't invested any money on books or magazines about running. One does detect a slightly derisory tone about jogging, as if it is some essentially different and inferior activity, but without any definitions to qualify it.

But this morning I came across a BBC article by some sport trainer guy defining 6mph as a cut off point. So you have to be doing 10 minute miles to be running, any less is jogging. And what's more, if you are jogging, you might as well be walking, because it supposedly has the same calorie-burning benefits with less strain. I am a little incensed. My comfortable RUNNING pace is currently just under 11 minute miles. I certainly can't walk that fast, and in all my running, I've never been outpaced by a walker. It also says that you should always run on the balls of your feet, but I know the jury is out on this one - I saw a proper running article suggesting that up to 70% percent of elite runners are heel first, and that what matters is what's comfortable and doesn't result in injury. I'll keep heeling it, thanks.

I want to run faster - I currently get a little too out of breath, but I believe that if I keep at it, I'll get there. I don't think condescending articles like that really have any place on the BBC, which aims to promote health and fitness. It's potentially very discouraging to be told that you might as well be walking, when you've put all your best effort into doing something better. And I will keep going. Whether it's called running or not.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/health_and_fitness/4286146.stm