Running outdoors might do more than just keep things interesting. New research finds that running in a natural setting can bring longer distances, greater enjoyment of running and a lot more motivation to run again. The study adds to the growing body of evidence that where people exercise might affect how they experience exercise, even when the amount of work involved is comparable.
The research, published in Evolution, Medicine, and Public Health, was led by researchers from Loughborough University and the University of Zurich. The team examined whether a forest environment might boost the benefits of exercise and the emotional response to running versus an urban environment.
The researchers enrolled 47 healthy adults who each completed two separate 30-minute running sessions. One session was held in a forest, and the other took place in an urban setting. Participants ran at a self-chosen pace that matched a perceived exertion level of four on a ten-point scale.
The distance that was travelled in the forest session was around 4,118 metres in the urban environment it was 3,936 metres on average. This makes it around 182 metres (around 4.6%) further to run in the forest than in the town.
Participants indicated similar levels of exertion, and their heart rates did not differ particularly between the two environments. So covering a greater distance was not linked to a clear increase in physiological strain.
Although the difference in running distance was statistically significant, the effect size was small. The findings should that means be viewed as suggestive of a potential benefit rather than the guarantee that each and every individual will achieve an improvement while running outdoors.
One of the strongest effects was enjoyment. The runners experienced much more enjoyment after running in the forest, compared to after running in the city.
Moods also increased more after the nature exercise session. The amount of change in between before and after exercise was measured by the researchers and they saw a more positive response to running in the forest.
There are a few potential reasons for these differences. Natural elements can offer visual interest, bring some birdsong, greenery, and an escape from the noise and bustle of traffic, streets, and crowds. These things can make exercise more interesting and enjoyable.
Still, the new research did not determine, which aspects of the environment were responsible for the benefits. Variations in scenery noise air quality, route design and other factors may have played a role.
The findings indicate that enjoyment should receive more consideration when creating exercise programmes. A workout that is perceived as rewarding may be more likely to be repeated than one that feels mainly like a duty.
The team also looked at how many participants said they wanted to do the exercise again. Following the forest experience, 77.4% said they wanted to do it again before long, compared to 30.6% of those who exercised in the town.
For the more distal period of time, the percentages were 71.5% for forest running and 21% for urban running.
What I find interesting about these differences is that most people struggle to maintain regular physical activity. Exercise plans often fail not because people lack knowledge of the health benefits, but because routines are hard to sustain.
