How Do You Not Hate Running?
Replies
-
This is the sort of situation where speed matters. It's not a question of merely reaching the child or getting out an alley. It's a question of doing so IN TIME.A lot of people here say that you don't have to run in order to be fit. That's only partially true.
You don't have to run in order to lose weight or to help avoid certain degenerative diseases. However, you do need to run so that you CAN when you have to... in an emergency situation, for example. When you have to rescue a child that's fallen into a pool, for example. Or when you need to escape a dangerous situation.
So you don't need it in order to trim down a bit. If you want to deal with the rigors of life though, I'd urge everyone to do a least SOME running, even if it's not the backbone of one's fitness program.
I can't believe you would have to be a runner v. someone who, say, incorporates aerobics and has some strength in order to get several yards to a swimming pool to save a child. Or to run out of an alley.
Can you run toward a pool even if you're not a runner? Sure. Can you do so in time to save the child's life? Maybe, maybe not. Being properly conditioned for running makes all the difference.
"But it's only a few yards!" you say. Sure... if you're lucky. Personally, I'm not going to be a child's life on being close enough to handle such emergencies without preparation.
The same principle applies when it comes to running out of a burning building or away from an active shooter. Can someone who never runs "run" in a situation like that? Of course. Can they do so well enough to save their lives -- or to save someone else?
Or if you have to catch a bus. Or a train. Heck, I was once in a situation where I had to pick a stranger's luggage up and dash toward a gate just so she could meet her connecting flight. If I hadn't been properly conditioned, there's a good chance that she would never have made it.
I stand by what I said. There are situations where you have to run -- and I don't just mean putting one foot in front of the other in a running motion.
I don't think anyone is arguing that it isn't important to be fit. My specific skepticism is that someone who regularly runs in a way associated with endurance exercise is more likely to be able to sprint to rescue someone or evade an active shooter as opposed to another fit person who has selected a different form of cardiovascular exercise.
I say this as a marathon runner. If the situation was "outrun an attacker for a few miles," I think I would be better than the average person (unless, of course, my attacker was one of the many people who can run a faster mile than me). For some other situations, like evading gunfire, I'm not sure it is more useful than other types of fitness.
Even if it is true that runners have a better chance of surviving an active shooter attack, I don't know if that concern is immediate enough to help someone overcome a dislike of running and get them doing it regularly enough to see the benefits. Given that we *know* inactivity is a more real and pressing danger for most people, I still think it is better for people to choose cardio activities that they enjoy and will find sustainable.
I might someday be in a situation where my life would be saved by the ability to rock climb successfully. I know these situations exist. But I hate heights and making myself climb regularly just in case would be so unpleasant for me that it would be a counterproductive fitness choice for me to try to force on myself.11 -
As an extremely fat kid with asthma, I struggled so much with running, my PE teacher just let me walk. I guess I developed a complex because even the thought of running gives me anxiety, but I know it’s necessary cardio to look the way that I want. Plus, it’s free! Which is awesome because I’m saving to join a gym.
I think not many of us are actually taught how to run when we're in PE, we're just told to run. Because I was so bad at it, it gave me a bit of a complex about running too. (I thought I was bad at it because my teacher told me that anyone should be able to walk a mile in 15 minutes. In retrospect, not many adults I know walk 4 mph.) I would try it again occasionally in my 20s, but it never took.
As I lost weight and got fitter in my late 20s and early 30s, I naturally migrated towards running. I've always been a hiker and walker, so started with walking more often in hilly areas. I also did the elliptical. After a couple years, I got bored with these and decided to give running another shot. I did a sh-ton of research before I even started; I spoke with any runner friends I had and read a bunch of the threads on here. There's so much good info on MFP and in this thread! I didn't do c25k because I started running in my neighborhood, which is super hilly. I would just run as slow as possible and walk when it became too unpleasant or my heart rate went too high (I wore and HRM in the beginning).Also, is it normal to feel tingles in my butt and thighs, and tightness in my chest? I know it might be a dumb question, but what should it feel like?
Yes, that is normal. You'll also feel sore in random muscles in your legs and butt, even back and arms, afterwards.
The good thing is that over time, these things decrease in intensity or go away completely (that is, until you increase speed/distance).
What should it feel like? Eventually, you don't get out of breath anymore and it feels like fast walking used to. I love running because I never thought of myself as a runner, so I've accomplished something I didn't think was even possible. I also love it because sometimes, when I'm outside and it's gorgeous, it feels like flying. I find it meditative, and it's helped me manage my anxiety. However, some days it sucks. One day it'll feel amazing and the next run it's so much harder for seemingly no reason. Run quality will vary day to day.
You don't have to run to be healthy. But if you do decide to start, good luck!5 -
And that is where you are in error.janejellyroll wrote: »
This is the sort of situation where speed matters. It's not a question of merely reaching the child or getting out an alley. It's a question of doing so IN TIME.A lot of people here say that you don't have to run in order to be fit. That's only partially true.
You don't have to run in order to lose weight or to help avoid certain degenerative diseases. However, you do need to run so that you CAN when you have to... in an emergency situation, for example. When you have to rescue a child that's fallen into a pool, for example. Or when you need to escape a dangerous situation.
So you don't need it in order to trim down a bit. If you want to deal with the rigors of life though, I'd urge everyone to do a least SOME running, even if it's not the backbone of one's fitness program.
I can't believe you would have to be a runner v. someone who, say, incorporates aerobics and has some strength in order to get several yards to a swimming pool to save a child. Or to run out of an alley.
Can you run toward a pool even if you're not a runner? Sure. Can you do so in time to save the child's life? Maybe, maybe not. Being properly conditioned for running makes all the difference.
"But it's only a few yards!" you say. Sure... if you're lucky. Personally, I'm not going to be a child's life on being close enough to handle such emergencies without preparation.
The same principle applies when it comes to running out of a burning building or away from an active shooter. Can someone who never runs "run" in a situation like that? Of course. Can they do so well enough to save their lives -- or to save someone else?
Or if you have to catch a bus. Or a train. Heck, I was once in a situation where I had to pick a stranger's luggage up and dash toward a gate just so she could meet her connecting flight. If I hadn't been properly conditioned, there's a good chance that she would never have made it.
I stand by what I said. There are situations where you have to run -- and I don't just mean putting one foot in front of the other in a running motion.
I don't think anyone is arguing that it isn't important to be fit. My specific skepticism is that someone who regularly runs in a way associated with endurance exercise is more likely to be able to sprint to rescue someone or evade an active shooter as opposed to another fit person who has selected a different form of cardiovascular exercise.
First, I was talking about running, not necessarily endurance exercise. Sprinting is an example of running, for example. Not all running involves long distances.
Second, someone who either sprints or does distance running will still be better at running that someone who merely walks or does Zumba. You can be skeptical all you want, but running makes one better at running.
Tell ya what. If you can convince me that someone who doesn't run can get out of a burning building as someone who does incorporate running into his or her fitness program, then I will gladly concede this point. How would you go about defending such a position?
8 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
This is the sort of situation where speed matters. It's not a question of merely reaching the child or getting out an alley. It's a question of doing so IN TIME.A lot of people here say that you don't have to run in order to be fit. That's only partially true.
You don't have to run in order to lose weight or to help avoid certain degenerative diseases. However, you do need to run so that you CAN when you have to... in an emergency situation, for example. When you have to rescue a child that's fallen into a pool, for example. Or when you need to escape a dangerous situation.
So you don't need it in order to trim down a bit. If you want to deal with the rigors of life though, I'd urge everyone to do a least SOME running, even if it's not the backbone of one's fitness program.
I can't believe you would have to be a runner v. someone who, say, incorporates aerobics and has some strength in order to get several yards to a swimming pool to save a child. Or to run out of an alley.
Can you run toward a pool even if you're not a runner? Sure. Can you do so in time to save the child's life? Maybe, maybe not. Being properly conditioned for running makes all the difference.
"But it's only a few yards!" you say. Sure... if you're lucky. Personally, I'm not going to be a child's life on being close enough to handle such emergencies without preparation.
The same principle applies when it comes to running out of a burning building or away from an active shooter. Can someone who never runs "run" in a situation like that? Of course. Can they do so well enough to save their lives -- or to save someone else?
Or if you have to catch a bus. Or a train. Heck, I was once in a situation where I had to pick a stranger's luggage up and dash toward a gate just so she could meet her connecting flight. If I hadn't been properly conditioned, there's a good chance that she would never have made it.
I stand by what I said. There are situations where you have to run -- and I don't just mean putting one foot in front of the other in a running motion.
I don't think anyone is arguing that it isn't important to be fit. My specific skepticism is that someone who regularly runs in a way associated with endurance exercise is more likely to be able to sprint to rescue someone or evade an active shooter as opposed to another fit person who has selected a different form of cardiovascular exercise.
I say this as a marathon runner. If the situation was "outrun an attacker for a few miles," I think I would be better than the average person (unless, of course, my attacker was one of the many people who can run a faster mile than me). For some other situations, like evading gunfire, I'm not sure it is more useful than other types of fitness.
Even if it is true that runners have a better chance of surviving an active shooter attack, I don't know if that concern is immediate enough to help someone overcome a dislike of running and get them doing it regularly enough to see the benefits. Given that we *know* inactivity is a more real and pressing danger for most people, I still think it is better for people to choose cardio activities that they enjoy and will find sustainable.
I might someday be in a situation where my life would be saved by the ability to rock climb successfully. I know these situations exist. But I hate heights and making myself climb regularly just in case would be so unpleasant for me that it would be a counterproductive fitness choice for me to try to force on myself.
I think the bolded above is really key. I posted a thread a bit ago about what an ideal basic level of "fitness" would look like, and being able to sprint and lift heavy-ish stuff definitely came up several times. But this isn't a hypothetical, and the average inactive person is vastly more likely to die of the side-effects of their inactivity than they are to end up in a mass shooting situation or being the only person available to rescue a drowning child (I suppose we should add "swimming" to the list of fitness requirement too, right?). So if you're a weirdo who kind of likes the idea of being the living epitome of basic fitness (hi!), sure, consider some running (or sprinting). Otherwise, just stick with rowing or walking your dog or hula-hooping or whatever gets you off your butt on a regular basis.8 -
I hate running and have no desire to learn to love it. For those that do, great, knock yourselves out but there are several alternatives to running for cardio and fitness.
Biking and rowing are just two. I've got a spin bike and a rower at home but I prefer the rower. It's low impact, can be done at home regardless of the time or weather and gives a full upper and lower body workout that other types of cardio equipment cannot replicate.
So, OP, if you just can't learn to "not hate running," just consider the alternatives.5 -
And that is where you are in error.janejellyroll wrote: »
This is the sort of situation where speed matters. It's not a question of merely reaching the child or getting out an alley. It's a question of doing so IN TIME.A lot of people here say that you don't have to run in order to be fit. That's only partially true.
You don't have to run in order to lose weight or to help avoid certain degenerative diseases. However, you do need to run so that you CAN when you have to... in an emergency situation, for example. When you have to rescue a child that's fallen into a pool, for example. Or when you need to escape a dangerous situation.
So you don't need it in order to trim down a bit. If you want to deal with the rigors of life though, I'd urge everyone to do a least SOME running, even if it's not the backbone of one's fitness program.
I can't believe you would have to be a runner v. someone who, say, incorporates aerobics and has some strength in order to get several yards to a swimming pool to save a child. Or to run out of an alley.
Can you run toward a pool even if you're not a runner? Sure. Can you do so in time to save the child's life? Maybe, maybe not. Being properly conditioned for running makes all the difference.
"But it's only a few yards!" you say. Sure... if you're lucky. Personally, I'm not going to be a child's life on being close enough to handle such emergencies without preparation.
The same principle applies when it comes to running out of a burning building or away from an active shooter. Can someone who never runs "run" in a situation like that? Of course. Can they do so well enough to save their lives -- or to save someone else?
Or if you have to catch a bus. Or a train. Heck, I was once in a situation where I had to pick a stranger's luggage up and dash toward a gate just so she could meet her connecting flight. If I hadn't been properly conditioned, there's a good chance that she would never have made it.
I stand by what I said. There are situations where you have to run -- and I don't just mean putting one foot in front of the other in a running motion.
I don't think anyone is arguing that it isn't important to be fit. My specific skepticism is that someone who regularly runs in a way associated with endurance exercise is more likely to be able to sprint to rescue someone or evade an active shooter as opposed to another fit person who has selected a different form of cardiovascular exercise.
First, I was talking about running, not necessarily endurance exercise. Sprinting is an example of running, for example. Not all running involves long distances.
Second, someone who either sprints or does distance running will still be better at running that someone who merely walks or does Zumba. You can be skeptical all you want, but running makes one better at running.
Tell ya what. If you can convince me that someone who doesn't run can get out of a burning building as someone who does incorporate running into his or her fitness program, then I will gladly concede this point. How would you go about defending such a position?
I appreciate you pointing out where I misunderstood your argument. If your argument is that being able to sprint is important in some situations, I accept that. I don't think that running (in the sense meant by OP) is the only way to develop the ability to effectively sprint in a situation that calls for it.
Someone who sprints or does longer distance running will sometimes be better at running than someone who does other types of activity for cardiovascular fitness, but you'll still have the factor of overall physical condition (and possibly age and sex) playing a role. The only thing I could be sure of is that I'm better at running than a theoretical me that doesn't run. There may be fit people who don't run who would be faster than me (a 38-year-old woman who averages an 8:30 mile). I honestly would be astonished if there were not fit non-runners who were not faster than me -- my time is very average and my training is mostly focused on how to run for longer periods, not how to run the very fastest in a short-term situation. If I was running for the ability to save my life in an upcoming urgent situation, I would choose a completely different style of training.
I would have no idea how to convince you how a person who is fit but doesn't run regularly could potentially get out of a burning building as effectively as someone who runs regularly. It's a question I wouldn't know how to answer categorically because there are other factors involved like the ability to make clear decisions in a stressful situation and potential obstacles like stairs or smoke.
I do know this: I run 6-7 days a week, averaging 35-40 miles a week. My husband's cardio is limited to walking and jumping jacks. When we sprint (playing with the dogs or when we're just playing around at the park), he almost always beats me. If we were in a dangerous situation and only one of us could sprint to rescue both of us, I would choose him. If someone had to run a few miles for our lives, I would choose me. That's my individual situation and it's worth exactly as much as any anecdote is. But I don't think he's the only non-regular runner who is capable of a pretty good sprint when the situation (serious or fun) calls for it.5 -
MegaMooseEsq wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
This is the sort of situation where speed matters. It's not a question of merely reaching the child or getting out an alley. It's a question of doing so IN TIME.A lot of people here say that you don't have to run in order to be fit. That's only partially true.
You don't have to run in order to lose weight or to help avoid certain degenerative diseases. However, you do need to run so that you CAN when you have to... in an emergency situation, for example. When you have to rescue a child that's fallen into a pool, for example. Or when you need to escape a dangerous situation.
So you don't need it in order to trim down a bit. If you want to deal with the rigors of life though, I'd urge everyone to do a least SOME running, even if it's not the backbone of one's fitness program.
I can't believe you would have to be a runner v. someone who, say, incorporates aerobics and has some strength in order to get several yards to a swimming pool to save a child. Or to run out of an alley.
Can you run toward a pool even if you're not a runner? Sure. Can you do so in time to save the child's life? Maybe, maybe not. Being properly conditioned for running makes all the difference.
"But it's only a few yards!" you say. Sure... if you're lucky. Personally, I'm not going to be a child's life on being close enough to handle such emergencies without preparation.
The same principle applies when it comes to running out of a burning building or away from an active shooter. Can someone who never runs "run" in a situation like that? Of course. Can they do so well enough to save their lives -- or to save someone else?
Or if you have to catch a bus. Or a train. Heck, I was once in a situation where I had to pick a stranger's luggage up and dash toward a gate just so she could meet her connecting flight. If I hadn't been properly conditioned, there's a good chance that she would never have made it.
I stand by what I said. There are situations where you have to run -- and I don't just mean putting one foot in front of the other in a running motion.
I don't think anyone is arguing that it isn't important to be fit. My specific skepticism is that someone who regularly runs in a way associated with endurance exercise is more likely to be able to sprint to rescue someone or evade an active shooter as opposed to another fit person who has selected a different form of cardiovascular exercise.
I say this as a marathon runner. If the situation was "outrun an attacker for a few miles," I think I would be better than the average person (unless, of course, my attacker was one of the many people who can run a faster mile than me). For some other situations, like evading gunfire, I'm not sure it is more useful than other types of fitness.
Even if it is true that runners have a better chance of surviving an active shooter attack, I don't know if that concern is immediate enough to help someone overcome a dislike of running and get them doing it regularly enough to see the benefits. Given that we *know* inactivity is a more real and pressing danger for most people, I still think it is better for people to choose cardio activities that they enjoy and will find sustainable.
I might someday be in a situation where my life would be saved by the ability to rock climb successfully. I know these situations exist. But I hate heights and making myself climb regularly just in case would be so unpleasant for me that it would be a counterproductive fitness choice for me to try to force on myself.
I think the bolded above is really key. I posted a thread a bit ago about what an ideal basic level of "fitness" would look like, and being able to sprint and lift heavy-ish stuff definitely came up several times. But this isn't a hypothetical, and the average inactive person is vastly more likely to die of the side-effects of their inactivity than they are to end up in a mass shooting situation or being the only person available to rescue a drowning child (I suppose we should add "swimming" to the list of fitness requirement too, right?). So if you're a weirdo who kind of likes the idea of being the living epitome of basic fitness (hi!), sure, consider some running (or sprinting). Otherwise, just stick with rowing or walking your dog or hula-hooping or whatever gets you off your butt on a regular basis.
Yep, because the hula-hooper or rower is still going to be way more useful to themselves (and others) in situations that call for fitness than the person who means to run because it's the best theoretical activity but never does it much because they just hate it. And that's the more pressing danger for the typical Westerner in 2017, inactivity.
The hula-hooper or rower doesn't have to outrun the runner (unless, I suppose, the runner is the active shooter and is coming after them specifically). They simply have to perform well enough to run when the situation calls for it and I don't see any reason to think they wouldn't be able to do so.
0 -
You speak as though they're mutually exclusive. They're not. I specifically talked about incorporating it into one's fitness program, even if it's not their primary activity.janejellyroll wrote: »MegaMooseEsq wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
This is the sort of situation where speed matters. It's not a question of merely reaching the child or getting out an alley. It's a question of doing so IN TIME.A lot of people here say that you don't have to run in order to be fit. That's only partially true.
You don't have to run in order to lose weight or to help avoid certain degenerative diseases. However, you do need to run so that you CAN when you have to... in an emergency situation, for example. When you have to rescue a child that's fallen into a pool, for example. Or when you need to escape a dangerous situation.
So you don't need it in order to trim down a bit. If you want to deal with the rigors of life though, I'd urge everyone to do a least SOME running, even if it's not the backbone of one's fitness program.
I can't believe you would have to be a runner v. someone who, say, incorporates aerobics and has some strength in order to get several yards to a swimming pool to save a child. Or to run out of an alley.
Can you run toward a pool even if you're not a runner? Sure. Can you do so in time to save the child's life? Maybe, maybe not. Being properly conditioned for running makes all the difference.
"But it's only a few yards!" you say. Sure... if you're lucky. Personally, I'm not going to be a child's life on being close enough to handle such emergencies without preparation.
The same principle applies when it comes to running out of a burning building or away from an active shooter. Can someone who never runs "run" in a situation like that? Of course. Can they do so well enough to save their lives -- or to save someone else?
Or if you have to catch a bus. Or a train. Heck, I was once in a situation where I had to pick a stranger's luggage up and dash toward a gate just so she could meet her connecting flight. If I hadn't been properly conditioned, there's a good chance that she would never have made it.
I stand by what I said. There are situations where you have to run -- and I don't just mean putting one foot in front of the other in a running motion.
I don't think anyone is arguing that it isn't important to be fit. My specific skepticism is that someone who regularly runs in a way associated with endurance exercise is more likely to be able to sprint to rescue someone or evade an active shooter as opposed to another fit person who has selected a different form of cardiovascular exercise.
I say this as a marathon runner. If the situation was "outrun an attacker for a few miles," I think I would be better than the average person (unless, of course, my attacker was one of the many people who can run a faster mile than me). For some other situations, like evading gunfire, I'm not sure it is more useful than other types of fitness.
Even if it is true that runners have a better chance of surviving an active shooter attack, I don't know if that concern is immediate enough to help someone overcome a dislike of running and get them doing it regularly enough to see the benefits. Given that we *know* inactivity is a more real and pressing danger for most people, I still think it is better for people to choose cardio activities that they enjoy and will find sustainable.
I might someday be in a situation where my life would be saved by the ability to rock climb successfully. I know these situations exist. But I hate heights and making myself climb regularly just in case would be so unpleasant for me that it would be a counterproductive fitness choice for me to try to force on myself.
I think the bolded above is really key. I posted a thread a bit ago about what an ideal basic level of "fitness" would look like, and being able to sprint and lift heavy-ish stuff definitely came up several times. But this isn't a hypothetical, and the average inactive person is vastly more likely to die of the side-effects of their inactivity than they are to end up in a mass shooting situation or being the only person available to rescue a drowning child (I suppose we should add "swimming" to the list of fitness requirement too, right?). So if you're a weirdo who kind of likes the idea of being the living epitome of basic fitness (hi!), sure, consider some running (or sprinting). Otherwise, just stick with rowing or walking your dog or hula-hooping or whatever gets you off your butt on a regular basis.
Yep, because the hula-hooper or rower is still going to be way more useful to themselves (and others) in situations that call for fitness than the person who means to run because it's the best theoretical activity but never does it much because they just hate it. And that's the more pressing danger for the typical Westerner in 2017, inactivity.
Here's a clue: I don't enjoy running. I do it anyway because it's part of being functionally fit. I don't have to choose between running and inactivity; instead, I find other ways to be active and I incorporate a bit of running into that.
But yeah, some people think it's an either-or choice. It's not.
I've met plenty of weight lifters and cardio enthusiasts who can't run worth squat. Heck, for a few years I was one of them.The hula-hooper or rower doesn't have to outrun the runner (unless, I suppose, the runner is the active shooter and is coming after them specifically). They simply have to perform well enough to run when the situation calls for it and I don't see any reason to think they wouldn't be able to do so.
Can they "run" when the situation calls for it? Insofar as almost anyone can put one foot in front of the other, sure. It would be foolish to count on them being able to run well enough at that time, though.4 -
You speak as though they're mutually exclusive. They're not. I specifically talked about incorporating it into one's fitness program, even if it's not their primary activity.janejellyroll wrote: »MegaMooseEsq wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
This is the sort of situation where speed matters. It's not a question of merely reaching the child or getting out an alley. It's a question of doing so IN TIME.A lot of people here say that you don't have to run in order to be fit. That's only partially true.
You don't have to run in order to lose weight or to help avoid certain degenerative diseases. However, you do need to run so that you CAN when you have to... in an emergency situation, for example. When you have to rescue a child that's fallen into a pool, for example. Or when you need to escape a dangerous situation.
So you don't need it in order to trim down a bit. If you want to deal with the rigors of life though, I'd urge everyone to do a least SOME running, even if it's not the backbone of one's fitness program.
I can't believe you would have to be a runner v. someone who, say, incorporates aerobics and has some strength in order to get several yards to a swimming pool to save a child. Or to run out of an alley.
Can you run toward a pool even if you're not a runner? Sure. Can you do so in time to save the child's life? Maybe, maybe not. Being properly conditioned for running makes all the difference.
"But it's only a few yards!" you say. Sure... if you're lucky. Personally, I'm not going to be a child's life on being close enough to handle such emergencies without preparation.
The same principle applies when it comes to running out of a burning building or away from an active shooter. Can someone who never runs "run" in a situation like that? Of course. Can they do so well enough to save their lives -- or to save someone else?
Or if you have to catch a bus. Or a train. Heck, I was once in a situation where I had to pick a stranger's luggage up and dash toward a gate just so she could meet her connecting flight. If I hadn't been properly conditioned, there's a good chance that she would never have made it.
I stand by what I said. There are situations where you have to run -- and I don't just mean putting one foot in front of the other in a running motion.
I don't think anyone is arguing that it isn't important to be fit. My specific skepticism is that someone who regularly runs in a way associated with endurance exercise is more likely to be able to sprint to rescue someone or evade an active shooter as opposed to another fit person who has selected a different form of cardiovascular exercise.
I say this as a marathon runner. If the situation was "outrun an attacker for a few miles," I think I would be better than the average person (unless, of course, my attacker was one of the many people who can run a faster mile than me). For some other situations, like evading gunfire, I'm not sure it is more useful than other types of fitness.
Even if it is true that runners have a better chance of surviving an active shooter attack, I don't know if that concern is immediate enough to help someone overcome a dislike of running and get them doing it regularly enough to see the benefits. Given that we *know* inactivity is a more real and pressing danger for most people, I still think it is better for people to choose cardio activities that they enjoy and will find sustainable.
I might someday be in a situation where my life would be saved by the ability to rock climb successfully. I know these situations exist. But I hate heights and making myself climb regularly just in case would be so unpleasant for me that it would be a counterproductive fitness choice for me to try to force on myself.
I think the bolded above is really key. I posted a thread a bit ago about what an ideal basic level of "fitness" would look like, and being able to sprint and lift heavy-ish stuff definitely came up several times. But this isn't a hypothetical, and the average inactive person is vastly more likely to die of the side-effects of their inactivity than they are to end up in a mass shooting situation or being the only person available to rescue a drowning child (I suppose we should add "swimming" to the list of fitness requirement too, right?). So if you're a weirdo who kind of likes the idea of being the living epitome of basic fitness (hi!), sure, consider some running (or sprinting). Otherwise, just stick with rowing or walking your dog or hula-hooping or whatever gets you off your butt on a regular basis.
Yep, because the hula-hooper or rower is still going to be way more useful to themselves (and others) in situations that call for fitness than the person who means to run because it's the best theoretical activity but never does it much because they just hate it. And that's the more pressing danger for the typical Westerner in 2017, inactivity.
Here's a clue: I don't enjoy running. I do it anyway because it's part of being functionally fit. I don't have to choose between running and inactivity; instead, I find other ways to be active and I incorporate a bit of running into that.
But yeah, some people think it's an either-or choice. It's not.
I didn't mean to convey I thought they were mutually exclusive -- clearly many people can decide to do some running without making it the focus of their cardio routine. I just think it might be possible to run when the situation calls for it, and be able to do so effectively, even without regularly running.2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »A lot of people here say that you don't have to run in order to be fit. That's only partially true.
You don't have to run in order to lose weight or to help avoid certain degenerative diseases. However, you do need to run so that you CAN when you have to... in an emergency situation, for example. When you have to rescue a child that's fallen into a pool, for example. Or when you need to escape a dangerous situation.
So you don't need it in order to trim down a bit. If you want to deal with the rigors of life though, I'd urge everyone to do a least SOME running, even if it's not the backbone of one's fitness program.
I can't believe you would have to be a runner v. someone who, say, incorporates aerobics and has some strength in order to get 8 yards to a swimming pool to save a child. Or to run out of an alley.
Plus, if you're running to a pool you're most likely doing a fast short-distance type thing. That's very different from being able to, say, run a 5K.
Not to mention the adrenaline rush that would turn anyone into a runner in an emergency...
4 -
Again, it's not simply a question of being able to put one foot in front of the other. It's a question of how well you can move. An adrenaline rush can only help so much.
Can you run "effectively"? If you're lucky, you can run effectively enough to deal with the emergency at hand without preparation. Otherwise, you're screwed.
Doing other forms of cardio will help, but they're not substitute for doing the motion itself. In the same way, strengthening one's legs will help, but it's no substitute either. I've mentioned that I've met plenty of strong fellas and people with cardio endurance who can't run worth spit.
That's how I used to be. I'm still not a fantastic runner, but I've largely overcome those limitations -- in part, because I do run even though it's not something I naturally enjoy. There are things you can do to compensate for a lack of running ability, but as any athletic coach can tell you, these are poor alternatives to doing the actual motion itself.5 -
And that is where you are in error.janejellyroll wrote: »
This is the sort of situation where speed matters. It's not a question of merely reaching the child or getting out an alley. It's a question of doing so IN TIME.A lot of people here say that you don't have to run in order to be fit. That's only partially true.
M
You don't have to run in order to lose weight or to help avoid certain degenerative diseases. However, you do need to run so that you CAN when you have to... in an emergency situation, for example. When you have to rescue a child that's fallen into a pool, for example. Or when you need to escape a dangerous situation.
So you don't need it in order to trim down a bit. If you want to deal with the rigors of life though, I'd urge everyone to do a least SOME running, even if it's not the backbone of one's fitness program.
I can't believe you would have to be a runner v. someone who, say, incorporates aerobics and has some strength in order to get several yards to a swimming pool to save a child. Or to run out of an alley.
Can you run toward a pool even if you're not a runner? Sure. Can you do so in time to save the child's life? Maybe, maybe not. Being properly conditioned for running makes all the difference.
"But it's only a few yards!" you say. Sure... if you're lucky. Personally, I'm not going to be a child's life on being close enough to handle such emergencies without preparation.
The same principle applies when it comes to running out of a burning building or away from an active shooter. Can someone who never runs "run" in a situation like that? Of course. Can they do so well enough to save their lives -- or to save someone else?
Or if you have to catch a bus. Or a train. Heck, I was once in a situation where I had to pick a stranger's luggage up and dash toward a gate just so she could meet her connecting flight. If I hadn't been properly conditioned, there's a good chance that she would never have made it.
I stand by what I said. There are situations where you have to run -- and I don't just mean putting one foot in front of the other in a running motion.
I don't think anyone is arguing that it isn't important to be fit. My specific skepticism is that someone who regularly runs in a way associated with endurance exercise is more likely to be able to sprint to rescue someone or evade an active shooter as opposed to another fit person who has selected a different form of cardiovascular exercise.
First, I was talking about running, not necessarily endurance exercise. Sprinting is an example of running, for example. Not all running involves long distances.
Second, someone who either sprints or does distance running will still be better at running that someone who merely walks or does Zumba. You can be skeptical all you want, but running makes one better at running.
Tell ya what. If you can convince me that someone who doesn't run can get out of a burning building as someone who does incorporate running into his or her fitness program, then I will gladly concede this point. How would you go about defending such a position?
What the hell kind of super sonic hearing do you have that you (alone) are going to hear a child's head bob under pool water from a quarter mile away? I don't picture a person involved in such a rescue - it sounds more like an episode of Lassie.
As for the burning building, again, SHORT distances unless you are vertically downward running a straight shot down a half mile building and probably no straight speed sprint no matter what the distance as you navigate burning furniture and tumbling planks. Good luck with your sprint, I will be relying on strength to shove doors open and lung endurance for the effort, as well as a small size to crouch nice and low on the floor.6 -
I said nothing about "hearing" the child, much less being a quarter mile away. If you need to grossly distort the issue to make your point, then you're obviously not trying.
And that is where you are in error.janejellyroll wrote: »
This is the sort of situation where speed matters. It's not a question of merely reaching the child or getting out an alley. It's a question of doing so IN TIME.A lot of people here say that you don't have to run in order to be fit. That's only partially true.
M
You don't have to run in order to lose weight or to help avoid certain degenerative diseases. However, you do need to run so that you CAN when you have to... in an emergency situation, for example. When you have to rescue a child that's fallen into a pool, for example. Or when you need to escape a dangerous situation.
So you don't need it in order to trim down a bit. If you want to deal with the rigors of life though, I'd urge everyone to do a least SOME running, even if it's not the backbone of one's fitness program.
I can't believe you would have to be a runner v. someone who, say, incorporates aerobics and has some strength in order to get several yards to a swimming pool to save a child. Or to run out of an alley.
Can you run toward a pool even if you're not a runner? Sure. Can you do so in time to save the child's life? Maybe, maybe not. Being properly conditioned for running makes all the difference.
"But it's only a few yards!" you say. Sure... if you're lucky. Personally, I'm not going to be a child's life on being close enough to handle such emergencies without preparation.
The same principle applies when it comes to running out of a burning building or away from an active shooter. Can someone who never runs "run" in a situation like that? Of course. Can they do so well enough to save their lives -- or to save someone else?
Or if you have to catch a bus. Or a train. Heck, I was once in a situation where I had to pick a stranger's luggage up and dash toward a gate just so she could meet her connecting flight. If I hadn't been properly conditioned, there's a good chance that she would never have made it.
I stand by what I said. There are situations where you have to run -- and I don't just mean putting one foot in front of the other in a running motion.
I don't think anyone is arguing that it isn't important to be fit. My specific skepticism is that someone who regularly runs in a way associated with endurance exercise is more likely to be able to sprint to rescue someone or evade an active shooter as opposed to another fit person who has selected a different form of cardiovascular exercise.
First, I was talking about running, not necessarily endurance exercise. Sprinting is an example of running, for example. Not all running involves long distances.
Second, someone who either sprints or does distance running will still be better at running that someone who merely walks or does Zumba. You can be skeptical all you want, but running makes one better at running.
Tell ya what. If you can convince me that someone who doesn't run can get out of a burning building as someone who does incorporate running into his or her fitness program, then I will gladly concede this point. How would you go about defending such a position?
What the hell kind of super sonic hearing do you have that you (alone) are going to hear a child's head bob under pool water from a quarter mile away?
What if you're on the second floor of a house and, looking out the window, you see the child fall into the pool? Or, to use a scenario that was discussed here recently, what if you're indoors and you see a child dart into the street? You don't need to be a quarter mile away to require running quickly, and none of these scenarios require superhuman hearing.
Good grief. When people need to resort to such exaggerations to make their point, that speaks volumes.4 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
And that is where you are in error.janejellyroll wrote: »
This is the sort of situation where speed matters. It's not a question of merely reaching the child or getting out an alley. It's a question of doing so IN TIME.A lot of people here say that you don't have to run in order to be fit. That's only partially true.
You don't have to run in order to lose weight or to help avoid certain degenerative diseases. However, you do need to run so that you CAN when you have to... in an emergency situation, for example. When you have to rescue a child that's fallen into a pool, for example. Or when you need to escape a dangerous situation.
So you don't need it in order to trim down a bit. If you want to deal with the rigors of life though, I'd urge everyone to do a least SOME running, even if it's not the backbone of one's fitness program.
I can't believe you would have to be a runner v. someone who, say, incorporates aerobics and has some strength in order to get several yards to a swimming pool to save a child. Or to run out of an alley.
Can you run toward a pool even if you're not a runner? Sure. Can you do so in time to save the child's life? Maybe, maybe not. Being properly conditioned for running makes all the difference.
"But it's only a few yards!" you say. Sure... if you're lucky. Personally, I'm not going to be a child's life on being close enough to handle such emergencies without preparation.
The same principle applies when it comes to running out of a burning building or away from an active shooter. Can someone who never runs "run" in a situation like that? Of course. Can they do so well enough to save their lives -- or to save someone else?
Or if you have to catch a bus. Or a train. Heck, I was once in a situation where I had to pick a stranger's luggage up and dash toward a gate just so she could meet her connecting flight. If I hadn't been properly conditioned, there's a good chance that she would never have made it.
I stand by what I said. There are situations where you have to run -- and I don't just mean putting one foot in front of the other in a running motion.
I don't think anyone is arguing that it isn't important to be fit. My specific skepticism is that someone who regularly runs in a way associated with endurance exercise is more likely to be able to sprint to rescue someone or evade an active shooter as opposed to another fit person who has selected a different form of cardiovascular exercise.
First, I was talking about running, not necessarily endurance exercise. Sprinting is an example of running, for example. Not all running involves long distances.
Second, someone who either sprints or does distance running will still be better at running that someone who merely walks or does Zumba. You can be skeptical all you want, but running makes one better at running.
Tell ya what. If you can convince me that someone who doesn't run can get out of a burning building as someone who does incorporate running into his or her fitness program, then I will gladly concede this point. How would you go about defending such a position?
I appreciate you pointing out where I misunderstood your argument. If your argument is that being able to sprint is important in some situations, I accept that. I don't think that running (in the sense meant by OP) is the only way to develop the ability to effectively sprint in a situation that calls for it.
Someone who sprints or does longer distance running will sometimes be better at running than someone who does other types of activity for cardiovascular fitness, but you'll still have the factor of overall physical condition (and possibly age and sex) playing a role. The only thing I could be sure of is that I'm better at running than a theoretical me that doesn't run. There may be fit people who don't run who would be faster than me (a 38-year-old woman who averages an 8:30 mile). I honestly would be astonished if there were not fit non-runners who were not faster than me -- my time is very average and my training is mostly focused on how to run for longer periods, not how to run the very fastest in a short-term situation. If I was running for the ability to save my life in an upcoming urgent situation, I would choose a completely different style of training.
I would have no idea how to convince you how a person who is fit but doesn't run regularly could potentially get out of a burning building as effectively as someone who runs regularly. It's a question I wouldn't know how to answer categorically because there are other factors involved like the ability to make clear decisions in a stressful situation and potential obstacles like stairs or smoke.
I do know this: I run 6-7 days a week, averaging 35-40 miles a week. My husband's cardio is limited to walking and jumping jacks. When we sprint (playing with the dogs or when we're just playing around at the park), he almost always beats me. If we were in a dangerous situation and only one of us could sprint to rescue both of us, I would choose him. If someone had to run a few miles for our lives, I would choose me. That's my individual situation and it's worth exactly as much as any anecdote is. But I don't think he's the only non-regular runner who is capable of a pretty good sprint when the situation (serious or fun) calls for it.
My lazy-azz little son spends as much time as he can get away with lying on the couch with his Game Pad gnawing candy canes. He is by far the fastest runner in our entire family and in fact is faster than most of his friends. (When he can be bribed or threatened into doing it...) Most of those friends are in a sport - mostly soccer and one basketball. Not my candy-sucking lie about little sultan. I have just informed him he will be bowling with a child league this winter. Note I did not say "asked."
Some day when hisses of erupting bubble whisper to the surface of an open indoor pool in a burning building as my last gasp of drowning breath, I pray he is the one who hears me from the 7-11 on the next block. If not I am in trouble.5 -
I said nothing about "hearing" the child, much less being a quarter mile away. If you need to grossly distort the issue to make your point, then you're obviously not trying.
And that is where you are in error.janejellyroll wrote: »
This is the sort of situation where speed matters. It's not a question of merely reaching the child or getting out an alley. It's a question of doing so IN TIME.A lot of people here say that you don't have to run in order to be fit. That's only partially true.
M
You don't have to run in order to lose weight or to help avoid certain degenerative diseases. However, you do need to run so that you CAN when you have to... in an emergency situation, for example. When you have to rescue a child that's fallen into a pool, for example. Or when you need to escape a dangerous situation.
So you don't need it in order to trim down a bit. If you want to deal with the rigors of life though, I'd urge everyone to do a least SOME running, even if it's not the backbone of one's fitness program.
I can't believe you would have to be a runner v. someone who, say, incorporates aerobics and has some strength in order to get several yards to a swimming pool to save a child. Or to run out of an alley.
Can you run toward a pool even if you're not a runner? Sure. Can you do so in time to save the child's life? Maybe, maybe not. Being properly conditioned for running makes all the difference.
"But it's only a few yards!" you say. Sure... if you're lucky. Personally, I'm not going to be a child's life on being close enough to handle such emergencies without preparation.
The same principle applies when it comes to running out of a burning building or away from an active shooter. Can someone who never runs "run" in a situation like that? Of course. Can they do so well enough to save their lives -- or to save someone else?
Or if you have to catch a bus. Or a train. Heck, I was once in a situation where I had to pick a stranger's luggage up and dash toward a gate just so she could meet her connecting flight. If I hadn't been properly conditioned, there's a good chance that she would never have made it.
I stand by what I said. There are situations where you have to run -- and I don't just mean putting one foot in front of the other in a running motion.
I don't think anyone is arguing that it isn't important to be fit. My specific skepticism is that someone who regularly runs in a way associated with endurance exercise is more likely to be able to sprint to rescue someone or evade an active shooter as opposed to another fit person who has selected a different form of cardiovascular exercise.
First, I was talking about running, not necessarily endurance exercise. Sprinting is an example of running, for example. Not all running involves long distances.
Second, someone who either sprints or does distance running will still be better at running that someone who merely walks or does Zumba. You can be skeptical all you want, but running makes one better at running.
Tell ya what. If you can convince me that someone who doesn't run can get out of a burning building as someone who does incorporate running into his or her fitness program, then I will gladly concede this point. How would you go about defending such a position?
What the hell kind of super sonic hearing do you have that you (alone) are going to hear a child's head bob under pool water from a quarter mile away?
What if you're on the second floor of a house and, looking out the window, you see the child fall into the pool? Or, to use a scenario that was discussed here recently, what if you're indoors and you see a child dart into the street? You don't need to be a quarter mile away to require running quickly, and none of these scenarios require superhuman hearing.
Good grief. When people need to resort to such exaggerations to make their point, that speaks volumes.
If you're inside the house, unless you are Lestat or Louis (or Superman) you are not getting to that darting child before the car hits. I don't care how fastly-effective a runner you are. Idea: how about using YOUR VOICE in that situation? Just a thought.
I guess I should concede the pool thing, I mean if I had a dime for every time I have heard a parent say "...and then the only person who saw my kid fall into that pool was next door and upstairs but he was NOT a regular effective runner...the doctor said if only it had been point five seconds faster..." Very, very common and amazingly likely.
Your last paragraph made me chuckle in light of the very serious imagined scenarios of exactly how all the runners on this board will become the lone saviors of children.
So I'll just say...couldn't agree with ya more!
Oh, and...lighten up a little.
Come on, this thread is getting epic as it escalates in passionately and earnestly depicted and increasingly manipulated scenarios of why it is up to the pro runners to save children in every possible scenario.
5 -
girlwithcurls2 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »A lot of people here say that you don't have to run in order to be fit. That's only partially true.
You don't have to run in order to lose weight or to help avoid certain degenerative diseases. However, you do need to run so that you CAN when you have to... in an emergency situation, for example. When you have to rescue a child that's fallen into a pool, for example. Or when you need to escape a dangerous situation.
So you don't need it in order to trim down a bit. If you want to deal with the rigors of life though, I'd urge everyone to do a least SOME running, even if it's not the backbone of one's fitness program.
I can't believe you would have to be a runner v. someone who, say, incorporates aerobics and has some strength in order to get 8 yards to a swimming pool to save a child. Or to run out of an alley.
Plus, if you're running to a pool you're most likely doing a fast short-distance type thing. That's very different from being able to, say, run a 5K.
Not to mention the adrenaline rush that would turn anyone into a runner in an emergency...
Yup...
OP, decide on your correct exercise based on:
1. What your doctor says you can do, with your meds current and a rescue inhaler on hand if necessary.
2. What you are naturally drawn to. Do you like swimming? Lifting? Something else?
3. What you can modify to make harder as you become stronger.
4. What is affordable and sustainable for you.
If that does end up being running, dramatized scenarios aside you have gotten some good advice. And for the emotional part, with your bad childhood experiences, getting over that might mean running, but OTOH it might mean making peace with the fact that adults are imperfect and kids are good at some things and bad at others and this may just never be your "thing." This could just be part of general anxiety pushed forward by past trauma...in that case, speak to someone.
Whatever you decide, good luck and good health to you. You can be healthy and there are any number of ways to do it.1 -
I hate running and have no desire to learn to love it. For those that do, great, knock yourselves out but there are several alternatives to running for cardio and fitness.
Biking and rowing are just two. I've got a spin bike and a rower at home but I prefer the rower. It's low impact, can be done at home regardless of the time or weather and gives a full upper and lower body workout that other types of cardio equipment cannot replicate.
So, OP, if you just can't learn to "not hate running," just consider the alternatives.
This is what I found too. I lost 70 lbs five years ago and have kept it off since. I felt I somehow had to run for enough efficiency to burn calories.
I had a very bad knee accident before I lost my weight and lost much of it on a Spinning bike in classes. Then I bought a Spinning Bike and lost more. Diet certainly changed too but I felt everyone runs, so perhaps I should too. Problem was I don't have any meniscus in my right knee. Despite this, I did Couch to 5K and progressed beyond that slowly to the point I was doing 5 to 7 mile very hard trail runs (and not finishing last!).
I ended up getting chronic runner's knee in my left knee that would not go away, no matter what I did. It got to the point that I'd run an hour and sit in pain for 4 hours afterward. This defeats the purpose of running.
I went back to the Stationary Bike and tried the rower. I ended up rowing more and more. Now, I'm a competitive rower and I'm much better at rowing than I was at running. I burn more calories an hour and do around 35 miles a week on the rower (more than I could ever average running). I also just bought an Air Dyne Pro. Talk about calorie burn! It's so, so hard. Harder than any run I've ever done. Air bikes that use arms and legs, rowers and even Ski Ergs are great options that can burn even more calories than running. I'd have to run 6 MPH average to burn what I do on the rower and I was (at best) an 8 minute miler.
Try it for a while, start slow. But if after 6 months or so you're not enjoying it (and I loved trail running so I really did love that running), find something else. It took me 6 months to a year to get comfortable enough that I liked to run. Then, once the Runner's Knee happened, it became about pain tolerance, which isn't running any longer. It goes more to obsession for some. I know one runner that got hooked on opioids just to keep running through injury. That's idiotic.
0 -
What was the question again?10
-
@MISSNYA92 Hidden benefits of running above the recognized cardio-vascular ( probably any weight bearing - exercise program will do some of these )
Bone Density will increase as you start to do more activities and your body adjusts to the increased load.
Balance - I find that my balance has improved - especially after getting involved in more Trail Runs where the terrain is not even/consistent. Lots of little rolls which work your core - starting at your ankles.
Confidence to tackle other challenging activities - obstacle race/event where it incorporates running, lifting, dragging, crawling under or climbing over obstacles, balance beam etc. A fun way to socialize and get a workout.
It has been said by many and I will parrot it " Get a gait analysis and fitted for running shoes that match up to your body". As you progress you might find that what you use needs to change to work with the new you.
While your at it sign-up for swim lessons so if you do have to run to a pool and rescue someone - you know how to do it.1 -
I dislike running, but I think it is an efficient way to burn calories and improve cardio conditioning. For whatever reason, cycling is harder on my knees than running. But I love cycling, so I run to get my cardio condition up so that I can cycle better.
Find what works for you. I get bored easily, so I like doing a variety of things and have running as backup if I don't have anything else to do that day.0 -
Op, what do you like doing? Like, what was your favorite activity as a child? Trampoline, skating? You need to think outside the box here.
And I would never do something I didn’t like. That’s a sure recipe for failure.2 -
I said nothing about "hearing" the child, much less being a quarter mile away. If you need to grossly distort the issue to make your point, then you're obviously not trying.
And that is where you are in error.janejellyroll wrote: »
This is the sort of situation where speed matters. It's not a question of merely reaching the child or getting out an alley. It's a question of doing so IN TIME.A lot of people here say that you don't have to run in order to be fit. That's only partially true.
M
You don't have to run in order to lose weight or to help avoid certain degenerative diseases. However, you do need to run so that you CAN when you have to... in an emergency situation, for example. When you have to rescue a child that's fallen into a pool, for example. Or when you need to escape a dangerous situation.
So you don't need it in order to trim down a bit. If you want to deal with the rigors of life though, I'd urge everyone to do a least SOME running, even if it's not the backbone of one's fitness program.
I can't believe you would have to be a runner v. someone who, say, incorporates aerobics and has some strength in order to get several yards to a swimming pool to save a child. Or to run out of an alley.
Can you run toward a pool even if you're not a runner? Sure. Can you do so in time to save the child's life? Maybe, maybe not. Being properly conditioned for running makes all the difference.
"But it's only a few yards!" you say. Sure... if you're lucky. Personally, I'm not going to be a child's life on being close enough to handle such emergencies without preparation.
The same principle applies when it comes to running out of a burning building or away from an active shooter. Can someone who never runs "run" in a situation like that? Of course. Can they do so well enough to save their lives -- or to save someone else?
Or if you have to catch a bus. Or a train. Heck, I was once in a situation where I had to pick a stranger's luggage up and dash toward a gate just so she could meet her connecting flight. If I hadn't been properly conditioned, there's a good chance that she would never have made it.
I stand by what I said. There are situations where you have to run -- and I don't just mean putting one foot in front of the other in a running motion.
I don't think anyone is arguing that it isn't important to be fit. My specific skepticism is that someone who regularly runs in a way associated with endurance exercise is more likely to be able to sprint to rescue someone or evade an active shooter as opposed to another fit person who has selected a different form of cardiovascular exercise.
First, I was talking about running, not necessarily endurance exercise. Sprinting is an example of running, for example. Not all running involves long distances.
Second, someone who either sprints or does distance running will still be better at running that someone who merely walks or does Zumba. You can be skeptical all you want, but running makes one better at running.
Tell ya what. If you can convince me that someone who doesn't run can get out of a burning building as someone who does incorporate running into his or her fitness program, then I will gladly concede this point. How would you go about defending such a position?
What the hell kind of super sonic hearing do you have that you (alone) are going to hear a child's head bob under pool water from a quarter mile away?
What if you're on the second floor of a house and, looking out the window, you see the child fall into the pool? Or, to use a scenario that was discussed here recently, what if you're indoors and you see a child dart into the street? You don't need to be a quarter mile away to require running quickly, and none of these scenarios require superhuman hearing.
Good grief. When people need to resort to such exaggerations to make their point, that speaks volumes.
If you're inside the house, unless you are Lestat or Louis (or Superman) you are not getting to that darting child before the car hits. I don't care how fastly-effective a runner you are. Idea: how about using YOUR VOICE in that situation? Just a thought.
And exactly how far away is the car in this scenario that I painted? Look very closely.
Oh, that's right. I didn't say that the car was mere moments away from colliding with the child. In fact, I said nothing about a car at all. All I said was that the child had just darted into the street -- a place where the child could be hit by an oncoming vehicle. A responsible adult would want to retrieve the child ASAP instead of saying, "Oh, well. I'm not Superman. May as well not bother."
I've been pointing out situations wherein, due to an emergency, one would want to run as quickly as possible. After all, functional fitness is all about dealing with everyday scenarios and the occasional emergency. You keep exaggerating the scenarios, though-- distorting them into situations that require superhuman hearing and superspeed. I think we both know that this isn't a logical way to make one's point.
Saying, "I do hula hooping and other kinds of cardio. I'll do fine" is tremendously naive. So is saying "I'm just gonna rely on adrenaline. That'll be enough." If you're lucky, this will be adequate, but that's a pretty big IF.
11 -
But... Running is not "necessary to look the way" you want to. Where did you get that idea?
1 -
I said nothing about "hearing" the child, much less being a quarter mile away. If you need to grossly distort the issue to make your point, then you're obviously not trying.
And that is where you are in error.janejellyroll wrote: »
This is the sort of situation where speed matters. It's not a question of merely reaching the child or getting out an alley. It's a question of doing so IN TIME.A lot of people here say that you don't have to run in order to be fit. That's only partially true.
M
You don't have to run in order to lose weight or to help avoid certain degenerative diseases. However, you do need to run so that you CAN when you have to... in an emergency situation, for example. When you have to rescue a child that's fallen into a pool, for example. Or when you need to escape a dangerous situation.
So you don't need it in order to trim down a bit. If you want to deal with the rigors of life though, I'd urge everyone to do a least SOME running, even if it's not the backbone of one's fitness program.
I can't believe you would have to be a runner v. someone who, say, incorporates aerobics and has some strength in order to get several yards to a swimming pool to save a child. Or to run out of an alley.
Can you run toward a pool even if you're not a runner? Sure. Can you do so in time to save the child's life? Maybe, maybe not. Being properly conditioned for running makes all the difference.
"But it's only a few yards!" you say. Sure... if you're lucky. Personally, I'm not going to be a child's life on being close enough to handle such emergencies without preparation.
The same principle applies when it comes to running out of a burning building or away from an active shooter. Can someone who never runs "run" in a situation like that? Of course. Can they do so well enough to save their lives -- or to save someone else?
Or if you have to catch a bus. Or a train. Heck, I was once in a situation where I had to pick a stranger's luggage up and dash toward a gate just so she could meet her connecting flight. If I hadn't been properly conditioned, there's a good chance that she would never have made it.
I stand by what I said. There are situations where you have to run -- and I don't just mean putting one foot in front of the other in a running motion.
I don't think anyone is arguing that it isn't important to be fit. My specific skepticism is that someone who regularly runs in a way associated with endurance exercise is more likely to be able to sprint to rescue someone or evade an active shooter as opposed to another fit person who has selected a different form of cardiovascular exercise.
First, I was talking about running, not necessarily endurance exercise. Sprinting is an example of running, for example. Not all running involves long distances.
Second, someone who either sprints or does distance running will still be better at running that someone who merely walks or does Zumba. You can be skeptical all you want, but running makes one better at running.
Tell ya what. If you can convince me that someone who doesn't run can get out of a burning building as someone who does incorporate running into his or her fitness program, then I will gladly concede this point. How would you go about defending such a position?
What the hell kind of super sonic hearing do you have that you (alone) are going to hear a child's head bob under pool water from a quarter mile away?
What if you're on the second floor of a house and, looking out the window, you see the child fall into the pool? Or, to use a scenario that was discussed here recently, what if you're indoors and you see a child dart into the street? You don't need to be a quarter mile away to require running quickly, and none of these scenarios require superhuman hearing.
Good grief. When people need to resort to such exaggerations to make their point, that speaks volumes.
If you're inside the house, unless you are Lestat or Louis (or Superman) you are not getting to that darting child before the car hits. I don't care how fastly-effective a runner you are. Idea: how about using YOUR VOICE in that situation? Just a thought.
And exactly how far away is the car in this scenario that I painted? Look very closely.
Oh, that's right. I didn't say that the car was mere moments away from colliding with the child. In fact, I said nothing about a car at all. All I said was that the child had just darted into the street -- a place where the child could be hit by an oncoming vehicle. A responsible adult would want to retrieve the child ASAP instead of saying, "Oh, well. I'm not Superman. May as well not bother."
I've been pointing out situations wherein, due to an emergency, one would want to run as quickly as possible. After all, functional fitness is all about dealing with everyday scenarios and the occasional emergency. You keep exaggerating the scenarios, though-- distorting them into situations that require superhuman hearing and superspeed. I think we both know that this isn't a logical way to make one's point.
Saying, "I do hula hooping and other kinds of cardio. I'll do fine" is tremendously naive. So is saying "I'm just gonna rely on adrenaline. That'll be enough." If you're lucky, this will be adequate, but that's a pretty big IF.
I've lived almost half a century, and so has my husband. We know a fairly large variety of people. I have never been in or known anyone who has ever been in a situation where the difference between running like an ordinary fit person who doesn't practice running and a person who practices running would be critical.
And it's not that I've led a sheltered life. I've actually had to run from attacking pit bulls, and from guys trying to assault me at a park, and in both cases I was very unfit and not a runner. And yet, somehow fast enough to still be here.
There's an article on one of the runner forums about a lady who does marathons and has never trained as a runner. She's just fit and does other things. Which makes her able to run a marathon in a respectable time.5 -
I am a long distance cyclist. I love cycling. I love being on my bicycle all day long, and I do mean ALL day long.
I also enjoy hiking, and especially going for long hilly, mountainous hikes with great views.
In addition to cycling and hiking, I keep active with lots of walking, stair climbing (I work in a 10-storey building and climb up and down the stairs ... 10-40 flights a day), and I dabble in weight lifting.
About a month ago, I took up running.
I'm going into a time period when I will be insanely busy and just won't have time to do long cycling or long hiking as often, so I figured running might give me more bang for my buck. For example, I might be able to include a 45 minute run during my lunch break, during a time when I currently just walk ... and thus I might be able to burn more calories and improve my cardiovascular system a bit more than just walking.
I can manage a comfortable 5K run, and am going to attempt a 6K run this weekend, and then maybe a 7K run on Wednesday or Thursday next week ..........
But I don't love it.
It's just not fun like cycling or hiking.
It's exercise ... much like climbing stairs.
However, if it gives me results and helps me maintain or improve my fitness level during these busy months so that I can continue to cycle long distances when I need to, I'll do it.
And the minute I can start cycling and hiking long distances more regularly ... I'm there!
2 -
As an extremely fat kid with asthma, I struggled so much with running, my PE teacher just let me walk. I guess I developed a complex because even the thought of running gives me anxiety, but I know it’s necessary cardio to look the way that I want. Plus, it’s free! Which is awesome because I’m saving to join a gym.
Could anyone give me any pointers on becoming brave enough to jiggle and lose my breath in public? Also, is it normal to feel tingles in my butt and thighs, and tightness in my chest?
I know it might be a dumb question, but what should it feel like?
It's a peculiarity of threads related to running that someone will crayon all over it about not running. It's about the only discipline that seems to attract it. That said, if your objective is improved fitness there are plenty other disciplines. I would say that for me, running is easiest to facilitate; minimal equipment, minimal cost and no requirements for a location.
You've had good advice about starting up. Gentle pace, use a run/ walk routine to adapt and do some complementary strength training.
What I would say is that running encompasses a huge range of different things, ranging from track work through someone running for 30-40 minutes a few times a week to people who run marathons most weekends. They all need different approaches to developing the stamina and techniques.
Personally I don't much enjoy short distances, but I started with Couch to 5K, and now studying coaching and ran my sixth marathon of the year on Saturday.5 -
There are also people who have never experienced a house fire or have never had to steer out of a skid. That doesn't mean that being unprepared is a good idea.rheddmobile wrote: »
I said nothing about "hearing" the child, much less being a quarter mile away. If you need to grossly distort the issue to make your point, then you're obviously not trying.
And that is where you are in error.janejellyroll wrote: »
This is the sort of situation where speed matters. It's not a question of merely reaching the child or getting out an alley. It's a question of doing so IN TIME.A lot of people here say that you don't have to run in order to be fit. That's only partially true.
M
You don't have to run in order to lose weight or to help avoid certain degenerative diseases. However, you do need to run so that you CAN when you have to... in an emergency situation, for example. When you have to rescue a child that's fallen into a pool, for example. Or when you need to escape a dangerous situation.
So you don't need it in order to trim down a bit. If you want to deal with the rigors of life though, I'd urge everyone to do a least SOME running, even if it's not the backbone of one's fitness program.
I can't believe you would have to be a runner v. someone who, say, incorporates aerobics and has some strength in order to get several yards to a swimming pool to save a child. Or to run out of an alley.
Can you run toward a pool even if you're not a runner? Sure. Can you do so in time to save the child's life? Maybe, maybe not. Being properly conditioned for running makes all the difference.
"But it's only a few yards!" you say. Sure... if you're lucky. Personally, I'm not going to be a child's life on being close enough to handle such emergencies without preparation.
The same principle applies when it comes to running out of a burning building or away from an active shooter. Can someone who never runs "run" in a situation like that? Of course. Can they do so well enough to save their lives -- or to save someone else?
Or if you have to catch a bus. Or a train. Heck, I was once in a situation where I had to pick a stranger's luggage up and dash toward a gate just so she could meet her connecting flight. If I hadn't been properly conditioned, there's a good chance that she would never have made it.
I stand by what I said. There are situations where you have to run -- and I don't just mean putting one foot in front of the other in a running motion.
I don't think anyone is arguing that it isn't important to be fit. My specific skepticism is that someone who regularly runs in a way associated with endurance exercise is more likely to be able to sprint to rescue someone or evade an active shooter as opposed to another fit person who has selected a different form of cardiovascular exercise.
First, I was talking about running, not necessarily endurance exercise. Sprinting is an example of running, for example. Not all running involves long distances.
Second, someone who either sprints or does distance running will still be better at running that someone who merely walks or does Zumba. You can be skeptical all you want, but running makes one better at running.
Tell ya what. If you can convince me that someone who doesn't run can get out of a burning building as someone who does incorporate running into his or her fitness program, then I will gladly concede this point. How would you go about defending such a position?
What the hell kind of super sonic hearing do you have that you (alone) are going to hear a child's head bob under pool water from a quarter mile away?
What if you're on the second floor of a house and, looking out the window, you see the child fall into the pool? Or, to use a scenario that was discussed here recently, what if you're indoors and you see a child dart into the street? You don't need to be a quarter mile away to require running quickly, and none of these scenarios require superhuman hearing.
Good grief. When people need to resort to such exaggerations to make their point, that speaks volumes.
If you're inside the house, unless you are Lestat or Louis (or Superman) you are not getting to that darting child before the car hits. I don't care how fastly-effective a runner you are. Idea: how about using YOUR VOICE in that situation? Just a thought.
And exactly how far away is the car in this scenario that I painted? Look very closely.
Oh, that's right. I didn't say that the car was mere moments away from colliding with the child. In fact, I said nothing about a car at all. All I said was that the child had just darted into the street -- a place where the child could be hit by an oncoming vehicle. A responsible adult would want to retrieve the child ASAP instead of saying, "Oh, well. I'm not Superman. May as well not bother."
I've been pointing out situations wherein, due to an emergency, one would want to run as quickly as possible. After all, functional fitness is all about dealing with everyday scenarios and the occasional emergency. You keep exaggerating the scenarios, though-- distorting them into situations that require superhuman hearing and superspeed. I think we both know that this isn't a logical way to make one's point.
Saying, "I do hula hooping and other kinds of cardio. I'll do fine" is tremendously naive. So is saying "I'm just gonna rely on adrenaline. That'll be enough." If you're lucky, this will be adequate, but that's a pretty big IF.
I've lived almost half a century, and so has my husband. We know a fairly large variety of people. I have never been in or known anyone who has ever been in a situation where the difference between running like an ordinary fit person who doesn't practice running and a person who practices running would be critical.
I can personally think of several situations wherein being able to run HAS been helpful. These situations aren't hard to imagine. I related the story of helping a woman catch her flight because I was able to carry her luggage while running through an airport, for example. And more recently, after getting lost in the woods, I was able to escape just before total darkness set in-- again, because I had practiced my running. In the latter case, having proper running for was critical, especially in the cold weather.
Would you agree that those people are exceptional, though? The vast majority of people, even those who are otherwise fit, would not be able to complete a marathon in decent time. Relying on examples like these is foolhardy, to say the least.There's an article on one of the runner forums about a lady who does marathons and has never trained as a runner. She's just fit and does other things. Which makes her able to run a marathon in a respectable time.
5 -
Tightness in your chest sounds like asthma to me--I have it, too, and when I run, I don't get this now, but I did as a child. It shouldn't be happening.1
-
-
Would you agree that those people are exceptional, though? The vast majority of people, even those who are otherwise fit, would not be able to complete a marathon in decent time. Relying on examples like these is foolhardy, to say the least.
I know quite a few people who don't do much running in between marathons.
When you run one every weekend you don't need to do a significant amount mid-week, giving you time for other things
1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions