How Do You Not Hate Running?

245

Replies

  • LAWoman72
    LAWoman72 Posts: 2,846 Member
    edited December 2017
    I absolutely, positively hate running and always have. I was not an overweight child at all and I was healthy but I hated it then and I hate it now.

    I hate bouncing up and down and I hate my feet hitting the pavement and I hate the panting and the whole business. My vision isn't great, I have odd vision...stuff even with glasses on and I hate the jiggling of the view as I bounce with the running. Just blargh. There is no aspect of running I have ever liked.

    Not trying to take away from all the advice given, LOL, just saying: if you try this and it isn't for you...then it isn't. JMO. Not everybody is meant for every single type of workout. I'm no expert but that's easy to see.

    Good luck on your program and I hope it all works out well for you!
  • spiriteagle99
    spiriteagle99 Posts: 3,418 Member
    Depending on how bad your asthma is, you may not be able to run without a lot of effort. I have a friend who has 60% lung capacity who runs marathons, but she is extremely determined and was a runner before she became asthmatic, so she loved the sport before it became as difficult for her. She runs slowly, to put less stress on her lungs and uses a heart rate monitor to keep the pace easy.

    If you decide, after giving it a good effort, that running isn't for you, then walking is an easy and inexpensive alternative. If you walk briskly, you get most of the advantages of running without the impact. You can enter races. You can hit the trails. You can join groups and walk with other people. You can walk anywhere and everywhere.
  • DopeItUp
    DopeItUp Posts: 18,772 Member
    Good luck with that.
  • stingrayinfl
    stingrayinfl Posts: 284 Member
    you are doing good. Got some good suggestions. Just start moving. Everyone should find what they like and what their heart and mind enjoy. I like running long, hiking, walking, classes. Just a mixture...as long as you want to do something, you will
  • rheddmobile
    rheddmobile Posts: 6,841 Member
    I think someone already mentioned this, but do see a doctor and tell him what you are planning and ask for specific help with your asthma. The right medication at the right time made the difference for my husband. Also, exercise induced asthma can be worse in cold weather.

    I kind of hate running, but I love being able to run. Maybe you will too. If you don't, there are many other free cardio activities, such as YouTube videos. Personally I like Bollywood Zumba!
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,878 Member
    spartan_d wrote: »
    LAWoman72 wrote: »
    spartan_d 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 several yards to a swimming pool to save a child. Or to run out of an alley.
    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.

    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.
  • spartan_d
    spartan_d Posts: 727 Member
    edited December 2017
    spartan_d wrote: »
    LAWoman72 wrote: »
    spartan_d 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 several yards to a swimming pool to save a child. Or to run out of an alley.
    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.

    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.
    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.

    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.
    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.
    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.

    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.
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,878 Member
    spartan_d wrote: »
    spartan_d wrote: »
    LAWoman72 wrote: »
    spartan_d 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 several yards to a swimming pool to save a child. Or to run out of an alley.
    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.

    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.
    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.

    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.
  • girlwithcurls2
    girlwithcurls2 Posts: 2,251 Member
    LAWoman72 wrote: »
    spartan_d 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...