How Do You Not Hate Running?
Replies
-
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!3 -
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.12 -
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.1 -
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. I'm not trying to be a jerk. Just saying, I can't see that one "should" run just in case s/he needs to get out of the way of something fast, or toward something fast. If I can HIIT for 45 minutes I can get across the yard to a pool, and fast. As fast as, say, a pro sprinter? Probably not but I'm not likely to attempt that level of above-average running every single day of my life so I can get a few feet out of an alley (or duck) in 4.7 rather than 4.9 seconds.
BTW, this person has asthma. OP, have you cleared this with your doc? You probably have but I thought I'd put that in. Because if you haven't, it's not much good winding up in the hospital trying to get healthy. Follow your doctor's recommendations. She may have a schedule/program for you and no, it won't be the pros at MFP but it could save you from something serious...I'd ask, anyway.
7 -
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.5 -
Good luck with that.1
-
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.
Exactly. That's a good point. This all made me think of something...when my middle son was two years old our friends had moved and they invited us to their son's birthday party. They DIDN'T tell us there was a pool...which was bizarre. Something got lost in the translation and everybody showed up without swim trunks. And the party was literally there...beside the pool. So I was trailing my son precariously for 1.5 hours bent over with my back screaming while he cried for the pool, running along its slippery sides. I pulled him back nine thousand times while he screamed to get back to the fun water. Good times. We went inside...more crying...I was pregnant and exhausted and not thinking straight and...oh fudge.
I asked my husband if we could leave because it was ridiculous and he agreed and IN THAT SECOND, no lie, in the blink of one second my son wrenched from me and ran straight L-angle to that pool and fell in. I mean I was right there. Literally right there.
The first person to get to and into that pool and in fact, save my son's life was my husband, who was 5'9", 265 lbs. and never exercised. At all. There was actually a man right at the edge, at that moment, a trim dude who looked quite healthy. Just sitting fast to the edge (I guess intelligently, so he wouldn't slip, go sprawling and knock himself out) was longer than the fractions of a second it took my husband to jet right there and leap in.
p.s. The moral of the story is not "stay fat so you can save a child," BTW. I guess I'm just thinking...there are so many ways to work out. If you really hate one way, well...I dunno. Anyway, good luck, OP, and do see that doc.9 -
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 will1
-
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!4 -
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.
8 -
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 -
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 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: »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 -
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 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: »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 -
janejellyroll wrote: »MegaMooseEsq 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 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.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 -
janejellyroll wrote: »MegaMooseEsq 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 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
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.5K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.2K Fitness and Exercise
- 382 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.6K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.1K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 878 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions