Why NOT run?

C'mon guys, it IS a fair question. And no, I'm not just saying this to hit on tRg.

txRUNNERgirl,

It is natural, however it is not naturally easy to do efficiently. I think the number one reason why people don't run is because of discomfort/injury. Hopefully one day technique will be taught during adolescent years in school.

Jeremy

I'll admit I was a bit bored and felt like trolling, but I think some of you are overanalyzing the question. I know there are medical reasons for not being able to run, but I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about people who are perfectly capable of running. Mostly, I'm wondering why these people find running to be such an odd activity. Like the people who ask "why are you running?" Running is as hard as you want it to be. The problem is that a lot of people think it's hard before even trying.

The only reason it might seem hard is because they aren't used to it. The same goes for swimming, and yes, I do swim. When I started swimming as part of our high school xc training, none of us could swim. We could run, but we could not swim. I didn't give it up though. Instead, I saw it as an opportunity to compliment my running and I joined the swim team between xc and track season. Now I can swim.

By the way, how is smoking a natural activity? I don't think we were born to smoke, but we are born to run (okay, unless you are born without legs or have a serious medical condition).

I have done my running primarily in southern California, Corvallis OR, Denver CO, and Madison, WI. It is not so strange to run here as in Texas, although I did not have too much trouble the years I taught at Trinity in San Antonio.

txRUNNERgirl wrote:

I've been pondering... Why is it that a lot of people do not run? Maybe they are "just lazy," but running is a natural ability, just like walking. When did running become weird? Why is it weird? Of course I do not think it's weird, but when you are out running, do people ever stare at you like they've never seen a person running? Sometimes they might even say something like a girl driving by me once said to me, "Wow, I wish I could run like you!" Why couldn't she? She has two legs.

It's a pretty stupid question, IMO.

Why don't we walk more instead of running? Walking is a natural ability too. The desire to try new activities and to vary one's abilities is pretty natural too. Some people prefer to do a variety of fitness activities.

And wanting to learn new things about the world is natural- for an adult it often manifests itself in reading or traveling and those may take priority over exercise. There are so many things that are natural to humans that have nothing to do with running, it is such a surprise that some people would pursue their natural abilities in other ways?

kiko wrote:

darkness wrote:[/b

Less people should run. Not more.

Let's be grateful that many slower people choose to support races. There wouldn't be many races if there was a time limit for finishers. Elite racers don't complain when YOU enter a race.

You are assuming that if joggers stopped going to races en masse, that other things couldn't change like people gettgin much better and tougher like it was in the 70's.

When I started running as a 10-year-old there were 50-ish women running 2:54 marathons, and they were NOT considered the superstars of the sport. I remember Ellison Goodall and one of the Sheas running about 2:32 and 2:34 and they were considered "good" and having an outside shot at making the olympic team ... now you are instantly heralded as the second coming ... until the next flavor-of-the-month comes along.

I ran my first 39:xx 10k at age 12 ... and finished OUT OF THE MEDALS in 13 and under that day. That is how tough people were back then. Some of the same people who ran well and competitively back then (28 years ago) are now still winning local races at 40 or even 50 years old ... because the teens and 20-somethings of 2007 are so soft there aren't many that can get it together enough to surpass these oldies.

That is why I say LESS people should run. I find someone "running" slower than 25:00 for 5k to be disgusting.

You're just mad cuz you didn't think of it, you sore non-thread-thinker-upper.

kiko wrote: Elite racers don't complain when YOU enter a race.

Haven't so far, but I cannot remain silent another moment.

I hate, hate, hate it when that waddling cretin known as "darkness" has the gall to defile a race I am in, or watching, or within a hundred miles of. "darkness", please cease and desist.

And find a better barber already. You're an embarrassment not just to the sport but to the male gender.

I think this is a common attitude to a lot of "niche" groups like the close running community....

We know how great it is and how could others not see how great it is. The more involved and enclosed in the running community, the more you are blinded by these thoughts.

I was a soccer player before a runner and I remember very clearly my thoughts and attitudes about the sport before I started. It seemed very hard and boring. The people who did it were sort of "off" a bit. The list goes on and I'm sure people can add some more....

I can completely understand why people would choose not to run. Heck, I wonder some days why I do it so much. I think a much better question is why individuals choose to be inactive. With all we know now about health, and the ancillary benefits involved with being active, why do so many people choose to be lazy?

kiko wrote:

There wouldn't be many races if there was a time limit for finishers.

What's your best guess tRg?

I say:

(a) Sheer laziness. And why are we lazy? Good reason: a zillion years ago, even several hundred years ago, life was a lot harder and food much scarcer. You had to work hard enough hunting and/or gathering food just to survive, you were pushing the limits of things like available calories and your ability to recover and do it again the next day.

So we developed ("we" including our earlier animal ancestors, before God made Darwin) the instinct to park our asses and conserve energy outside of the necessary work. Once upon a time "outside of the necessary work" may have meant a few hours a day but of course we have a lot more ass-parking leisure now.

(b) Herd instinct. Of those who manage to overcome the ass-parking instinct, most of 'em don't run... or if they do, they just "do cardio" for 20 minutes on the treadmill. Because most folks don't do anything without a group, and the answer to "where do people exercise" is apparently "the gym, silly."

(c) It really *is* hard at first, even jogging a couple miles, at least for an adult trying to start from scratch. It's harder physically than say riding a bike, and also harder psychologically - with the bike, not only can you coast, not only are you seated, but there's also this comforting notion that you've got a machine helping you. In a sense you just gotta push the pedals and it does much of the work. You're not all alone, exposed, dependent on only yourself.

please dont squeeze the garmin wrote:

What's your best guess tRg?

I should be able to answer this, I guess, since I never ran before age 14 or 15. I was completely sedentary for the most part before then and hated running. What kind of kid hates running? So I think back and wonder how I got from walking with stomach cramps at the back of a pack of 6th graders in P.E. to being (somewhat) successful (at least loving it as much as I do) with running. My reason was that I did not believe I could run. I saw myself as slow and clumsy, so I was. I saw running as something painful and impossible, so it was. I thought these things because that's what other people told me. Then I finally got fed up with people telling me who I was and started running. So maybe you are right about the "herd factor." It's easier to follow what everybody else thinks and does.

Lots of people run....when they play soccer, football, rugby, ultimate, etc.

Most people view running as a means to an end (getting to the ball faster, running to catch a bus, etc.), unlike people like us who make it into a lifestyle.

People evolved from apes, they are proficient at climbing things.

Why don't more people climb things? It's even more natural for humans than running is, considering our roots.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=x98jCBnWO8w

If you haven't done much running, it's not as natural or easy as it seems to us who log lots of miles. I've been a runner for 15+ years, but I've been plagued my nagging injuries for months now. My return to running is not going as smoothly as I hoped. But I'm persevering on because I know I can back into good running shape if I slowly build back up.

I can only imagine that for someone who has not done much running at all, the experience might feel so discouraging (and painful) that they don't stick with it long enough to ever get to enjoy it.

It's boring for many.

skiziks wrote: Why don't more people climb things? It's even more natural for humans than running is, considering our roots.

Bernd Heinrich's Why We Run[/u[ (original title Racing The Antelope before some hippie douchebag who'd written a book on Phish or some such with a vaguely similar title sued him) makes the case that our evolution from those roots into the human race was largely about developing endurance running skills.

If we were still supposed to climb, wouldn't we have retained the prehensile tail and toes which could grip branches?

She has a point.

And cigarettes don't just crop up from the ground, nor do they magically fall from the sky.

This thread sucks. I'm gonna smoke a bowl to celebrate.

Dirt wrote:

Because they don't have to, would rather watch football, goof off or play video games.

I do all 3 of those things as well as run.