Which is why you should always go hiking with a buddy.
A slower buddy.
We already covered this. It’s good for your health.
This is not explaining how it’s a useful skill, however. How is learning to construct toy houses out of match sticks a useful skill? Yes, being able to do such an activity requires some learning, and learning is generally considered to be a net positive. But as far as being useful, such a skill ain’t it.
Well, you could probably sell it at a garage sale. You can also go on runs for charity. There, it’s useful.
Except when it isn’t. And it doesn’t invalidate all the other things that are good for your health. Running is just a cardio activity, no better for you than biking, swimming, dancing, basketball, x-c skiing, or dozens of other choices.
Many people don’t like running for any number of reasons but that’s fine since it isn’t the only or the best activity for your health. Is this somehow confusing to you? Why do you think running is somehow elevated to some exalted position in the pantheon of cardio?
Um, what? 
I don’t. I get it. Running isn’t for everybody.
Then what is your purpose [in this thread]? Basically: what’s your point?
I don’t have one anymore. I guess I lost.
You mean, running “isn’t” for everybody. Right? 
It’s ok.
Lol. No I mean it.
It’s not a win-lose thing. Your position was incorrect and you’ve been educated as to why. That’s the purpose of the board, right?
Absolutely.
It’s worth pointing out that the difference in health benefits between running and (brisk) walking aren’t that much.
and
As a follow up to what I wrote earlier, I run maybe once every couple of weeks, with a “long” run (usually about 5 k or less) once every 3 months or so. I do CrossFit-esque workouts about 3 times a week.
From that style of training, I officially have significant enough bradycardia that it was noted on my last few medical checks. In my late 30s. From next to no running at all. When I was in high school, as a competitive swimmer, the lowest my heart rate ever got was about 55 bpm. If you take resting heart rate as an indicator of cardiovascular fitness, I’m in better shape now than I was at age 16 when I was swimming about 6000 yards every afternoon.
You don’t need to run to be fit. You don’t need to run to have good cardio fitness. And you don’t need to run very often to be a decent runner. The only reason you need to run often is if you want to be competitive at it, or if you enjoy it. For most people, it’s fine for it to be an occasional exercise, and they can minimize the pain and maximize the benefits by doing it hard and fast (HIIT; fartlek; playing ultimate frisbee, soccer, etc.) instead of cranking out mileage at slower paces.
A related, but sort of tangential issue is sport- or mode-specificity. VO2-max is a decent indicator of how well you are likely to be able to perform endurance activities since it’s a measure of how efficient you are at processing oxygen, which is the main limiting factor in the aerobic energy pathway. VO2 ratings in trained athletes tend to be strongly specific to the sport. In other words, they’re really efficient at doing one particular thing, but despite their overall fitness might be more inefficient than someone who has lower absolute fitness, but is not as highly specialized. Whatever training you do regularly, you need to mix in other things from time to time if you want good overall fitness.
I agree with the related risks with running, but swimmers, bikers, people who do non-weight bearing exercise have lower bone density than those who do weight training, multi-modal training, or sports that involve running and impact, particularly rugby in this study. On the other hand, straight endurance training also has negative impacts on bone density, so maybe it’s a wash.