(2) To say that this proposition is partially true, there are certain preconditions. But in any case, "not the lowest."

(3) Fitness, health is a big topic, of course, we can't generalize.

(4) For example, if you want to exercise acne like Mr. Bodybuilding, you definitely need a lot of equipment to exercise, and running is definitely not enough.

(5) For example, to lose weight, HIIT is efficient, but HITT can still be carried out by running. So we can't say that running is inefficient from the perspective of losing weight. Running to lose weight is also efficient, but the method you perform is not appropriate.

(6) For example, if you want to run a marathon, you can reduce the amount of running and cross-train, but you must not run, otherwise you will not get good results in the marathon.

For example, if you want to practice swimming, no matter how fast you run, you won't improve your swimming skills.

(8) Therefore, this proposition itself is wrong.

I disagree with this statement. According to my own personal experience, running is the lowest cost, the least time and the best effect.

It's normal to say such a thing will certainly attract a lot of spray. Because of the current gym, fitness equipment has formed a huge industrial chain. If everyone goes running, what about these industries?