Why I Quit the Gym After 13 Years of Training and What I Found Instead: My “Sports” Journey in Motion

Part 3

I’m not going to sit here and explain to you about the differences of definitions between movement, sports, exercise or fitness in a very limited perspective and expect you to improve your relationship with “physical activity” just because you read a blog post. I want to explain more about the difference between seeing the source of the problem as “not knowing the definitions” versus seeing it as “the approach.”

The former suggests that the issue arises from confusion or misunderstanding about what these terms mean. In this view, if we could simply clarify the definitions by saying what is movement, exercise or fitness, it would resolve the problem, leading people to better understand what they are doing and why they are doing it. 

But this approach ignores the more fundamental issue: how we engage with these practices. Definitions alone don’t change the way we feel about movement. Because in the end, whether if it’s exercising or doing a sport, it all stems from the same experience: movement. The true challenge lies in the attitude, intention and mindset we bring to it.

The problem isn’t just semantic clarity, it’s the way we interact with our bodies, the motivations behind our movements and the meaning we give to them. So the resolution isn’t just about defining terms but transforming the engagement with the practice/experience itself. The way we move is far more important than what we call it.

The difference between seeing the source of the problem as not knowing the definitions versus seeing it as the approach or the engagement lies in the way we perceive the cause of the issue and it’s potential resolution.

Not Knowing the Definitions

When we see the source of the problem as a misunderstanding or confusion about definitions we’re looking at the issue through a semantic lens; the problem arises from a lack of clarity or misinterpretation of terms like “movement” “exercise” or “fitness.” The assumption here is that if we could define these terms more clearly, people would be able to categorize their physical practices properly and therefore their relationship with their bodies would improve.

Dialectically this view relies on the idea that clarity and proper categorization can lead to resolution. If we could just define the differences between movement, exercise and sports accurately then the right practice would follow naturally. People would understand what they are doing, why they are doing it and how it fit’s within the broader system of physical activity. In other words, the right definitions give rise to the correct actions, which would in turn improve mental health, performance and general well-being.

For example: you can place running under all of these definitions above. Running can be a form of sport where you compete with others or it can be an exercise to improve your performance in another sport or it could be just practiced to maintain some fitness in your body. So what is running, then? Is it sport, exercise or movement? According to the dictionary of Cambridge running means: the activity of going somewhere quickly on foot. So now, the answer we give depends not on the act itself but on our orientation toward it; why we run, how we run and in which context. As you can see the labels easily shift but the motion remains.

Do you see how fluid running can be? That fluidity reveals the limitations of rigid definitions. So the real question is: do definitions of sport, exercise or fitness actually resolve the issue? In this sense, clarity of terms may not transform our practice, only a shift in relationship can. Definitions might organize language but they don’t transform our relationship with our bodies.

Focusing too much on definitions misses the larger, more experiential aspect of human movement. Even if we know the difference between exercise, sport and movement, the problem may persist if our engagement with the practice remains limited by external expectations or rigid structures.

The Approach

When we see the problem as lying in the approach or the engagement with the activity the issue moves away from what we call things and focuses instead on how we engage with them, our mindset, intention and relationship to our bodies. If we understand that our problem is not about the thing itself but our relation to it then it will be easier to understand the difference. This view emphasizes that the real challenge is not necessarily a lack of clarity in definitions but rather how we approach our practice. Are we focusing on the experience of movement or are we caught in the cycle of achieving measurable goals and fitting into definitions?

This viewpoint positions the solution as a shift in attitude and experience rather than knowledge and knowing alone. It challenges the reductionist, outcome driven approach of fitness and asks us to embrace movement as a form of self-discovery and creative engagement with our bodies.

It’s less about categorizing and more about how we inhabit and express the body in action.

Resolution

Both perspectives have their place but I believe the true resolution lies in reconciling the two. Definitions can help provide clarity but without an understanding of how to engage with those definitions, they are simply words. Likewise, a shift in engagement requires some form of understanding whether it’s through definitions, personal insight or cultural context.

The definitions are important but they do not exist in a vacuum. The tension between clarity and engagement can be resolved through an integration of both. Definitions offer a framework but it is our approach, the emotional, psychological and physical engagement with movement that ultimately transforms the experience and impacts our mental health.

Treating motion as a metric instead of an experience leads to a mechanized, goal-oriented relationship with the body where movement becomes just another task to check off, a number to hit, a target to reach. This approach can result in physical burnout, mental fatigue and a disconnection from the true joy of movement, turning what should be an expressive, freeing activity into a stressful obligation. 

That’s why most people don’t enjoy participating in physical activities because the outcomes are always tied to outside sources for them or that’s what they have been taught about moving, that it is equal to sports; moving = sports, just 1 limited definition. Just like I was brainwashed at some part of my life where I buried my head under the mat and the barbell for 13 years. When movement is seen solely as a means to an end it loses its essence as a way to connect with the body, explore new sensations and experience the pure pleasure of physicality. 

Instead of feeling liberated by movement, people become trapped in a cycle of striving for external validation, disconnected from the intrinsic joy that movement can offer. Much of what we call movement today is filtered through media narratives that glorify visible results and ignore inner experience, no wonder our relationship to the body feels fractured. I would love to write more about this but that will be the topic of another post.

The experience of movement isn’t about fitting into a rigid mold but about developing a habit of feeling on the fluidity of what the body can do, in the smallest scale. When we shift our perspective and treat movement as an experience, we unlock its deeper potential; mentally, emotionally and physically.

It becomes less about what we are trying to achieve and more about how we engage with the world through our bodies, allowing for a more authentic, fulfilling practice that nurtures both our well-being and our connection to the body itself.

— A. 

you can find the rest of my writings here ↓