Definition of fitness
in [Aerobic]
|
From: DrollTroll on 14 Jun 2008 09:45 Does anyone have a clear definition of fitness? Something quantifiable? Is a marathoner necessarily more fit than a miler? A sprinter? A weightlifter? Even the president's council on fitness seems to have a rambling definition of fitness. Can one definitely say Person A is fitter than person B? -- DT
From: joeu2004 on 18 Jun 2008 00:07 On Jun 14, 6:45 am, "DrollTroll" <fit...(a)optonline.net> wrote: > Does anyone have a clear definition of fitness? > Something quantifiable? No. There is no single definition of fitness. There are many systems that try to quantify __some__ aspects of fitness. But they do not apply to all definition of fitness. For example, a weightlifter might measure fitness by the amount of weight that he dead-lift. But a sprinter's inability to lift heavy weights does not make him any less fit. > Is a marathoner necessarily more fit than a miler? > A sprinter? A weightlifter? No. First, a marathoner, jogger, sprinter and weightlifter are not necessarily fit in the first place. Second, a fit person -- however you choose to measure that -- is equally fit regardless of how he got that way: running marathons, jogging, sprinting or lifting weights. "Which is heavier: a pound of feathers or a pound of lead?". I presume the question you really want to ask is: will one mode of exercise make a person more fit than another? Generally, no. Some modes of exercise might be more well-rounded than others, making you more fit holistically. Some modes of exercise might make you more fit sooner. But again, that depends on your definition of "fit". And arguably, all modes exercise can get you fit in equal time as long as you apply yourself. Consider two extremes: long slow walks v. short sprints. If you can sprint only one or two days a week, but you can walk every day, it is likely that walking will make you fit faster than sprinting. On other hand, if you can sprint with the same frequency as walking, it is likely that sprinting will make you fit faster -- if it doesn't kill you first ;-). > Can one definitely say Person A is fitter than person B? Sure. Given a particular definition of "fit" -- whatever at your discretion -- Person A might meet the particulars of that definition better than Person B. For example, an internal medicine doctor might define "fit", in part, based on blood chemistry factors -- low "bad" cholesterol, high "good" cholesterol, low glucose, low triglycerides, low body fat. Obviously one person can come closer to those goals than another person. I'm guessing that that has nothing to do with your idea of "fit". But it should be.
From: DrollTroll on 18 Jun 2008 15:42 "joeu2004" <joeu2004(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:639c8cf5-98cc-409c-98b2-e03355939efc(a)w5g2000prd.googlegroups.com... On Jun 14, 6:45 am, "DrollTroll" <fit...(a)optonline.net> wrote: > Does anyone have a clear definition of fitness? > Something quantifiable? No. There is no single definition of fitness. There are many systems that try to quantify __some__ aspects of fitness. But they do not apply to all definition of fitness. For example, a weightlifter might measure fitness by the amount of weight that he dead-lift. But a sprinter's inability to lift heavy weights does not make him any less fit. > Is a marathoner necessarily more fit than a miler? > A sprinter? A weightlifter? No. First, a marathoner, jogger, sprinter and weightlifter are not necessarily fit in the first place. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ How could a marathoner NOT be fit?? ==================================================== Second, a fit person -- however you choose to measure that -- is equally fit regardless of how he got that way: running marathons, jogging, sprinting or lifting weights. "Which is heavier: a pound of feathers or a pound of lead?". ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Sometimes weight is mistaken for density. :) Actually an understandable mistake. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I presume the question you really want to ask is: will one mode of exercise make a person more fit than another? Generally, no. Some modes of exercise might be more well-rounded than others, making you more fit holistically. Some modes of exercise might make you more fit sooner. But again, that depends on your definition of "fit". And arguably, all modes exercise can get you fit in equal time as long as you apply yourself. Consider two extremes: long slow walks v. short sprints. If you can sprint only one or two days a week, but you can walk every day, it is likely that walking will make you fit faster than sprinting. On other hand, if you can sprint with the same frequency as walking, it is likely that sprinting will make you fit faster -- if it doesn't kill you first ;-). ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Suppose the mileage is 30 miles a week, for both the walker and the runner, both walking/running 6 mi/day, 5 days/week--or whatever. Or, you can adjust the mileage slightly so that the caloric expenditure is the same per week. Do you think one will be "fitter" than the other at the end of a few months? What would be the criterion for fitness? -- DT > Can one definitely say Person A is fitter than person B? Sure. Given a particular definition of "fit" -- whatever at your discretion -- Person A might meet the particulars of that definition better than Person B. For example, an internal medicine doctor might define "fit", in part, based on blood chemistry factors -- low "bad" cholesterol, high "good" cholesterol, low glucose, low triglycerides, low body fat. Obviously one person can come closer to those goals than another person. I'm guessing that that has nothing to do with your idea of "fit". But it should be.
From: joeu2004 on 18 Jun 2008 19:37 On Jun 18, 12:42 pm, "DrollTroll" <fit...(a)optonline.net> wrote: > How could a marathoner NOT be fit?? Obviously you have never seen the SF Bay-to-Breakers marathon ;-). Okay, that is not a "marathon" per se (26.2 miles). But world-class runners do participate in it. Seriously, just because someone can complete a 26.2 mile run, that does not mean that person is "fit". Of course, it does depend on your definition. If your definition of "fit" is mere completion, then you have a circular definition. > > Second, a fit person -- however you choose to measure that -- is > > equally fit regardless of how he got that way: running marathons, > > jogging, sprinting or lifting weights. "Which is heavier: a pound of > > feathers or a pound of lead?". > > Sometimes weight is mistaken for density. :) > Actually an understandable mistake. I think you missed the point of the analogy. You cannot say a marathoner is more fit than a jogger. If they are both "fit" by whatever definition you choose, they are both "fit". It's a tautology. A pound of feathers and a pound of lead weigh the same. Density is not a factor. > Suppose the mileage is 30 miles a week, for both the walker and the runner, > both walking/running 6 mi/day, 5 days/week--or whatever. > Or, you can adjust the mileage slightly so that the caloric expenditure is > the same per week. > > Do you think one will be "fitter" than the other at the end of a few months? Not necessary. I see plenty of runners in the neighborhood whom I would guess are not fit, based on appearance. Conversely, I see plenty of walkers who look sharp as a tack. But honestly, no one can assess fitness by visual appearance alone. > What would be the criterion for fitness? I've already answered that. Hmm, perhaps we should return to that question of "density" ;-). But it does seem like __you__ have a preconceived notion of what is "fit", and that seems to be driving you to expect a particular answer. If you merely looking for validation, I'm cannot help you.
From: joeu2004 on 19 Jun 2008 03:24 On Jun 18, 7:45 pm, "DrollTroll" <fit...(a)optonline.net> wrote: > Well, I have observed that I can walk 4-5 miles--probably 10+--with > relative ease, but it is difficult (right now) to run 3-4 miles. > I'd be more pleased if could run those 3-5 miles without dropping > dead at the end. I wish the same thing for myself. And your inability to run might be related to a lack of "fitness". But it is more likely related, at least to some degree, to poor technique. That is certainly my problem. It might also be related to poor muscle development. But necessarily the muscle that you might think of. Good running ability requires good "core" muscles. It also requires good development of small support muscle in the legs, especially in the feet and around the knee. That does not mean you are "unfit". It just means that you have developed the particular areas needed for running. Consider this: when Lance Armstrong retired, he decided to run a marathon. As I recall, he was unable to finish the run; or if he did finish, he hobbled to the finish line. In either case, his own assessment was that he was not ready to run. But no one would consider Armstrong "unfit" by any measure. Conversely, I am quite sure than none of the leading Kenyan marathoners could compare to Armstrong's cycling performance in the French alps and even in time trials (not his forte). > And if there are different types of physical fitness, it would nice to be > able to define or quantify them, I never said that there were no objective measures of fitness. In fact, I said "there are many systems that try to quantify fitness". Each quantification system is well suited for that mode of exercise or athletic event. But you had asked about "__a__ clear definition". > If you follow the media, 6-pack abs appear to be the be-all and end-all of > physical fitness. I don't know what media you follow, but that is just the opposite of what any knowledgable article says. Yes, we like to gawk people who have great looking abs. But no one has ever said that defines "fit". It is merely a requirement for certain jobs, like action acting and modeling. (On the other hand, good looking abs have as much to do with low body fat as it does with good muscle development. It is the low-fat aspect that is good, if not taken to extremes.) PS: It would be nice if you would learn by example how to "quote" previous postings and intersperse your responses.
|
Pages: 1 Prev: 154 lbs to 176 lbs possible? Next: CLENBUTEROL + WEIGHT LOSS EASY |