Fitness Measurement

[jacob]

Hehe, yeah, I think Chad is just sore that the more simplistic measures favor the endurance dimension and not max deadlifts... because after googling around, it seems that "general fitness tests" really do cover broad aspects in some pedestrian/easy kind of way e.g.
1) Resting pulse recovery rate (difference between just-after and 30 seconds later?)
2) Flexibility (can you touch your toes?)
3) Strength (can you squeeze this or lift that?)
4) Power (how many pushups or situps in one minute?)
5) Endurance (your one mile time?)
6) BMI, waist, ... (simple body measurements?)

AFAIR, the Army test has two power tests (pushups and situps) and one endurance test (the mile time).

I still think this is only an issue if we're trying to make some general claim based on a specialized measurement. Obviously, making specialized comparisons are very easy. It's called competition!

Thus it all comes down to "what do you ultimately want to do" with your "fitness"?

Live long? Get laid? Play hockey? Lift 300 pounds from a prone position?

Just a case in point... in the spring I spent about 1-2 hrs per day running and cycling. Whereas in the past 1.5 months I've spent about 1 hr per day on Insanity (see fitness log thread). Digging holes and mowing lawns are definitely easier in the latter regime because that effort does require some power. IOW, tri/duathlon fitness doesn't translate into digging holes or push mowing as well as Insanity does. Then again ... what if I wasn't gardening?

And so on ...

[jacob]

Also ... I think there's a tendency to talk/prefer "your book". For example, I've done a lot of different dimensions(*) and I've found that my physiology responds best to the "power" dimension or the "middle-distance" aka "work capacity". Therefore, I naturally prefer that. Because I'm good at that.

(*) Swimming, table tennis, badminton (nothing formal but I'm pretty good, I suppose tt carries over), karate, 5k running, bodybuilding, kettle/club bells, cycling, trail running, sailing, shinkendo, inline hockey. Whoa! Sports nerd?! Since I was about 7, I've only not been active for about 1-2 years in grad school ... and in retrospect I didn't feel good at all during those sedentary times.

BTW I realize now---in retrospect---that I was essentially talking my book/present activity in the ERE book about the density training. If I had to rewrite that chapter, I would, realizing that people have different "strengths".

Medically speaking, I think the main fitness difference is whether you're "strenuously active" or not. Basically, are you doing ... and can you ... sweat for some 30-60 minutes each day ... you're not doing bad at all. Whether that's max bench-pressing or belly dancing ... you just do what you prefer with what you can.

It's not a competition. Unless we turn it into one(*)

(*) I really hope that nobody issues a push-up challenge. I utterly suck at those. I'd fail Army

[Chad]

Yeah, I'm definitely annoyed by the endurance focused simplistic measurements of fitness. Strength and power should be equally weighted with endurance in the fitness tests, which would slowly push society to have better general fitness.

If I asked someone to run a 5k they would be fine with the question even if they didn't want to do it. However, if I asked someone to do a Grid, crossfit level, lifting competition, etc. 90% would think I'm weird. This seems to be because society thinks someone with a good 5k time who can't squat their own body weight (on a bar, not a body weight only exercise) more than a couple times is in shape, while someone who could squat their own body weight 10-15 times and has a poor 5k time isn't in shape. I'm only suggesting that neither is fit.

I'm much more genetically and mechanically built for strength, speed, and power than I am for endurance. Though, it just means I can get closer to elite level in those areas, not that I can't have solid endurance. So, yes, I'm definitely backing my strength/talking my "book" with this idea. Though, it doesn't mean I'm not right!

[7Wannabe5]

Yeah, I was arguing my own "book" too. I just get frustrated because so many measures of fitness are unfair to tall women who naturally have hour-glass or pear-shaped figures and lack eye-to-hand co-ordination. Belly fat is what kills people. Simple laws of physics will inform you that if the vast majority of your muscular tissue is found below the waist, your ability to perform chin-ups will be sub-par method of measuring your overall body-fat composition or strength or health. And the desire to experience something like making a goal has been linked to high testosterone levels. Men with high levels of testosterone get a measurable squirt of endorphins even just observing something like a basketball going through a hoop (reference "Heroes, Rogues and Lovers: Testosterone and Behavior" by Dabbs.) I have tried to engage in empathy for this fact since I learned of it but I just don't get much happy juice squirt from that sort of thing even though I have high normal testosterone levels for a female. Anyways, since the number of push-ups I could perform with excellent form when I was dating a man who could perform 500 (or some high number even if I got on his back )was 0 (even though he was constantly encouraging me to try to do a push-up; it was actually kind of annoying with caveat that the opposite behavior is worse-sigh) , I don't care because given that all my blood work measures are also very good or excellent, I am fairly confident that my top 4 fitness objectives of:

1) Live into 90s
2) Garden until dead then fall over into compost heap.
3) Get laid until 79.
4) Do anything else I think might be fun except that I give up on ever being able to do the monkey bars again.

are not to be rendered much more likely by significantly altering my current practices.

[Ego]

Harold and brain fitness
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/12/0 ... ains-young

Over all, Dr. Soya said, the results suggest that “higher aerobic fitness is associated with improved cognitive function through lateralized frontal activation in older adults.” Fit older people’s brains require fewer resources to complete tasks than do the brains of older people who are out of shape.

It is easy to forget that there is a strong physical component to mental fitness.

[Chad]

Harold and brain fitness
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/12/0 ... ains-young

Over all, Dr. Soya said, the results suggest that “higher aerobic fitness is associated with improved cognitive function through lateralized frontal activation in older adults.” Fit older people’s brains require fewer resources to complete tasks than do the brains of older people who are out of shape.

It is easy to forget that there is a strong physical component to mental fitness.

This isn't surprising it all. Take a month or two off from working out and then start up again. A weird fog you didn't know you had lifts from your thoughts really quickly. When little physical activity is done over a lifetime it probably really adds up.

It's also not surprising when they said fit and immediately went to aerobic fitness. My pet peeve again.