What's your experience of being 'really fit'
Discussion
mcelliott said:
popeyewhite said:
oddman said:
No one would dispute that Alex Honnold is one of the fittest men on the planet
He's obviously very fit, but one of the fittest on the planet?
oddman said:
If we were having a discussion 25 years ago. Not many outside sports physiology would have a clue what VO2 max was. Then resting heart rate, a correlate of VO2 max, would probably be trotted out to support the argument that cyclists and cross country skiiers are the fittest athletes. It's establshed as a physiological measure (although its been around 100 years) it seems to be the 'argument winner' on who's the fittest. Even then although in populations VO2 max is a good predictor of performance and life expectancy, there are exceptions of athletes with relatively poor VO2 max who can outperform their numbers (tends to be in marathon plus distance competitions where mental resilience comes in). Athletes with similar physiological data will train, recover and perform differently
However VO2max is only one dimension of overall fitness. Other important components of fitness like strength, balance, mobility, coordination/skill, raw speed and mental toughness are disregarded. Alex Honnold occupies a much greater area of this multidimensional plot than a pro cyclist.
In the pissing contest of which sportsmen are fittest then, although I come from an aerobic/endurance background, its difficult to argue against boxing.
I'd say those are all different, separate things. I don't consider powerlifters fit at all despite their strength (and i had a crack at it for a couple of years). Balance, skill and mental resilience certainly don't come into it.However VO2max is only one dimension of overall fitness. Other important components of fitness like strength, balance, mobility, coordination/skill, raw speed and mental toughness are disregarded. Alex Honnold occupies a much greater area of this multidimensional plot than a pro cyclist.
In the pissing contest of which sportsmen are fittest then, although I come from an aerobic/endurance background, its difficult to argue against boxing.
Fitness for me is all about cardiovascular endurance.
CLK-GTR said:
However they do it, they're bloody fit.
VO2 max is the one metric that is reliably representative of being ultra fit. The records are dominated by cyclists and cross country skiers, with the odd long distance runner thrown in.
My dad is in his eighties, used to compete at the velodrome, and still cycles fifty miles three times per week.VO2 max is the one metric that is reliably representative of being ultra fit. The records are dominated by cyclists and cross country skiers, with the odd long distance runner thrown in.
At his NHS health check the nurse wasn’t comfortable having him just go home afterwards as she thought his resting pulse of 42 must indicate an underlying health issue.
popeyewhite said:
Yes, there's lots. 5 elements to fitness I think. Speed, strength, flexibility, recovery/cardio endurance and balance. Bits have been added and taken away over the years, but essentially that's it. Reluctantly I'd say a champion from a multi-disciplinary sport like Crossfit might meet most of the criteria for fittest. Maybe a heptathlete or the like.
That’s where boxing tops it for me to be honest (and I’m not even a big fan). Would also add the skill of being able to think rationally and tactically while at your absolute limit is a key skill of the Pro’s. Drop a good club level player of any sport into a world elite pack and they’d last 10 seconds - F1, pro tour cycling, golf any of them.
To settle arguments such as this I think that the BBC ought to make some sort of early-evening program where they get sportspeople from all sorts of different disciplines to compete in fitness tests.
They could have things like squat thrusts, press-ups and dips, and have top stars such as Kevin Keegan falling off a bike into some dog poo in a municipal park.
They could then have a learning-challenged Judo champion win each time.
They could have things like squat thrusts, press-ups and dips, and have top stars such as Kevin Keegan falling off a bike into some dog poo in a municipal park.
They could then have a learning-challenged Judo champion win each time.
About 10 years ago, I helped a friend who was setting up a children's dodgeball party business. Rather than standing on the sidelines like most adults and party "hosts" shouting at the kids, I got stuck in, so I'd be running around, doing the 5 Ds of dodgeball ( 
) at each side of the court to balance out a game and make it last longer for 60 to 90 minutes, then on to the next party. 2-4 times a weekend plus a couple of afterschool dodgeball sessions during the week plus adult tennis sessions and adult dodgeball in the evenings, plus strength training plus kung fu training. That was in my 40s. I feel tired just thinking about it! I still do everything apart from the dodgeball stuff and I notice my fitness levels are lower. My agility is still there, though - probably from kung fu and tennis plus I do olympic lifting (dynamic stuff).
) at each side of the court to balance out a game and make it last longer for 60 to 90 minutes, then on to the next party. 2-4 times a weekend plus a couple of afterschool dodgeball sessions during the week plus adult tennis sessions and adult dodgeball in the evenings, plus strength training plus kung fu training. That was in my 40s. I feel tired just thinking about it! I still do everything apart from the dodgeball stuff and I notice my fitness levels are lower. My agility is still there, though - probably from kung fu and tennis plus I do olympic lifting (dynamic stuff).Anyone seen Physical 100 on Netflix? Basically puts a load of fit people from all disciplines against each other in various challenges to see whose best. My favourites are the female bodybuilders; big, jacked ladies knocking f
k out of everyone, beautiful.
It's a really simple concept, akin to a sort of childish "who would win in a fight?" scenario. Unfortunately the editing makes it largely unwatchable so I basically skipped to the end to see who won. My initial money was on a CrossFit person, as a kind of jack-of-all-trades.
k out of everyone, beautiful. It's a really simple concept, akin to a sort of childish "who would win in a fight?" scenario. Unfortunately the editing makes it largely unwatchable so I basically skipped to the end to see who won. My initial money was on a CrossFit person, as a kind of jack-of-all-trades.
Edited by horsemeatscandal on Wednesday 22 May 12:46
Ken_Code said:
To settle arguments such as this I think that the BBC ought to make some sort of early-evening program where they get sportspeople from all sorts of different disciplines to compete in fitness tests.
They could have things like squat thrusts, press-ups and dips, and have top stars such as Kevin Keegan falling off a bike into some dog poo in a municipal park.
They could then have a learning-challenged Judo champion win each time.
Back in those days you had 2 people from the same discipline who were worlds apart in fitness,the super fit like Keegan and the barely fit like Mick Channon lolThey could have things like squat thrusts, press-ups and dips, and have top stars such as Kevin Keegan falling off a bike into some dog poo in a municipal park.
They could then have a learning-challenged Judo champion win each time.
horsemeatscandal said:
Anyone seen Physical 100 on Netflix? Basically puts a load of fit people from all disciplines against each other in various challenges to see whose best. My favourites are the female bodybuilders; big, jacked ladies knocking fk out of everyone, beautiful.
It's a really simple concept, akin to a sort of childish "who would win in a fight?" scenario. Unfortunately the editing makes it largely unwatchable so I basically skipped to the end to see who won. My initial money was on a CrossFit person, as a kind of jack-of-all-trades.
This one?k out of everyone, beautiful. It's a really simple concept, akin to a sort of childish "who would win in a fight?" scenario. Unfortunately the editing makes it largely unwatchable so I basically skipped to the end to see who won. My initial money was on a CrossFit person, as a kind of jack-of-all-trades.
Edited by horsemeatscandal on Wednesday 22 May 12:46
https://youtu.be/gpWk_vWqhAc
Hard to define I guess because to many people fitness is about cardio heavy stuff but it probably shouldn’t be - there is a lot of specific muscular fitness and ability that comes into rock climbing. But it’s hard to measure and Alex Honnold has a brain that doesn’t work properly which allows him to do things others cannot. That isn’t ability. That’s genetics. Adam Ondra or someone else who is a top level climber easily could ‘do’ what Honnold does technically just not in practice as they wouldn’t have the mental make up for it.
Distance running and cycling are relatively low skill sports and are dominated by genetic ability - yes some riders go down hills better than others and some can do wheelies etc but at the end of the day, it’s the bloke who can push the highest w/kg on a mountain that wins the Tour. It does not have to be pretty (Froome!).
If you look at some of the riders with the gift of genetics they have almost no background in cycling but because of their gift they’re immediately amazing. Remco Evenepoel is a great example - ex pro footballer - still has the bleep test record at Anderlecht I think, randomly ran a half marathon at 16 in 75 minutes with no prior specific training - his dominance from almost day 1 has been nearly unique in recent times. All because of the engine. Skills he’s had to learn a bit to stop crashing.
Distance running and cycling are relatively low skill sports and are dominated by genetic ability - yes some riders go down hills better than others and some can do wheelies etc but at the end of the day, it’s the bloke who can push the highest w/kg on a mountain that wins the Tour. It does not have to be pretty (Froome!).
If you look at some of the riders with the gift of genetics they have almost no background in cycling but because of their gift they’re immediately amazing. Remco Evenepoel is a great example - ex pro footballer - still has the bleep test record at Anderlecht I think, randomly ran a half marathon at 16 in 75 minutes with no prior specific training - his dominance from almost day 1 has been nearly unique in recent times. All because of the engine. Skills he’s had to learn a bit to stop crashing.
Edited by okgo on Wednesday 22 May 13:16
Genetics is the difference between making it and not, but behind every success there's a lot more than genetics - dig into pretty much every successful athlete and you'll probably find a parent that was hugely motivated by sport themselves and a general background of exercise and fitness that gets you to the point where you start training already in outstanding shape.
I've posted before about aerobic fitness being a bit of a false god. Most important component of fitness no doubt but in my 'ready for anything' definition of fitness it's a bit one dimensional.
Aerobic fitness is a magic pill that delays death. However as you get older the more you need to maintain strength and mobility to allow you to access that 'fitness'. You also hope that the aerobic fitness will buy you a greater 'healthspan' but in reality if you're lucky and get into your 80s relatively intact, the ravages of old age can accumulate devastatingly quickly
I got mocked on here by asking if a middle aged poster could put their socks and shoes on without overbalancing or putting their foot down. After the initial teasing I think a few people got it. Unfortunately its the ability to perform seemingly simple strength (not being able to rise from a chair was what heralded two of my relatives' admission to 24 hour care), balance and coordination tasks and not lack of aerobic fitness that leads to decrepitude and institutionalisation
On the positive side, I think mental resilience (or maybe stubbornness) is one thing that increases with age. That 'experience is what I call my mistakes' stuff and memories of prevailing in adverse circumstances to draw on makes you better prepared or gets you through when in difficulty or you want to stop.
Aerobic fitness is a magic pill that delays death. However as you get older the more you need to maintain strength and mobility to allow you to access that 'fitness'. You also hope that the aerobic fitness will buy you a greater 'healthspan' but in reality if you're lucky and get into your 80s relatively intact, the ravages of old age can accumulate devastatingly quickly
I got mocked on here by asking if a middle aged poster could put their socks and shoes on without overbalancing or putting their foot down. After the initial teasing I think a few people got it. Unfortunately its the ability to perform seemingly simple strength (not being able to rise from a chair was what heralded two of my relatives' admission to 24 hour care), balance and coordination tasks and not lack of aerobic fitness that leads to decrepitude and institutionalisation
On the positive side, I think mental resilience (or maybe stubbornness) is one thing that increases with age. That 'experience is what I call my mistakes' stuff and memories of prevailing in adverse circumstances to draw on makes you better prepared or gets you through when in difficulty or you want to stop.
CV fitness It may well be a false god for most.
But it is what most people associate being very fit with. Being ready for anything is a bit wishy washy, the bloke running 15m 5k up the page is fit. No question. Globally recognised as being very fit. Being able to put out a certain wattage for 20 mins the same, certain time on an erg, same. But I guess it depends on how you wish to measure it. There’s competition for almost all things these days, so nobody needs to wonder how good they really are.
Truth hurts for most though, hence Sportives exist
The old age thing I suppose is a different conversation, it’s more about maintenance and slowly the degradation then vs getting the very most out of yourself in your chosen sport(s).
But it is what most people associate being very fit with. Being ready for anything is a bit wishy washy, the bloke running 15m 5k up the page is fit. No question. Globally recognised as being very fit. Being able to put out a certain wattage for 20 mins the same, certain time on an erg, same. But I guess it depends on how you wish to measure it. There’s competition for almost all things these days, so nobody needs to wonder how good they really are.
Truth hurts for most though, hence Sportives exist
The old age thing I suppose is a different conversation, it’s more about maintenance and slowly the degradation then vs getting the very most out of yourself in your chosen sport(s).
I’m not very fit at the moment, and have put a bit more weight on than I should, so am starting to deal with it.
The early stages are simple enough, exercise more, some of it at high intensity, do CV work, weights, and get more flexible while improving my diet and eating less, but what comes next will need some thought.
What do I want the end-state to be, how do I get there, and how do I monitor progress?
My 5k and 10k rowing times will serve as a guide for now, along with resting pulse and weight, but I wonder what to transition to.
The early stages are simple enough, exercise more, some of it at high intensity, do CV work, weights, and get more flexible while improving my diet and eating less, but what comes next will need some thought.
What do I want the end-state to be, how do I get there, and how do I monitor progress?
My 5k and 10k rowing times will serve as a guide for now, along with resting pulse and weight, but I wonder what to transition to.
oddman said:
I've posted before about aerobic fitness being a bit of a false god. Most important component of fitness no doubt but in my 'ready for anything' definition of fitness it's a bit one dimensional.
Aerobic fitness is a magic pill that delays death. However as you get older the more you need to maintain strength and mobility to allow you to access that 'fitness'. You also hope that the aerobic fitness will buy you a greater 'healthspan' but in reality if you're lucky and get into your 80s relatively intact, the ravages of old age can accumulate devastatingly quickly
I got mocked on here by asking if a middle aged poster could put their socks and shoes on without overbalancing or putting their foot down. After the initial teasing I think a few people got it. Unfortunately its the ability to perform seemingly simple strength (not being able to rise from a chair was what heralded two of my relatives' admission to 24 hour care), balance and coordination tasks and not lack of aerobic fitness that leads to decrepitude and institutionalisation
Completely agree with this. My 95 year old mum is in a care home because her legs are no longer strong enough to support her.Aerobic fitness is a magic pill that delays death. However as you get older the more you need to maintain strength and mobility to allow you to access that 'fitness'. You also hope that the aerobic fitness will buy you a greater 'healthspan' but in reality if you're lucky and get into your 80s relatively intact, the ravages of old age can accumulate devastatingly quickly
I got mocked on here by asking if a middle aged poster could put their socks and shoes on without overbalancing or putting their foot down. After the initial teasing I think a few people got it. Unfortunately its the ability to perform seemingly simple strength (not being able to rise from a chair was what heralded two of my relatives' admission to 24 hour care), balance and coordination tasks and not lack of aerobic fitness that leads to decrepitude and institutionalisation
My number one fitness goal is for that not to happen to me. I'm doing much more strength work in the gym and much less swimming.
It's been chastening to observe how hard I'm finding it to put on muscle. At my age the battle seems to be to hang on to what I've got.
oddman said:
Another way I see fitness is that it's synonymous with 'ready' 'prepared'. I like to think that by keeping up with training up to 20k off road running 80k mountain bike 100+k hilly road ride then if a mate calls me and says 'Do you fancy.......How about it?' I'm only one training cycle away from adjusting the specificity of my activity to meet that objective.
I like this definition. It's a mature answer that sits comfortably with the OP's question and my own experience. I lack PW's professional fluency, but I would add structural fitness to the list of fitnesses. The ability to run up and down mountains without your achilies, calves, quads etc exploding is different from strength or is at least a different definition of strength to simply being strong. There's also functional fitness but then I suppose that's defined by what your particular function is.
Gassing Station | Health Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff