tourist - 2005-12-13 9:59 PM

GJ - those were the ideals then because only the very rich could eat enough and do little enough manual labour to achieve love handeledness. I think the Roaring 20's was the beginning of "thin is in" but even then, their definition of "thin" was heavy for our times.

Tsaklis - 2005-12-13 7:57 PM

Ok that was weird, my pc froze up when I hit submit on that last response and it only posted the first few lines. Anyway....

YG, I really don't think we disagree as much as you believe. I have a great deal of respect for your knowledge. Where we part company is with your application of that knowledge. But it is your knowledge to apply and my opinion should be of no consequence.

Tsaklis - 2005-12-13 7:57 PM

As for this whole "fitness" thing, I simply reject out of hand the notion that there can be any broad definition as such.

Tsaklis - 2005-12-13 7:57 PM
To be fit is to be acceptable, or worthy. It is very fair to say that the cashier is unfit, as in unacceptable or unworthy, to be a Navy Seal because of her lack of physical abilities. It is categorically unfair to say that she is generally unfit, unacceptable, or unworthy simply because she has a higher percentage of bodyfat.

Tsaklis - 2005-12-13 7:57 PM

She was happy. She had no interest in physical pursuits such as swimming, running, etc. She was more than physically capable of doing all of the things in life that brought her joy and made her feel like a contributing member of society. How can you or I or anyone say that she is unfit? Now, if she wakes up tomorrow morning and decides that she wants to pursue rock climbing then yes, she is probably unfit and will need to gain strength, lose weight, etc in order to be physically fit to pursue rock climbing. But that can be true for almost anything. If we allow our bodies to became weak or fat, and at some point that becomes an obstacle toward our pursuit of happiness then we are truly unfit. But likewise if we find ourselves unable to pursue what makes us happy because we don't have enough courage, or enough education, or too much drinking then we are equally unfit. That definition, to me, is on a person by person basis. I see absolutely no need to create even a loose universal standard of physical fitness. If, at the end of the day, you were strong enough, agile enough, and flexible enough to do the things you wanted and needed to do today then today you were physically fit. Beyond that, it's just the egos of a bunch of people who are looking not for a way to compare themselves with others who share their passion, but for a way to make themselves feel better by demeaning those who don't share their goals and values.

Tsaklis - 2005-12-13 7:57 PM
Lest we think this is just semantics, let's substitute "healthy" for "fit". Zoe touched on a point that I have made in several threads on this site. The healthiest level of bodyfat for one person will not be the healthiest for another. In the other thread we touched briefly on the idea of pushing our genetic envelopes. It needs to be said here that this is not always a good thing. If someone is genetically predisposed to carry say, 18% bodyfat at a given point in his or her life then carrying 15%, while it may look better to the Cosmo society, is not healthier. At least not in the way that I define healthy. I get so tired of hearing about how doing this or not doing that can add five years on to your life. That's great, really. But I've got to tell you, I'm not certain that I want to add five years if we're adding them to the end. You've got to figure that at least three of those five years would be spent sitting in a nursing home hooked up to an oxygen machine and trying to remember how to play solitaire. Now, if you can add those years to the middle of my life... then we'll talk. But the reality is that we just don't know. Do I take care of myself? Absolutely. Am I "physically fit" in the way that I think you would mean? Yeah, I am. But these are practices that make me happy. They make me feel good and give me confidence and awareness. There is a great book out there that goes into this. It is Eat, Drink, and be Merry by Dr. Dean Edell.

zoebird - 2005-12-15 10:24 AM

YG:

I don't think you read my last post about measurements. I was saying that those elements can be measured--but what we consider 'healthy' or 'acceptable' or whatever will vary largely based on cultural norms. tsaklis is talking a lot about the question of 'fit for what.'

I tend to think in terms of basic functional capacity. The individual is able to do regular physical tasks that are generally needed in our society--walking, carrying groceries or similar objects (odd object lifting), and so on.

i think your standards of fitness work toward athletes moreso than 'average joes and janes' and those average joes and janes can be fit without being necessarily athletic.

one of the most fit women i know is a 92 yr old woman. She walks every morning, is able to work in her modest garden 3 seasons, goes on gentle hikes in 3 seasons. She's relatively flexible and can get up and down off the floor on her own. She maintains a comfortable weight and when she falls, she generally catches herself (agility) and rarely has more than a minor bruise (whereas many women her age may break something). She maintains a healthy, diverse diet and her gastronomic functioning is comfortable, as are her elimenation processes. She practices yoga to stretch more and to help manage or dissipate any aches and pains that she may feel (though she says she is rarely in pain). To the issue of wellness--she is bright, mentally active (she likes to study languages and is borrowing my sanskrit tapes), and she is a deeply spiritual woman. I aspire to be as fit as her!

This woman is, IMO, fit, but yet she probably doesn't meet many, if any, of the 'standards of measurements' that you put up originally. I think that this woman is more fit than many young women my age and also many women her age as well as many women in between our ages. Many people can't walk comfortably over even a short distance. they are easily injured from even minor falls or bumps. They have food allergies or indigestion or elimination discomforts that are chronic or at least present more often than not. They suffer from unusual aches and pains that may or may not have a discernable origins.

i find that the most basic level of fitness seems to be general comfort in one's body and the ability to do the things that one wants to do--whether it's as simple as walking or taking a gentle hike or running an ultramarathon.

Tsaklis - 2005-12-15 2:02 PM

YG,

I think zoebird and I are saying the same things here only she said it a little better. I'm not trying to claim that someone who is 5'4", 230lbs is fit for grueling physical challenges. But even at that size she is, or appeared to me, to be fit to handle everything in her life. She could certainly carry groceries, or run to catch an elevator. If that is all she wants from life it's not my place, or anyone else's place, to tell her she is unfit. Like I said, the best definition of general fitness that I can find is that if, at the end of the day, you were physically able to do all of the things you wanted and needed to do, then for that day you were fit. It's a tough definition because it actually makes some people unfit who by your definition would be considered fit. That is because the definition grows with you as you grow. Going back to this poor cashier (for the record my wife says the girl only weighs about 190 or so) that we keep beating up on, right now she is fit. If she decides to take up jogging and wants to be able to run 3 miles without stopping, then she is unfit because at the end of the day she wasn't able to do what she wanted. But, if she keeps after it then she will succeed and she will be fit. Only now she wants to run five miles. You asked the question of why would we strive if everyone considered themselves fit and there is your answer. We strive not for some external definition of fitness or beauty, but we strive because we want the challenge. For those who do not want the challenge, who have no interest in physically striving, well, I can't imagine why we would include them in this conversation. It is fair and reasonable to say that only 600 or so of the thousands of professional baseball players are good enough to be in the major leagues. It doesn't make sense to say that only 600 or so of the tens of thousands of professional baseball players, piano tuners, car salespeople, and commercial fishers are good enough to be in the major leagues. I guess what I'm saying is that when we talk about someone's fitness the conversation should not begin until they walk in the door of your studio / gym. At that point they have become part of the conversation because they have a purpose, an intent, of progressing physically.

We do have some agreement at least on one issue, though again I just don't see it as black and white as do you. In many cases people who are overweight will literally learn to only want what they can do, and as they continue to gain weight and that list shortens they become more and more unhappy. It's a chicken and egg thing to me. We have to be careful, though. I am speaking only in generalities here and there are always going to be exceptions to the rule. But in general, I think that very overweight people tend to have more of an adversarial relationship with their bodies. This is why I have always said that for the most overweight yoga is probably the most effective weight loss tool. Weight training, aerobics, running, etc. all tend to feed that adversarial relationship by creating a punishment mentality. They are either punishing their bodies for being fat, or punishing themselves for eating too much. Once this mind set takes hold the vast majority of people are already halfway to dropping their exercise practice altogether. It takes a highly focused and motivated person to maintain that mindset over time. With yoga we learn to see our bodies from outside ourselves, and we learn to love our bodies. Remember the definition of yoga. To yoke or to unite. For those people yoga can truly unite them with their bodies, and through that process their begin to eat less, to want less food, to be happier and the weight just drops off. I've seen it happen over and over again.

You do have to be careful though, in that you cannot assume that fat = unhappy any more than you can assume fat = jolly. Or for that matter, you certainly cannot assume that lean, or "fit" = happy. Some of the most miserable people I have ever met in my life had absolutely great physiques. Likewise, I have known overweight people who were truly happy. Even when they lost the weight they were no more happy than they had been. They just didn't tie their emotional well-being to their bodies, so happy was happy regardless of shape.

Tsaklis - 2005-12-15 2:02 PM
One final note, it just seems so very easy in our current culture to sort of isolate those who are not in good physical condition. That makes me really curious. We have all seen someone who is truly obese and thought to ourselves how miserable they must be since they cannot physically do things that we can. Yet, I wonder how many of us experience those same thoughts when we encounter someone of lesser education, or lesser wealth. Yes, being overweight is a choice. I know that many feel powerless, but to me that is just the imbalance again. It is a choice. Just as is not getting an education, not spending your money wisely. Certainly in our current culture poor financial health prevents more people from pursueing the interest that they would like to pursue than does poor physical health. While someone may seem physically "unfit" because of their choices they could very well be more intellectually and financially fit than you or I will ever be. And yes, I am certain that somewhere out there is a forum for people who strive for financial gain just as we strive for physical progress, and you can bet that two overweight, unhealthy rich people are sitting there debating "financial fitness" and talking about what a poor choice it is wind up doing whatever you and I do for a living and how there should be a standard and such. You always have to keep that in perspective. It's what WE care about, but that doesn't mean it's what everyone else cares about.

Tsaklis - 2005-12-15 2:02 PM
Ok, one more really final note. This was not an arguement, at least not like any arguements where I'm from. There was no name calling. No bottles were thrown. No chairs were broken. Where I grew up it's not arguement unless stitches are involved. It's one of the least endearing qualities of this site that so many people fear disagreement, or more correctly that people assume disagreement equals anger. Only through exploring differing viewpoints can we really expand our knowledge. I don't have anger for YG, and I doubt he has any for me. I stated earlier and freely state again that I have a great deal of respect for his knowledge. We just believe differently and want to see where exactly we do and don't agree. The only reason it seems petty to some is because it's not a topic of interest. I have seen reactions far more spiteful and mean from those same people when a topic challenges a belief that they hold dear. It just seems silly to take cheap shots from the side like that. Pot, kettle.... that type of thing.

zoebird - 2005-12-16 4:48 PM

And, just to give an example about that thigh thing, here's a true story:

Zoebird likes to lift weights. She does the following routine:

Day 1: Squat, bench press, overhead press
Day 2: Deadlift, Row, and chin ups.

Zoebird has ecto-mesomorphic tendencies. For the most part, she has the long bones and sorter muscle bellies of the ecotomorph, but responds to activity like the mesomorph. She is 5 ft 7 inches tall and weighs about 125 lbs (i don't weigh regularly, so i figure that's about where i am).

Zoebird is dressed modestly for the gym experience. t-shirts are not fitted, but fit well. they are short sleeved. pants are fitted by not lycra-fitted. This is just more comfortable.

Zoebird decides that squatting is awesome and squats 120 lbs. As she is squatting and enjoying herself, some asphole has decided to watch, mostly focusing on zoebird's ample bosom, which is safely under a sports bra and t-shirt. while Zoebird rests between sets, the asphole says to her "You shouldn't squat so much weight; your thighs will get big. I don't like girls with big thighs."

Zoebird's thighs are not very large. remember that she is mostly ectomorphic. HMMM.

Zoebird says "That's ok. I don't like men with small penises, so i don't think you and I have anything to worry about."

Zoebird then went back to squatting. Zoebird's husband will take her to france when she can both squat and deadlift more than she weighs. Only a matter of time. . ..

teehee.