|
|
| In an effort to help come to a common understanding, I am offering this definition of Fitness. This is from www.crossfit.com. Please comment or add your own definition.
World-Class Fitness
in 100 Words:
Eat meat and vegetables, nuts and seeds, some fruit, little starch and no sugar. Keep intake to levels that will support exercise but not body fat. Practice and train major lifts: Deadlift, clean, squat, presses, C&J, and snatch. Similarly, master the basics of gymnastics: pull-ups, dips, rope climb, push-ups, sit-ups, presses to handstand, pirouettes, flips, splits, and holds. Bike, run, swim, row, etc, hard and fast. Five or six days per week mix these elements in as many combinations and patterns as creativity will allow. Routine is the enemy. Keep workouts short and intense. Regularly learn and play new sports.
|
|
| |
|
| Sounds like the traditional "man" guidance I always followed via the military--which I'm now trying to overcome through yoga to have pragmatic use of my body unless the intonation of "master the basics of gymnastics" is supposed to cover that. |
|
| |
|
| To me, fitness is related to agility, balance, flexibility, and strength. Appropriate weight for one's own body is also an aspect of fitness. Similarly, a body that recieves nutrients and assimilates them properly is also an aspect of fitness.
If you have these things, then you are fit. I do not think that you have to eat a certain way, do certain things, or even play sports to be fit. I know individuals who do all manner of physical labors and are fit people because they are agile, balanced, flexible, and strong. They have an appropriate weight and they eat well and assimilate their food well.
besides, by that standard i wouldn't be 'fit' because i don't eat meat. Right away, i'm 'unfit.' Unfit has a lot of other connotations, such as not being good enough or not being appropriate for certain things. Interesting, huh? Anyway, there are a lot of things on that list that i don't do, and yet i consider myself fit because of the standard i set above.
But, i prefer to also look to the concept of wellness--which extends beyond the body's fitness into the mental (psychological), mental (intellectual), and spiritual health of the individual as well.
|
|
| |
|
| I think I can swallow that 'definition' as a guide to ideal physical fitness and form. To me it is a streamlined manual for a high performance body. That is not my goal (in spite of the fact that our western society keeps trying its darnest to make it my goal  ). For my idea of finess, it must incorporate spiritual health, mental health, and emotional health. And since the F word wasn't preceeded by the other Ph word (physical), I'll wait for a revision  .
All things aside, I think that's a pretty concise and overwhelming statement. Fortunately for me, I am not a squirrel. I will not perish if I don't make the acrobatic leap to the next branch. I will however possibly starve to death without my paycheck that comes from flexing my mental powers and spreadsheet prowess 
|
|
| |
|
| YG, you just could have said it shorter: Don't eat **** and move your body a lot = fitness! |
|
| |
|
Expert Yogi
Posts: 8442
    
| And of course, trends in eating come and go. The fittest people on the planet in the 80s all ate practically nothing but pure carbs.
We had a party with Mr. Tourist's running club the other night and someone had started a "fittest couple" award, which naturally went to the couple who both did Ironman this year. I was tempted to heckle by challenging them to touch their toes or hold a ten minute headstand, but decided not to |
|
| |
|
| tourist - 2005-12-12 6:37 PM
And of course, trends in eating come and go. The fittest people on the planet in the 80s all ate practically nothing but pure carbs.
We had a party with Mr. Tourist's running club the other night and someone had started a "fittest couple" award, which naturally went to the couple who both did Ironman this year. I was tempted to heckle by challenging them to touch their toes or hold a ten minute headstand, but decided not to
Practicing Ahimsa again are we? That's sooo last 10,000 of yoga. |
|
| |
|
| Okay, I'll play.
Fit for what, exactly? It's a bit tough to deem someone physically fit or unfit without first knowing what it is that they are fit or unfit to do. Your definition seemed reasonable on the surface, at least it seemed like fairly good advice. But as a definition of fitness it, well, it doesn't fit. I did some serious research into this while I was out running errands this afternoon and here is what I found:
First, I spoke with the cashier at the local Winn Dixie. She was a charming young lady, mid twenties maybe, and I would guess her weight to be somewhere around 230 or so. I asked her what it takes to be physically fit enough to do her job. Evidently there are no Clean & Jerk requirements for cashiering. She also wasn't aware of any need for rope climbing. According to her if you possess the ability to stand in one place for a few hours at a time, have the facial muscles to smile alot, and can muster the strength to push 2 litre bottles of Coke over the scanner then you are physically fit for the job of cashier at Winn Dixie. I then asked if she had any interest in rock climbing, surfing, running, etc. She said no, not really. She seemed pretty happy though. Interesting.
Next I went to the public library to return some books. While I was there I asked the librarian what the physical fitness requirements are for being a librarian. Evidently these are much different from those of a chasier. She is not required to stand in one place for long periods of time. In fact, her job mainly entails sitting in front of a computer. She does sometimes have to stand up and walk a hundred yards or so to show someone a book. And of course, there is the lifting of books to put them back on the shelves. She was just a skinny little thing, but she didn't seem to struggle with lifting those books even though she claimed to not practice any hard running or swimming. In fact, she claimed not to exercise at all. I was amazed that someone who's greatest physical exercise during the course of a typical day is walking to her car could still be physically fit, but by golly she handled that librarian job just fine.
Then I came home and called a friend. He's a U.S. Navy Seal. Evidently his organization's standard of physical fitness differs from this one as well. He told me where to find the standards online. The following are just a few of the requirements for Phase One of the training. Not Phase Two or Phase Three, but just Phase One. Just to get you started.
1200 meter pool swim with fins 45 min
1 mile bay swim with fins 50 min
1 mile ocean swim with fins 50 min
1 l/2 mile ocean swim with fins 70 min
2 mile ocean swim with fins 95 min
Obstacle course 15 min
4 mile timed run 32 min
Now when I saw that I laughed and tried to explain to him that I just didn't think that the cashier at Winn Dixie would be able to do the obstacle course in 15 minutes. And I was pretty sure that the librarian would fall short on that 2 mile ocean swim. He wasn't very sympathetic. According to him, being able to accomplish all of those things means you are physically fit to begin Navy Seal training. I don't know, maybe the Navy Seals just don't like librarians.
|
|
| |
|
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | tourist - 2005-12-12 6:37 PM
And of course, trends in eating come and go. The fittest people on the planet in the 80s all ate practically nothing but pure carbs.
We had a party with Mr. Tourist's running club the other night and someone had started a "fittest couple" award, which naturally went to the couple who both did Ironman this year. I was tempted to heckle by challenging them to touch their toes or hold a ten minute headstand, but decided not to
You sound like me.
What, exactly, does "fitness" have to do with yoga? I think Iyengar characterized the
"fitness" approach to yoga as "mere gymnastics" in LOY.
Also, isn't the "F word" kcuF?
|
|
| |
|
| Bay Guy - 2005-12-12 10:02 PM
Also, isn't the "F word" kcuF?
The F word is Fnord! Geez, everybody knows that! |
|
| |
|
| Tsaklis
The problem is that you don't want to commit. Certainly a librarian and a Navy seal don't have the same physical requirements in their jobs or their daily lives. And it sounds like you are suggesting a definition for fitness that is "just enough to do your job." Which is hardly useful as a definition of fitness or something to strive for. You can't discuss something intelligently unless you can agree on a definition of what it is you are talking about. You mentioned that yourself in the "muscle mass" post. I was simply suggesting that we could further the goal by actually trying to define fitness. Having an objective standard is good. Otherwise we can all say we are fit because we are able to do our jobs. Then you are just falling into circular reasoning. I can do my job, therefore I am fit! Or I am fit because I can do my job. That makes no sense.
It's not necessarily that there is a single right definition. However, there can be a baseline. There can be some things that people can agree on. There are some people that are obviously fitter than others...what attributes do they have that the unfit don't have? Obviously the WinnDixie cashier at 230 lbs is not fit. Obviously your Navy Seal friend is. It's clear that you don't have to be as fit as a Navy Seal to bag groceries, neither do you have to train like a navy seal to be considered fit, but I think it is obvious that if your cashier did more swimming and running she'd get fitter and if your Navy Seal stood around smiling and bagging groceries he'd get less fit.
Isn't there anything we can agree on?
Tsaklis - 2005-12-12 10:01 PM
Okay, I'll play.
Fit for what, exactly? It's a bit tough to deem someone physically fit or unfit without first knowing what it is that they are fit or unfit to do. Your definition seemed reasonable on the surface, at least it seemed like fairly good advice. But as a definition of fitness it, well, it doesn't fit. I did some serious research into this while I was out running errands this afternoon and here is what I found:
First, I spoke with the cashier at the local Winn Dixie. She was a charming young lady, mid twenties maybe, and I would guess her weight to be somewhere around 230 or so. I asked her what it takes to be physically fit enough to do her job. Evidently there are no Clean & Jerk requirements for cashiering. She also wasn't aware of any need for rope climbing. According to her if you possess the ability to stand in one place for a few hours at a time, have the facial muscles to smile alot, and can muster the strength to push 2 litre bottles of Coke over the scanner then you are physically fit for the job of cashier at Winn Dixie. I then asked if she had any interest in rock climbing, surfing, running, etc. She said no, not really. She seemed pretty happy though. Interesting.
Next I went to the public library to return some books. While I was there I asked the librarian what the physical fitness requirements are for being a librarian. Evidently these are much different from those of a chasier. She is not required to stand in one place for long periods of time. In fact, her job mainly entails sitting in front of a computer. She does sometimes have to stand up and walk a hundred yards or so to show someone a book. And of course, there is the lifting of books to put them back on the shelves. She was just a skinny little thing, but she didn't seem to struggle with lifting those books even though she claimed to not practice any hard running or swimming. In fact, she claimed not to exercise at all. I was amazed that someone who's greatest physical exercise during the course of a typical day is walking to her car could still be physically fit, but by golly she handled that librarian job just fine.
Then I came home and called a friend. He's a U.S. Navy Seal. Evidently his organization's standard of physical fitness differs from this one as well. He told me where to find the standards online. The following are just a few of the requirements for Phase One of the training. Not Phase Two or Phase Three, but just Phase One. Just to get you started.
1200 meter pool swim with fins 45 min
1 mile bay swim with fins 50 min
1 mile ocean swim with fins 50 min
1 l/2 mile ocean swim with fins 70 min
2 mile ocean swim with fins 95 min
Obstacle course 15 min
4 mile timed run 32 min
Now when I saw that I laughed and tried to explain to him that I just didn't think that the cashier at Winn Dixie would be able to do the obstacle course in 15 minutes. And I was pretty sure that the librarian would fall short on that 2 mile ocean swim. He wasn't very sympathetic. According to him, being able to accomplish all of those things means you are physically fit to begin Navy Seal training. I don't know, maybe the Navy Seals just don't like librarians.
|
|
| |
|
| I have to say that definition of fitness is really lacking Yogaguy. Where does the mental and emotional sphere come into play. I also disagree with the physical definition of fitness proposed in regards to exercise and diet. My idea of fitness is observance of yama, niyama, asana, pranayama, pratyahara, dharana, dhyana and samadhi. |
|
| |
|
| yeah, and heaven forbid if you are an amputee or something...no squats for you! I guess they should just give up the idea of attaining fitness. Should someone go tell that wheelchair rugby team?  |
|
| |
|
| YogaGuy, what you posted isn't a definition, but a "how-to". Fitness is the goal of the process, not the process itself, right? (or is that controversial?) It's very rigid, too: You are saying NO ONE CAN BE FIT if he/she does not do deadlifts, for example, or if he/she ever eats sugar.
I think it's a useful process description, but not a useful definition. Sadly, I am supposed to be working right now, so I think I better not try to create my own definition at the moment  |
|
| |
|
| when i define fitness, i don't want to narrow it to a certain weight ratio or a certain leanness even. a lot of people do this to their own mental, emotional, and physical detriment. Honestly, a person who is culturally "overweight' can be more fit than a person who is "slim or thin" based on the elements that i mentioned above (agility etc).
so, i always kinda crunch at the weight/leanness things. lean isnt' always appropriate for certain bodies. it's just what we culturally value now. |
|
| |
|
| zoebird - 2005-12-13 2:43 PM
so, i always kinda crunch at the weight/leanness things. lean isnt' always appropriate for certain bodies. it's just what we culturally value now.
It's so true. Take a look at art from the several hundred years ago. In most cases the woman (and men) are much more "normal" looking, to the point of having love handles, and fairly generous features. Not sure what they would have thought of the current attitude of heroin ciche. (Probably the same thing I do "Eat something darn it!" ) |
|
| |
|
| Flipcat
You're just being silly. Amputees are no more precluded from doing squats than they are precluded from doing yoga. If it said sun salutations instead of squats would you have gotten your panties in a twist? C'mon!
flipcat - 2005-12-13 5:22 AM
yeah, and heaven forbid if you are an amputee or something...no squats for you! I guess they should just give up the idea of attaining fitness. Should someone go tell that wheelchair rugby team? |
|
| |
|
| laurajhawk - 2005-12-13 12:58 PM
You are saying NO ONE CAN BE FIT if he/she does not do deadlifts, for example, or if he/she ever eats sugar.
That is NOT what I'm saying. That is like saying no one can do yoga if they eat meat or if they wear leather or if they can't touch their toes. I am clearly not saying that. I'm offering up a definition or maybe a guideline. Something to look at and say, "hey, I can do this therefore I am fit." Or "I can't do that therefore I am not fit." Sure we wouid all like to live in a happy world with unicorns and rainbows where everyone is happy and never criticized, and therefore we live in fear of taking a stand and saying this is what it means to be fit and you can either do it or not. I have read this board for a year or more and I see sooooo many people debating what it means to be "fit" and what they have to do to "get in shape" and how can they "lose a few pounds." At the same time nobody wants to say to anybody, "you're NOT fit. You're fat." That would be mean and non-yogic. So we would rather come up with soft flexible bendable loose defintions of what it means to be fit so that we can all call ourselves fit while we sit in front of our computers letting our butts grow.
Damien offers the eight limbs of yoga as his definition of fitness. That's simple and concise and yet very broad and hard to really work with as an objective definition. As for the mental and spiritual aspects, I might not put them into my definition of physical fitness because, again, they are more subjective and hard to define. I'm not saying that they are unimportant but I can't say that you are not fit if you don't believe in God/Krishna/Allah/etc. Or I can't say that you are not fit if you have ADD or acrophobia or autism. Certainly mental and spiritual health are important but they don't fit into my definition of physical fitness because they are too subjective and personal.
|
|
| |
|
| i offered a definition of fitness that doesn't have any definate requirements to meet, but that can be measured. The question, then, is what measurements we are considering 'acceptable' or 'healthy' or 'fit' and which we aren't. And this has to take into account a lot of factors--including cultural norms.
|
|
| |
|
| ...it sounds like you are suggesting a definition for fitness that is "just enough to do your job."
I used jobs as a referrence because at that time there was still no real answer to the question "Fit for what?" For what it's worth, that question still hasn't been answered.
You can't discuss something intelligently unless you can agree on a definition of what it is you are talking about.
Really? So you've never had an intelligent conversation about love? Or God? Good luck getting anyone to agree on a definition for either of those two.
Otherwise we can all say we are fit because we are able to do our jobs.
What's so wrong with that? Does it demean you somehow if a 230lb cashier considers herself "fit" because she is able to do all of the things she wants to do in her life?
There are some people that are obviously fitter than others...what attributes do they have that the unfit don't have?
I swear I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but that sentence just makes my skin crawl. I think it's the phrase "the unfit". It sounds a bit too much like "the unholy". |
|
| |
|
Expert Yogi
Posts: 5098
Location: Somewhere in the Mountains of Western NC | Okay you guys...I see both your points. I'm glad to know that I'm somewhere in-between fit and maybe a little fat, just in my stomach area...only because it looks better flat,
So, for any of you that may be sitting at your computer and your butt is getting fat. May I suggest standing at your computer instead in the kitchen. I moved my laptop downstairs to my kitchen...my butt seems to be getting slimmer, not that it was ever fat though, |
|
| |
|
| zoebird - 2005-12-12 11:29 AM
To me, fitness is related to agility, balance, flexibility, and strength. Appropriate weight for one's own body is also an aspect of fitness. Similarly, a body that recieves nutrients and assimilates them properly is also an aspect of fitness.
True. Fitness is related to those factors. But how do we know if we are agile, balanced, flexible and strong? Are there benchmarks we can look at? How much you can lift or how far you can throw? How fast you can run or whether you can do crow pose for 5 breaths?
How do we know that we are receiving and assimilating nutrients? Well we know what we are putting into our bodies. That's a start. How do we know whether we are assimilating nutrients? We can look at our performance. We can assume if our performance is good, then our body is assimilating the nutrients we are putting in. |
|
| |
|
| 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.
As for this whole "fitness" thing, I simply reject out of hand the notion that there can be any broad definition as such. 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. 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.
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.
Edited by Tsaklis 2005-12-13 8:02 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Tsaklis - 2005-12-13 6:28 PM
...it sounds like you are suggesting a definition for fitness that is "just enough to do your job."
I used jobs as a referrence because at that time there was still no real answer to the question "Fit for what?" For what it's worth, that question still hasn't been answered.
It hasn't been answered because it doesn't make sense. To be fit means that you are ready for anything that comes your way, that's the point. If you suddenly have to run to catch a train and have a heart attack, then you are unfit. If you have to lug a heavy bag of groceries home and can't do it, then you are unfit. If you are physically incapable of doing your job, then you are unfit. That doesn't mean we all have to be able to lift 300lbs and run a 4 minute mile. However, it does mean that the occassional physical challenge shouldn't send us to the hospital. We should be able to play a pick-up game or go skiing or play with our kids with out fear of physical failure. It's a question of quality of life. Fit should mean that you can move through life and be able to surmount the various obstacles that may come up.
Tsaklis - 2005-12-13 6:28 PM
You can't discuss something intelligently unless you can agree on a definition of what it is you are talking about.
Really? So you've never had an intelligent conversation about love? Or God? Good luck getting anyone to agree on a definition for either of those two.
I've had intelligent conversations about love and god and really stupid conversations about love and god. Wars have been started over those two topics. I don't think this conversation should go to that extreme. I don't think fitness has to be as ethereal as love and god. I don't romanticize fitness or pray to fitness. It's not something that has to be sung about in songs. It's something that can put into words. It's something that can be seen and felt. It can be the same for people of every culture and walk of life without regard to race, gender and sexual orientation. We don't have to dislike someone because they worship a different form of fitness.
Tsaklis - 2005-12-13 6:28 PM
Otherwise we can all say we are fit because we are able to do our jobs.
What's so wrong with that? Does it demean you somehow if a 230lb cashier considers herself "fit" because she is able to do all of the things she wants to do in her life?
It doesn't demean me? Are you just being smarmy? If you think she is fit, then there is a problem with your definition of fitness. If you believe that a young woman that weighs 230lbs is healthy and happy and can do all the things she wants to do in her life, then you are probably delusional. I don't think women should be skinny supermodels, but I don't believe that fat=jolly. i don't think that just because she has an outgoing personality, that she isn't probably unhappy with the extra weight and overeats because she is depressed. I bet there are lots of things that she would love to do but feels that because of her weight she can't. You want to acknowledge her and say "you're great just the way you are." I appreciate that, but I don't think it means she is fit. If fit means simply that you can do your job, then it loses all meaning. Because if you get a job and keep a job, you're probably fit enough to do it. Furthermore, what about the old folks in the retirement home? Are they all fit because they can sit in a rocking chair? What about when they can't get up off the toilet by themselves? Are they still fit? What about when they can't walk without a walker/cane? Are they still fit?
Tsaklis - 2005-12-13 6:28 PM
There are some people that are obviously fitter than others...what attributes do they have that the unfit don't have?
I swear I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but that sentence just makes my skin crawl. I think it's the phrase "the unfit". It sounds a bit too much like "the unholy".
That's YOU. That's not me. You read into it what you want to read into it. I'm not trying to be perjorative. It's not a value relating to a person's spirituality or intrinsic goodness. I'm just wondering what we consider fit. If you are telling me HONESTLY that you believe that the 230lb cashier is as FIT as your Navy Seal friend. Then you are entitled to that opinion, but I will be forever confused as to what you consider "fit." And how could one ever improve their level of "fit"ness, if that's what you believe? |
|
| |
|
| YG,
I'll just wait and give you a chance to respond to my last post before I say anything else. Otherwise we're going to be having two different conversations. |
|
| |
The F Word
