On Jun 18, 12:42=A0pm, "DrollTroll" <fit...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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: =A0running marathons,
> > jogging, sprinting or lifting weights. =A0"Which is heavier: =A0a
pound=
of
> > feathers or a pound of lead?".
>
> Sometimes weight is mistaken for density. =A0:)
> 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
runne=
r,
> both walking/running 6 mi/day, 5 days/week--or whatever.
> Or, you can adjust the mileage slightly so that the caloric expenditure
i=
s
> the same per week.
>
> Do you think one will be "fitter" than the other at the end of a few
mont=
hs?
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
*****s 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.
|
