"joeu2004" <joeu2004@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:f6dd9263-491b-4587-a1e3-08e66348b39d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jun 18, 12:42 pm, "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: running marathons,
> > jogging, sprinting or lifting weights. "Which is heavier: a pound of
> > feathers or a pound of lead?".
>
> Sometimes weight is mistaken for density. :)
> 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
> runner,
> both walking/running 6 mi/day, 5 days/week--or whatever.
> Or, you can adjust the mileage slightly so that the caloric expenditure
is
> the same per week.
>
> Do you think one will be "fitter" than the other at the end of a few
> months?
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.
=====================================
Well, I have observed that I can walk 4-5 miles--probably 10+--with
relative
ease, but it is difficult (right now) to run 3-4 miles.
I'd be more pleased if could run those 3-5 miles without dropping dead at
the end.
It seems strange that something that is so prevalent in american
consciousness and also now in medical/therapeutic circles is apparently
such
a nebulous concept, with no clear definition(s).
And if there are different types of physical fitness, it would nice to be
able to define or quantify them, so as to be able to perhaps "pick one"
and
pursue that definition as a fitness goal--if in fact a specific "fitness
goal" has any real utility.
I think this lack of definition of fitness is part and parcel of the
deluge
of "junk fitness" and the associated products--if you can't define
fitness,
then anyone can say anything, and, apparently, then sell lots of it.
If you can't define fitness, then you can't really label something as
"junk"--altho I have a pretty good idea of what is/is not junk, and the
Feb.
08 issue of Consumer Re****ts pretty much had a good idea, regarding much
of
the Infomercial crap.
And it seems necessary to push the FDA/FTC to the wall before they will do
anything about crap products/infomercials.
If you follow the media, 6-pack abs appear to be the be-all and end-all of
physical fitness. A pointless pursuit, imo.
--
DT
|
