"joeu2004" <joeu2004@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:7e2dfcc7-7dcf-4eae-9f63-38d89392ca14@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jun 18, 7:45 pm, "DrollTroll" <fit...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 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.
I wish the same thing for myself. And your inability to run might be
related to a lack of "fitness". But it is more likely related, at
least to some degree, to poor technique. That is certainly my
problem.
It might also be related to poor muscle development. But necessarily
the muscle that you might think of. Good running ability requires
good "core" muscles. It also requires good development of small
sup****t muscle in the legs, especially in the feet and around the
knee.
That does not mean you are "unfit". It just means that you have
developed the particular areas needed for running. Consider this:
when Lance Armstrong retired, he decided to run a marathon. As I
recall, he was unable to finish the run; or if he did finish, he
hobbled to the finish line. In either case, his own *****sment was
that he was not ready to run. But no one would consider Armstrong
"unfit" by any measure. Conversely, I am quite sure than none of the
leading Kenyan marathoners could compare to Armstrong's cycling
performance in the French alps and even in time trials (not his
forte).
> And if there are different types of physical fitness, it would nice to
be
> able to define or quantify them,
I never said that there were no objective measures of fitness. In
fact, I said "there are many systems that try to quantify fitness".
Each quantification system is well suited for that mode of exercise or
athletic event.
But you had asked about "__a__ clear definition".
> If you follow the media, 6-pack abs appear to be the be-all and end-all
of
> physical fitness.
I don't know what media you follow, but that is just the opposite of
what any knowledgable article says. Yes, we like to gawk people who
have great looking abs. But no one has ever said that defines "fit".
It is merely a requirement for certain jobs, like action acting and
modeling.
(On the other hand, good looking abs have as much to do with low body
fat as it does with good muscle development. It is the low-fat aspect
that is good, if not taken to extremes.)
PS: It would be nice if you would learn by example how to "quote"
previous postings and intersperse your responses.
======================================
The problem is, when I click "reply group", YOUR text doesn't get the ">"
or ">>", etc. that identify the previous post.
This happens with a few others, not sure why.
It might have something to do with the fact that your posts don't end with
a
"dash dash space" followed by some sig, which I was told might have
something to do with telling the newsreader to put these things ">>" in on
previous text.
Any idears? Maybe I have to set something in outlook express. But like I
said, sometimes the problem exists, other times it doesn't.
Anyway, where do YOU find knowledgeable articles?
I've found a few in the backs of some magazines, usually short and hidden
away, but the body of the mags/sites is almost always abs, weight loss,
bigger effing biceps, new type of stacking, more/better amino acids, etc.
Nothing really relevant or usable for general fitness.
And thusly, I disagree that "no one has ever said that [abs] defines "fit"
".
By very strong implication (explicit and implicit), almost ALL media
outlets
are *shrieking* the fact that abs ARE fitness, and if you don't got them
you
ain't fit, and, essentially, you ain't ****.
Pretty soon ugly people are going to have to simply stay home. They might
even be curfewed. goodgawd....
Ugly ba****ng will replace gay ba****ng and general race ba****ng.
Maybe you don't hang out in B&N at the magazine rack, or you don't watch
Cable (and all the splendiferous reality shows, which I think are even
coming to Network), but to me, the assault is very clear, and the motive
is
very clear:
Shame-based self-consciousness inducing advertising is very VERY
effective. Make people uncomfortable in their own skins, and there is no
amount of money they won't pay to get out of those skins--literally and
figuratively speaking. Sheeit, I'm even thinking of that Lifestyle
Lift....
And, to the original point, I'm surprised there isn't a "test" of some
sort,
that could say whether the physical activity that one has been doing has
been effective in achieving this thing called "fitness".
If this were the case, then there would be guidelines by which to choose
the
most effective exercises for achieving this thing called "fitness".
iiuc, you are saying this is not possible.
I'm saying, if it's not possibe, too bad it's not, cuz it sure would
simplify things.
--
DT
|
