Basic fitness minimums?

13

Replies

  • stanmann571
    stanmann571 Posts: 5,736 Member
    lorrpb wrote: »
    Cherimoose wrote: »
    How would you differentiate fitness vs. physical health here? What does one need to do to be "fit"?

    Exercising for health usually means avoiding the common diseases of inactivity (heart, joints, etc). Fitness includes that plus it is a readiness for life's challenges, including work (lifting boxes, etc), leisure (hikes, sports), and emergencies (running from a mass shooter, heheh). Strength training usually should be added, and if one doesn't have a strenuous job or lifestyle, it's good to include freeweight exercises unsupported by a bench (simulates the demands of real-world situations better). Speed & agility are useful skills to train too each week. :+1:

    When I think of fitness minimums I think:
    Walking up 2-3 flights of stairs
    Walking 30 minutes
    Running(really running) 100 meters
    Lifting BW from the ground
    Lifting Half BW overhead

    Just as some examples.

    I agree with walking and stairs but those lifts are way above any minimum fitness level, especially for someone who can walk only 30 minutes or climb only 2 flights of stairs.

    The most important thing is bodyweight squats. If you can do 10 bw squats, you will be able to get out of your chair and up off the toilet. When you can no longer do that you'll go to a nursing home or need a full time caregiver.

    Another commonly cited fitness test is getting up off the floor without using your hands. It actually is a "predictor" (not cause) of life expectancy. Someone here has a video on that. It sounds ridiculous to younger people but is more true than you might think.

    NO they aren't. Those are basic minimums for living. Even if you change the overhead to 1/4 instead of half. Picking up someone who is the same size as you from the floor is a basic minimum functional lift.
  • jgnatca
    jgnatca Posts: 14,465 Member
    When I lost my big bunch of weight I started to get active. Then I found out I loved getting fit a lot better than losing weight. The weight goal is all about restraint and tracking. Important yes, but a grind.

    Fitness is about figuring out what sorts of things you want to do. Then getting a body that will do it.

    That's why I booked a party at the local trampoline park when I hit "one-derland". That was a big day.
  • stanmann571
    stanmann571 Posts: 5,736 Member
    Cherimoose wrote: »
    How would you differentiate fitness vs. physical health here? What does one need to do to be "fit"?

    Exercising for health usually means avoiding the common diseases of inactivity (heart, joints, etc). Fitness includes that plus it is a readiness for life's challenges, including work (lifting boxes, etc), leisure (hikes, sports), and emergencies (running from a mass shooter, heheh). Strength training usually should be added, and if one doesn't have a strenuous job or lifestyle, it's good to include freeweight exercises unsupported by a bench (simulates the demands of real-world situations better). Speed & agility are useful skills to train too each week. :+1:

    When I think of fitness minimums I think:
    Walking up 2-3 flights of stairs
    Walking 30 minutes
    Running(really running) 100 meters
    Lifting BW from the ground
    Lifting Half BW overhead

    Just as some examples.


    Context

    Running-You're inside the house looking out over your back yard and you see a small child fall into your pool, or head towards the street and nobody in the yard notices.
    BW-Your partner has fallen in the shower, and you need to get them out of the tub because the drain is blocked
    Half BW-Suitcase, overhead compartment.

    This is basic life and basic fitness
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 26,809 Member
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    Cherimoose wrote: »
    How would you differentiate fitness vs. physical health here? What does one need to do to be "fit"?

    Exercising for health usually means avoiding the common diseases of inactivity (heart, joints, etc). Fitness includes that plus it is a readiness for life's challenges, including work (lifting boxes, etc), leisure (hikes, sports), and emergencies (running from a mass shooter, heheh). Strength training usually should be added, and if one doesn't have a strenuous job or lifestyle, it's good to include freeweight exercises unsupported by a bench (simulates the demands of real-world situations better). Speed & agility are useful skills to train too each week. :+1:

    When I think of fitness minimums I think:
    Walking up 2-3 flights of stairs
    Walking 30 minutes
    Running(really running) 100 meters
    Lifting BW from the ground
    Lifting Half BW overhead

    Just as some examples.

    I'm guessing these are just some examples and not a "package". My 89 yo mother in law can walk 30 minutes at a decent pace and walk the 2-3 flights of stairs. The sprint and lifts mentioned, not so much.

    It's a good baseline package as a start for discussion, There's a few things missing. And allowing for age is certainly one of them.

    Additionally, even if "really running" for her is slower today, if she can manage the 30 minutes and the stairs she'd probably surprise you if shots popped off.

    Honestly, unless she's morbidly obese, the other two are probably not as far out of reach as you would think.

    JMO, but "allowing for age" can be part of the problem.

    People have low expectations of aging people - often way too low. And some of those with unnecessarily low expectations are the aging people themselves, IME. (P.S., I'm 62, not a starry-eyed youth.)

    What makes certain basic fitness goals impossible (or even unreasonably difficult) is not age. It is health conditions, injuries, or other such limitations. Age is not a synonym for those. Age is not an excuse.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 26,809 Member
    lorrpb wrote: »
    Cherimoose wrote: »
    How would you differentiate fitness vs. physical health here? What does one need to do to be "fit"?

    Exercising for health usually means avoiding the common diseases of inactivity (heart, joints, etc). Fitness includes that plus it is a readiness for life's challenges, including work (lifting boxes, etc), leisure (hikes, sports), and emergencies (running from a mass shooter, heheh). Strength training usually should be added, and if one doesn't have a strenuous job or lifestyle, it's good to include freeweight exercises unsupported by a bench (simulates the demands of real-world situations better). Speed & agility are useful skills to train too each week. :+1:

    When I think of fitness minimums I think:
    Walking up 2-3 flights of stairs
    Walking 30 minutes
    Running(really running) 100 meters
    Lifting BW from the ground
    Lifting Half BW overhead

    Just as some examples.

    I agree with walking and stairs but those lifts are way above any minimum fitness level, especially for someone who can walk only 30 minutes or climb only 2 flights of stairs.

    The most important thing is bodyweight squats. If you can do 10 bw squats, you will be able to get out of your chair and up off the toilet. When you can no longer do that you'll go to a nursing home or need a full time caregiver.

    Another commonly cited fitness test is getting up off the floor without using your hands. It actually is a "predictor" (not cause) of life expectancy. Someone here has a video on that. It sounds ridiculous to younger people but is more true than you might think.

    There are other simple tests that are predictors for longevity (or healthier longevity). A couple of others are grip strength, and number of bodyweight squats to chair-touch that someone can do in X seconds.

    Looking around me at other folks my age - so no statistical validity ;) - I think what's going on causally in all of them is:

    * Generally fit older person = can do random act of mild act of fitness
    * Totally out of shape older person = cannot do random act of mild fitness
    * Generally fit older person healthy lifespan > totally out of shape older person lifespan (on average)

    Nonetheless, I've encountered people whose health & longevity plan was to start squeezing a tennis ball every day to improve their grip strength. ;)

    I can see how these things are easy screeners for medical folks to use, but I don't think they tell the rest of us much useful about basic fitness. JMO, though.

  • stanmann571
    stanmann571 Posts: 5,736 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    spartan_d wrote: »
    Cherimoose wrote: »
    How would you differentiate fitness vs. physical health here? What does one need to do to be "fit"?

    Exercising for health usually means avoiding the common diseases of inactivity (heart, joints, etc). Fitness includes that plus it is a readiness for life's challenges, including work (lifting boxes, etc), leisure (hikes, sports), and emergencies (running from a mass shooter, heheh). Strength training usually should be added, and if one doesn't have a strenuous job or lifestyle, it's good to include freeweight exercises unsupported by a bench (simulates the demands of real-world situations better). Speed & agility are useful skills to train too each week. :+1:

    This is so very well put. A lot of people don't understand that losing weight and building a little muscle isn't all that's required for basic fitness.

    Just a few days ago, there were people on this forum stating that one doesn't need to run in order to be fit. I pointed out that while you don't necessarily need to run in order to lose weight, you MUST be able to run when an emergency situation requires it. Can't run? Then you don't have basic fitness.

    Ditto for things such as being able to climb a short wall, carry a decent amount of weight, etc. Obviously, what constitutes fitness is a gray area with no firm boundaries. However, it most certainly encompasses more than just avoiding diseases of inactivity.

    So, does having a physical limitation mean that one cannot achieve basic fitness?

    I could do that 100 yard run somebody mentioned, to save my life . . . but regular running would demolish my bad knee and drive me to surgery that has a mixed track record. So I don't run. (And I'm a trivial, non-extreme example.)

    I think this is something unimpaired people don't always think about when it comes to thinking about or defining basic fitness: Some people get into situations where one kind of fitness trades off against another kind of unfitness . . . or worse, some regular aspect of fitness just isn't in the cards, can't be achieved at all.

    What is basic fitness then? Is it impossible?

    I utterly reject treating age as synonymous with decrepitude, but statistically some of these long-(ab)use injuries and tradeoffs are commoner as we age. But the importance of fitness in the possible ways IMO becomes more important, when other aspects are unachievable.

    Honestly, the second half of my list as detailed above is exactly that.

    To save your life, or someone else's could you. And more importantly, are you sufficiently confident in your preparation that you wouldn't fear(other than the obvious fallout) that you could do what's necessary.

    There are people who can't do the stairs/30 min walk. And couldn't run to save their life, and at the end of that run wouldn't be able to get someone out of a burning car.

    I've had the privilege of doing combatives training with my wife and other people who have physical limitations.

    And I've seen more than a few go well beyond what others might perceive as their limitations... I also know what the penalty they pay in the days or weeks after. But knowing your own capabilities, gives you the confidence to respond effectively in a crisis or emergency.
  • stanmann571
    stanmann571 Posts: 5,736 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    Cherimoose wrote: »
    How would you differentiate fitness vs. physical health here? What does one need to do to be "fit"?

    Exercising for health usually means avoiding the common diseases of inactivity (heart, joints, etc). Fitness includes that plus it is a readiness for life's challenges, including work (lifting boxes, etc), leisure (hikes, sports), and emergencies (running from a mass shooter, heheh). Strength training usually should be added, and if one doesn't have a strenuous job or lifestyle, it's good to include freeweight exercises unsupported by a bench (simulates the demands of real-world situations better). Speed & agility are useful skills to train too each week. :+1:

    When I think of fitness minimums I think:
    Walking up 2-3 flights of stairs
    Walking 30 minutes
    Running(really running) 100 meters
    Lifting BW from the ground
    Lifting Half BW overhead

    Just as some examples.

    I'm guessing these are just some examples and not a "package". My 89 yo mother in law can walk 30 minutes at a decent pace and walk the 2-3 flights of stairs. The sprint and lifts mentioned, not so much.

    It's a good baseline package as a start for discussion, There's a few things missing. And allowing for age is certainly one of them.

    Additionally, even if "really running" for her is slower today, if she can manage the 30 minutes and the stairs she'd probably surprise you if shots popped off.

    Honestly, unless she's morbidly obese, the other two are probably not as far out of reach as you would think.

    JMO, but "allowing for age" can be part of the problem.

    People have low expectations of aging people - often way too low. And some of those with unnecessarily low expectations are the aging people themselves, IME. (P.S., I'm 62, not a starry-eyed youth.)

    What makes certain basic fitness goals impossible (or even unreasonably difficult) is not age. It is health conditions, injuries, or other such limitations. Age is not a synonym for those. Age is not an excuse.

    You're right. I was suggesting that for example, a healthy(non athletic) woman of 80, might only weight 80 or 90 lbs, and that 25 or 35 lbs overhead isn't nearly as daunting as half of a 180 lb moderately athletic 35 year old man.
  • MostlyWater
    MostlyWater Posts: 4,293 Member
    I don't know your age or your limitations. I can only tell you what worked for me - eating a lot less and exercising a lot more.

    I'm not losing weight right now and I still train more than you do - and I'm in my 50's. I take spin class three times a week, and I go longer than the 45 minutes, too.

    I take weight classes three times a week and again, I do a machine beforehand.

    I know you don't like gyms but it definitely helps with accountability.


  • ryenday
    ryenday Posts: 1,540 Member
    jgnatca wrote: »
    When I lost my big bunch of weight I started to get active. Then I found out I loved getting fit a lot better than losing weight. The weight goal is all about restraint and tracking. Important yes, but a grind.

    Fitness is about figuring out what sorts of things you want to do. Then getting a body that will do it.

    That's why I booked a party at the local trampoline park when I hit "one-derland". That was a big day.

    Wahhhhh! Temper Tantrum! I want a local trampoline park!!!! (One of the reasons I’m looking forward to Thanksgiving, is we are having it at my sister-in-law‘s place. They have a trampoline in the backyard! Cross your fingers for me we need the weather to be not raining!)
  • Cherimoose
    Cherimoose Posts: 5,210 Member
    I love the idea of targeting my fitness for life's challenges - I think I've got a decent start on cardio and strength, but I'll have to look into speed and agility. Maybe some fartlek when I'm a little further along in my cardio? I'm not 100% opposed to gym classes, but I know it's got to be fun or I won't do it.

    On the strength point, I googled "free weight exercises" because I genuinely did not know what you meant by that, and came across this article: https://www.aworkoutroutine.com/free-weight-exercises-vs-body-weight-exercises-vs-machines/. It seems like free weight and body weight exercises have pretty similar benefits, while machine exercises seem the least beneficial except maybe ease of getting started, and would require going to the gym or being independently wealthy. I'm hoping to pick up some adjustable dumbbells when I can free up a little cash (there seem to be good options around $40-50?) and mixing that in with the bodyweight work.

    Yes, a pair of adjustable 25 lb. DBs is about that price, maybe even less at thrift shops, craigslist, etc. That will give a base level of strength, but choose one that you can add more weight later if/when the 25s get too easy.

    I'd also get a resistance band set that can be mounted to a door ($30, Bodylastics, Black Mountain, etc), to do horizontal movements in a standing position (pushing, pulling, twisting), which are difficult to simulate with DBs & bodyweight exercises. There's a simple workout using bands + DBs in my profile. You can add some uneven farmer's carries and stair climbs if your lifestyle doesn't include those.

    Yes, fartleks are good. There are lots of agility drills on Youtube, and some are pretty fun, especially using a "speed ladder" ($15) with some good music playing. Training coordination & balance while having fun - can't be that. :+1:
  • MegaMooseEsq
    MegaMooseEsq Posts: 3,119 Member
    edited November 2017
    I don't know your age or your limitations. I can only tell you what worked for me - eating a lot less and exercising a lot more.

    I'm not losing weight right now and I still train more than you do - and I'm in my 50's. I take spin class three times a week, and I go longer than the 45 minutes, too.

    I take weight classes three times a week and again, I do a machine beforehand.

    I know you don't like gyms but it definitely helps with accountability.


    I'm afraid most of my weight loss so far has just been diet, and not especially extreme either - I've been going for about a pound a week and only started intentional exercise for fitness reasons in August. That's the thing though - if you want to do more cardio, then that's awesome! It burns calories and I hope you're at least enjoying yourself a little bit. But from what I've read both here and elsewhere (assuming I'm understanding everything correctly), the cost-benefit for extended steady-state cardio is actually a lot lower than people think it is. My understanding is that you can get most of the cardio-vascular (i.e. health) benefits from much shorter sessions and that the return after the first 20 minutes or so of real effort drops pretty quickly (although again, you still burn calories). As for "fitness," there was a point earlier in the thread I think about how, from a practical standpoint, it's much more useful to be able to sprint 100 meters than to run 5k. That sort of thing appeals to me. I mean, it seems nice to be able to run a 5k as well, but considering that my small amount of training over the last three months has me running about 1.5 miles continuously at 12 minutes a mile, I figure I'm on my way.

    ETA: I do wish people who disagreed with a post would say why, assuming it hasn't been covered already. I want to learn!
  • MegaMooseEsq
    MegaMooseEsq Posts: 3,119 Member
    Congratulations on being halfway to your goal!

    Your goals may morph over time. My fitness goal is primarily to control my blood glucose. I started out very unfit - I had been sick for a long time and was literally unable to do chores around the house or walk to my car without getting winded. My goal at that time was pretty much the same as yours - fifteen minutes of vigorous or thirty minutes of moderate cardio per day, plus enough strength training to preserve muscle mass while losing weight. I started by walking around my house, pedaling very slowly at first on a stationary bike, doing bodyweight strength exercises, and swinging around water bottles. My first strength exercise program was super basic - I started following the 100 push-up, 200 squats, and 200 sit-ups (crunches) challenge program. At first I had to do wall push-ups. Then I restarted the program doing knee push-ups, then finally toe push-ups which were shallow with shaky form. Eventually I restarted yet a fourth time doing better form toe push-ups.

    As I became more physically fit, I did more things, including a variety of fitness videos, which taught me more about how my body worked and what it was capable of. I started setting goals which were more specific to what I want to be able to do. I learned I like lifting heavy things. I was surprised to find that I wanted to go to the gym to lift weights, which was an idea that stressed me out when I started as much as it does you now. I finished c25k.

    I still don't feel any need to crank out years of slave labor on cardio equipment. I prefer higher intensity, shorter workouts. I doubt that I will ever feel the urge to run for hours. But I feel like it's important to me to know I can run the distance from the nearest shopping area to my home, if my car breaks down or the zombie apocalypse breaks out. I want to be able to lift my husband's weight if I have to, because I watched my mother have to put my father in a home because she couldn't lift him. If I fell off a cliff in an action movie, I could hang on for at least a few seconds until the hero grabbed my hand to pull me back up. One of my goals is to be able to pull myself back up.

    Not everyone in the world has to make fitness their first priority - working hard to get in better shape takes time and energy which I used to use for other things. I liked doing those things. I liked the person I was then. I don't think kicking back and reading a book, or writing a book, watching a movie, playing a video game, or creating a video game (my job) are wastes of my time. Those are things I enjoy and replacing them with 24/7 gym time is not something I ever want to do with my life. My goal is balance. I want health and fitness so I can enjoy things which are not health and fitness.

    I think your attitude towards fitness is a healthy one. Be open to the idea that fitness is a moving target, and what you need and enjoy will change as your body changes.

    Thanks - it feels like I just started, and then I realize I'm back in a size 14 for the first time in years, and am very *woah*! I definitely never thought I'd actually be a fit person, but I'm actually more interested in that right now than weight loss, which just kind of happens in the background at this point. I absolutely get the need to continue progressing. I think that's where my original post (and title) really wiffed - my goal right now is to establish a basic level of all-around fitness, but who knows where that might go in the future? I do want to keep pushing and challenging myself, but I'm still figuring out what that looks like. There's a parkour gym not too far from my house with an eight-week class that would be excellent in the event of zombie apocalypse. And I definitely like the idea of being able to lift my husband! Or at least drag...
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,968 Member
    This is a great question! And it's nice to have guidelines like 150 minutes per week, and some of the others proposed in this thread. They all seem a little arbitrary, though, and I don't envy anybody for trying to come up with what basic fitness should mean or entail in a way that applies to everybody. But we should have that understanding.

    It's a lot easier to think of what it means in terms of your own specific goals, which are a moving target. Mine are, anyway. I've always loved bikes, and for a long time I was content for that to mean riding around my neighborhood for fun and transportation. (City driving sucks.) At some point it became keeping up with my buddies who were more fit than I was. Then I started driving my bike out of the city and before I knew it I was working on a list of mountain passes with roads over them, I've ridden over 10 so far. Now my sights are set on skiing up and down Mount Rainier.
    ... My understanding is that you can get most of the cardio-vascular (i.e. health) benefits from much shorter sessions and that the return after the first 20 minutes or so of real effort drops pretty quickly (although again, you still burn calories).

    The benefits of longer sessions that jump to my mind are building endurance, burning calories, and transportation. I mean when I do HIIT, it's short and punchy hill repeats at race pace, right outside my apartment. If I have a few hours I can make a 50 mile loop and enjoy a lot of scenery. But everybody's different.

    You fuel most of your exercise with fat (aerobic) and sugar (anaerobic). It's pretty much always a mix of both, but most types of cardio lean heavily toward one or the other. Short, intense exercise trains your anaerobic system. That's what gives you explosive power and a great sprint. But it doesn't do as much for your aerobic system. I don't know if that has general health implications or just performance ones. (Anything that improves your fat burning system will also help with sprinting etc because it's the rising tide that floats all boats.)

    Twenty minutes happens to be about how long most people can go mostly on glycogen (sugar), which is why short and intense workouts tend to be this long. It's why you'll see people call BS on people doing HIIT for longer than 20 minutes as a matter of course.
  • Packerjohn
    Packerjohn Posts: 4,855 Member
    edited November 2017
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    Cherimoose wrote: »
    How would you differentiate fitness vs. physical health here? What does one need to do to be "fit"?

    Exercising for health usually means avoiding the common diseases of inactivity (heart, joints, etc). Fitness includes that plus it is a readiness for life's challenges, including work (lifting boxes, etc), leisure (hikes, sports), and emergencies (running from a mass shooter, heheh). Strength training usually should be added, and if one doesn't have a strenuous job or lifestyle, it's good to include freeweight exercises unsupported by a bench (simulates the demands of real-world situations better). Speed & agility are useful skills to train too each week. :+1:

    When I think of fitness minimums I think:
    Walking up 2-3 flights of stairs
    Walking 30 minutes
    Running(really running) 100 meters
    Lifting BW from the ground
    Lifting Half BW overhead

    Just as some examples.

    I'm guessing these are just some examples and not a "package". My 89 yo mother in law can walk 30 minutes at a decent pace and walk the 2-3 flights of stairs. The sprint and lifts mentioned, not so much.

    It's a good baseline package as a start for discussion, There's a few things missing. And allowing for age is certainly one of them.

    Additionally, even if "really running" for her is slower today, if she can manage the 30 minutes and the stairs she'd probably surprise you if shots popped off.

    Honestly, unless she's morbidly obese, the other two are probably not as far out of reach as you would think.

    LOL, you don't see any morbidly obese 89 year olds. Unless of course you dig up a corpse of someone who died 20-30 years earlier.

    I could see bodyweight from the ground. There are YouTube videos out there of what look like 130 pound 85 year olds deadlifting over 200 pounds. By the time someone is late 80's if they've been active at all, their shoulder health would probably be a big limiter.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 26,809 Member
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    Cherimoose wrote: »
    How would you differentiate fitness vs. physical health here? What does one need to do to be "fit"?

    Exercising for health usually means avoiding the common diseases of inactivity (heart, joints, etc). Fitness includes that plus it is a readiness for life's challenges, including work (lifting boxes, etc), leisure (hikes, sports), and emergencies (running from a mass shooter, heheh). Strength training usually should be added, and if one doesn't have a strenuous job or lifestyle, it's good to include freeweight exercises unsupported by a bench (simulates the demands of real-world situations better). Speed & agility are useful skills to train too each week. :+1:

    When I think of fitness minimums I think:
    Walking up 2-3 flights of stairs
    Walking 30 minutes
    Running(really running) 100 meters
    Lifting BW from the ground
    Lifting Half BW overhead

    Just as some examples.

    I'm guessing these are just some examples and not a "package". My 89 yo mother in law can walk 30 minutes at a decent pace and walk the 2-3 flights of stairs. The sprint and lifts mentioned, not so much.

    It's a good baseline package as a start for discussion, There's a few things missing. And allowing for age is certainly one of them.

    Additionally, even if "really running" for her is slower today, if she can manage the 30 minutes and the stairs she'd probably surprise you if shots popped off.

    Honestly, unless she's morbidly obese, the other two are probably not as far out of reach as you would think.

    LOL, you don't see any morbidly obese 89 year olds. Unless of course you dig up a corpse of someone who died 20-30 years earlier.

    I could see bodyweight from the ground. There are YouTube videos out there of what look like 130 pound 85 year olds deadlifting over 200 pounds. By the time someone is late 80's if they've been active at all, their shoulder health would probably be a big limiter.

    There are morbidly obese live 90 year olds. Few. They're not on YouTube. Ya gotta go special places to see them - nursing homes. Lifestyle roulette has diverse consequences . . . personally, I wouldn't choose that one.

    The 130lb 200lb deadlifters are few, too. Dancing dogs: Part of the reason there are videos of that "light" a lift in the first place. Worth aspiring to, of course.

    Lots of space in between, too . . . some of it pretty rewarding.

    To the bolded: Quit with age per se as the limiter, K? That's bad thinkitude. I know active 20s with bad shoulders, and active 80s with decent ones.

    To the individual, genetics (and circumstance) is a crapshoot. Active, on average, is good strategy.

    JMO, JME as a semi-old person with semi- old and truly old friends.
  • 30kgin2017
    30kgin2017 Posts: 228 Member
    I tended to be an all or nothing exerciser (and dieter), I was working out 6 days a weeks and then if I had to miss a couple of sessions I found it hard to 'get back on the band wagon' and it might be another 6 months before I got going again.

    This year I took a different approach, I started only running (an activity I love even though I suck at it) 1 day a week then a couple of months later added a second run day. Now if I miss a run or even 2 in a row its not a big deal and I just show up the next time I can.

    I like strength training but havent quite managed to work it into my routine, school holidays is coming up in Australia meaning that I have no afternoon activities to ferry my kids to for 6 weeks so am hoping that I can get started then and hopefully next year be able to work it into my weekly routine.

    I also deliver junk mail a couple times a week, since that's an obligation I have to work it into my routine and have found that a useful base because min would be 2 hours a week walking to do my route.
  • canadianlbs
    canadianlbs Posts: 5,199 Member
    This is basic life and basic fitness

    well, no. i'm 52 and have yet to see anyone fall into a pool or slip in the shower. these are not 'basic' factors of life, even when transposed into less sensational scenarios.

    i think that's the ambiguity though - what time frame are people keeping fit for? there's the here and now life where, come on - seriously, people don't frequently get called on to lift or carry more than a few gallons of milk. if it were a basic part of everyday life people would probably be more capable of it than they are.

    and there's the long-term 'later' that we keep hearing about. essentially, staving off various things.