Total Fitness Definition

aziz_n1

Think this should start a vigorous debate. How does one define total fitness? In my thinking, it has to be a combination of things such as weight, strength, stamina and flexibility. With this in mind, who are likely to be the ‘Fittest’ people? Gymnasts, racquet sports players, swimmers, runners, cyclists, footballers, rugby players? I would not place people doing weights only near the top..
Expecting a good debate.
Naveed

Fuzzipeg

When one feels totally well in body and mind is my definition of Total Fitness. So I would say, its a personal thing rather than pitting athleticism against athleticism each of us being totally different. I remember from years ago, ballet dancers were more fit than ball player.

I hope you achieve the answers you wish for. BTW - good to meet you.

MelanieCN77

I'm not sure there is such a thing. We all get conditioned by what we do most; often it can be not only unhelpful for other disciplines, but some routines can actively work against one another in terms of progress. I know Crossfit Games bestows a title of "fittest so and so" because they try to bridge a lot of training styles, but it still seems like people train to the specifics of the goal.

aziz_n1

Maybe some people will remember the show on TV, way back, called Superstars. I thought that was a good all round test, putting sports stars of the era through a range of physical challenges to determine the ‘fittest.’

aziz_n1

Yes, the famous ballet star Rudolf Nureyev was considered by many to be the ‘fittest’ person around in his era. Hence, I would place ballet dancers in with gymnasts.
Also, I agree that feeling good physically helps with the mental side of things too.
I’m sure different sports/activities could put forward a ‘champion’ to be considered the ‘fittest.’

JeromeBarry1

First you live, then you die.

At my age, total fitness includes people who are still alive despite all the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune they've endured.

aokoye

Fuzzipeg wrote: »

When one feels totally well in body and mind is my definition of Total Fitness. So I would say, its a personal thing rather than pitting athleticism against athleticism each of us being totally different. I remember from years ago, ballet dancers were more fit than ball player.

I hope you achieve the answers you wish for. BTW - good to meet you.

Quite a lot of people would argue that ballet dancers are essentially athletes.

Johnd2000

Here in the UK we had a TV show in the 70’s called “Superstars”. It was essentially sportsmen from various sports, competing against each other.

One of things that stood out was that racing drivers we’re generally among the fittest.

Fuzzipeg

aokoye, I agree ballet is athletic along with gymnastics. I was considering it from a theatrical performance point of view.

robertw486

MelanieCN77 wrote: »

I'm not sure there is such a thing. We all get conditioned by what we do most; often it can be not only unhelpful for other disciplines, but some routines can actively work against one another in terms of progress. I know Crossfit Games bestows a title of "fittest so and so" because they try to bridge a lot of training styles, but it still seems like people train to the specifics of the goal.

I'd agree on this. No matter what, people will train towards a goal, and at some point experience will also overcome true fitness. This alone makes it tough to make any measure really "fair" in the long run.

But overall, I think the Crossfit Games are probably a very good measure. They mix it up enough to that a certain particular skill set isn't going to win or lose the overall event for anyone.

Phirrgus

MelanieCN77 wrote: »

I'm not sure there is such a thing. We all get conditioned by what we do most; often it can be not only unhelpful for other disciplines, but some routines can actively work against one another in terms of progress. I know Crossfit Games bestows a title of "fittest so and so" because they try to bridge a lot of training styles, but it still seems like people train to the specifics of the goal.

robertw486 wrote: »

MelanieCN77 wrote: »

I'm not sure there is such a thing. We all get conditioned by what we do most; often it can be not only unhelpful for other disciplines, but some routines can actively work against one another in terms of progress. I know Crossfit Games bestows a title of "fittest so and so" because they try to bridge a lot of training styles, but it still seems like people train to the specifics of the goal.

I'd agree on this. No matter what, people will train towards a goal, and at some point experience will also overcome true fitness. This alone makes it tough to make any measure really "fair" in the long run.

But overall, I think the Crossfit Games are probably a very good measure. They mix it up enough to that a certain particular skill set isn't going to win or lose the overall event for anyone.

Agreed with both the above. Defining fitness across the multitude of sports/atheletic events/goals to a point where the definition is acceptable to all is pointless. I can see a "fitness scale" akin to the BMI chart. Useful for an overall generic indicator across the general populace, but a rather poor indicator for an individual pursuing a specific goal.

aokoye

Fuzzipeg wrote: »

aokoye, I agree ballet is athletic along with gymnastics. I was considering it from a theatrical performance point of view.

Ah I see. There's most definitely overlap in terms of things that require both athleticism and the ability to do something artistic. I've never seen someone say that gymnastics isn't athletic though I think the fact that artistic and rhythmic gymnastics are olympic sports help that (people do deride rhythmic gymnastics though).

In some ways, it reminds me of what a lot of people think about synchronized swimming. If someone doesn't have any even cursory knowledge of what's involved, they might not think it's athletic. The fact that there's music and costumes involved as well as a very classical sense of grace also doesn't help.

kjm3579

Total fitness would involve a lot of core strength, with the ability to do things such as run or cycle -- I once heard a coach say that a person with just basic fitness should be able to run 3 miles without a problem -- and unfortunately most average people can't even get off the couch and run 1 mile.

naomi8888

This might not be a popular opinion but I would think Crossfit would be up there.

Powerclean2deadlift

naomi8888 wrote: »

This might not be a popular opinion but I would think Crossfit would be up there.

I was about to say that. I have been watching the crossfit games documentaries on Netflix. These athletes are fit... I also like the crossfit definition of fitness.

Motorsheen

Fittest?


..... probably being able to out-run the fittest peace officer on our municipal police force.


(okay, I'll admit, that might not actually be the best definition.... but after last Saturday night, the rationale kinda made sense.)

firef1y72

I am not the fittest, but I consider myself to have all round fitness.

I can run....not stupidly fast, but up to a marathon, generally I run 20-30miles a week.
I can lift weights.....again not stupidly heavy, my big four are all in the intermediate category on strengthlevels
I can row...500m in just over 2min on a rower, again not super fast but I can also row for 30-60min straight.
I can do 200 full (chest to floor burpees) in 30min
I can do full push ups (both standard and tricep), that's on my toes.
I can do jump my way through a 45 minute zumba class.
I can squat jump up a flight of stairs.
I can flip a tractor tyre.

But there's always a new challenge, something new to try or a best to beat and there's always someone stronger and fitter, my trainer is insanely strong and fit (which is what I would expect as I pay her to make me stronger and fitter)

pontious11349

500lb squat and a sub 5 min mile - its not even a debate Crossfit athletes are amongst the fittest on earth.

Greg Glassman defines fitness. He is, however, not the definition of fitness,haha.