What determines if someone is fit or not?

As a runner, I'll take your 10K example. I was fit enough to run my first 10K years ago. I finished around an hour and a couple minutes. In the last year, I've decided to work on my speed. After a year + of putting down mileage and adding some speedwork & strength, I brought that time down to 54:00. Obviously, that takes a higher level of fitness to achieve than just completing a 10K. I'm now working towards breaking 50:00, and that's going to take even more fitness.

Meanwhile, there are plenty of other runners out there that would scoff at my times because they're working on breaking 40:00, or lower.

Bottom line: I'll always be chasing a bigger, better goal. Fitness is subjective, and relative. It's also something worth pursuing! I like to think I'll be able to do more in 3 months than I can do today.

bwogilvie wrote: »

As others have said, fitness is a moving target. At 47, I'm very fit compared with most of my co-workers, and rather unfit compared with some of the other people I know.

However, there's some interesting evidence that a good test of longevity, and thus fitness and health, is whether you can sit down and stand up without using your arms or knees to support you, especially if you are older. It's somewhat more challenging than the chair test (can you stand up from a chair using your legs alone?).

Agree! I also compared myself now and a decade ago before I started this whole weight-loss thing as a teenager- now I have good cardiac function, higher confidence, and am happy to keep going without giving up. I think I'm pretty fit physically and mentally now

And here's an interesting post I read a few days ago. I'm not sure if it's accurate but it's quite fun!
https://blog.myfitnesspal.com/calculate-your-fitness-age-it-may-predict-how-long-youll-live/?utm_source=mfp&utm_medium=Facebook

For people who are serious about getting in shape, yes, fitness does indeed tend to be a moving target.

I think that there's an obvious problem with saying that "being fit" depends on one's goals. To cite an all-too-common example, what about the couch potato who doesn't care about his heart or his waistline? More charitably, what about the obese person who doesn't want to lose more than just "a few pounds"?

For some less extreme examples, what about the guy who likes to lift weights, but hates cardio and has no cardiovascular endurance? I guarantee that there are a lot of guys like that.

xstephnz wrote: »

spartan_d wrote: »

I'd also say that any adult male should be able to do at least 20 push-ups -- again, as a general rule and not setting a high standard.

Heck, I'm severley obese, and I can do 20 full pushups!!! I do have a personal trainer though.

Can we get video proof of this?

PikaKnight wrote: »

spartan_d wrote: »

For people who are serious about getting in shape, yes, fitness does indeed tend to be a moving target.

I think that there's an obvious problem with saying that "being fit" depends on one's goals. To cite an all-too-common example, what about the couch potato who doesn't care about his heart or his waistline? More charitably, what about the obese person who doesn't want to lose more than just "a few pounds"?

For some less extreme examples, what about the guy who likes to lift weights, but hates cardio and has no cardiovascular endurance? I guarantee that there are a lot of guys like that.

Don't see how that's possible for a weight lifter to have "no cardiovascular endurance". In order to lift x amount of weight for x reps, you'd have to have cardiovascular endurance. You may not have it as good as a runner, but you do have it.

It's simple. Not everyone who lifts weights does so to the point of developing significant cardiovascular endurance. Sure, they'll develop SOME endurance, but we're obviously speaking in hyperbole when we say that they have none.

It's like saying that you have no artistic talent or singing ability. Everyone has SOME talent in that regard, but it's commonly understood that this is a figure of speech.

I taken boot camp classes with guys who had huge, bulging muscles but who were gasping for breath 15 minutes into the workout. Did they have endurance? Sure, in the sense that everyone has some... but their weight training, being mostly anaerobic in nature, didn't translate well into cardiovascular conditioning.

xstephnz wrote: »

markburnett70 wrote: »

Although there is probably some base fitness that everyone ought to be able to meet I guess.

I kind of mean standard fitness. Like what do you have to be able to do to be considered ''healthy''? is there a test or something? We used to do a few different things in health class, one being the ''beep test''.

What would one have to be able to do to qualify as a police officer? to get into the army? to become a navy seal? What is the optimum fitness?

I think I consider fitness to be able to do an average amount of many different things, like be able to run 10k+, be able to do 50 pull ups, 1000 sit-ups, 100 squats, swim a certain distance, lift a certain amount etc. If you can only do a group of things, but not other things, I'm not sure if I would consider you fit. Whats the point in being able to lift heavy stuff if you can't outrun a zombie?

I feel like if you get good at one area, your fitness would increase in other areas as well. This may not apply to everything, but if you are good at running, you might be able to swim or bike further than you could before, also.

For "standard" fitness, as in figure out if you are above/below average, I know there are some standard tests, because my kids schools participate in a program that evaluates students for fitness. It is mostly screening tests, to see if someone is falling below what is considered "normal". Of course it is adapted to kids, but I suspect the teen version is pretty close to what an adults would be tested for.
They have tests for 4 different evaluations: strength, speed, endurance and flexibility.
From what I recall from the end of the year evaluation from my oldest, the basics were 1 rep max lifting (with dumbbells), sit ups and push-ups, sprints and long jumps, endurance run (I think it was something like 10-15 mins jog or so) and for flexibility I have no idea what it is called, but where you get to sit with legs extended and try to reach your toes or beyond, plus the one where you sit with the soles of your feet facing each other and try to bring your feet close to your body.

http://breakingmuscle.com/military-first-responders/the-police-physical-ability-test-would-you-meet-the-requirements

That's requirements / scores for cops in a certain area. That's pretty standard for what I'd consider all around health.

xstephnz wrote: »

markburnett70 wrote: »

Although there is probably some base fitness that everyone ought to be able to meet I guess.

I kind of mean standard fitness. Like what do you have to be able to do to be considered ''healthy''? is there a test or something? We used to do a few different things in health class, one being the ''beep test''.

What would one have to be able to do to qualify as a police officer? to get into the army? to become a navy seal? What is the optimum fitness?

I think I consider fitness to be able to do an average amount of many different things, like be able to run 10k+, be able to do 50 pull ups, 1000 sit-ups, 100 squats, swim a certain distance, lift a certain amount etc. If you can only do a group of things, but not other things, I'm not sure if I would consider you fit. Whats the point in being able to lift heavy stuff if you can't outrun a zombie?

I feel like if you get good at one area, your fitness would increase in other areas as well. This may not apply to everything, but if you are good at running, you might be able to swim or bike further than you could before, also.

xstephnz wrote: »

markburnett70 wrote: »

Although there is probably some base fitness that everyone ought to be able to meet I guess.

Check with your doctor, everyone is different. As you can see there are different interpretations of fitness, but to be considered "healthy" you should have good numbers on your annual physical visit to the doctor. For example, good blood sugar range (not diabetic or pre diabetic), good numbers on cholesterol, good measures on your thyroid hormones, BMI in a good range...

I have a challenge because I am "healthy" but I am not considered "fit".
I hate running, so my goal was only a 5k. I didn't lose weight to do it, I just started running on the treadmill. Each day a little longer. I did my 5K but in "training" I managed to also get shin splints and eventually I got plantar fasciitis. So, make sure you always wear good shoes when you are on that treadmill or jogging around the neighborhood (I ran on the treadmill at home in my socks, which turned out to be a really stupid idea with lasting impact).

I think this is a really good question. Being fit changes every milestone you hit. There is no "I'm Done!" moment. But it's a good thing!

JodieP13 wrote: »

I think this is a really good question. Being fit changes every milestone you hit. There is no "I'm Done!" moment. But it's a good thing!

The minute you say "I'm done" you start losing your fitness. You have to work harder as you get older and never ever say "I'm done".

aggelikik wrote: »

xstephnz wrote: »

markburnett70 wrote: »

Although there is probably some base fitness that everyone ought to be able to meet I guess.

I kind of mean standard fitness. Like what do you have to be able to do to be considered ''healthy''? is there a test or something? We used to do a few different things in health class, one being the ''beep test''.

What would one have to be able to do to qualify as a police officer? to get into the army? to become a navy seal? What is the optimum fitness?

I think I consider fitness to be able to do an average amount of many different things, like be able to run 10k+, be able to do 50 pull ups, 1000 sit-ups, 100 squats, swim a certain distance, lift a certain amount etc. If you can only do a group of things, but not other things, I'm not sure if I would consider you fit. Whats the point in being able to lift heavy stuff if you can't outrun a zombie?

I feel like if you get good at one area, your fitness would increase in other areas as well. This may not apply to everything, but if you are good at running, you might be able to swim or bike further than you could before, also.

For "standard" fitness, as in figure out if you are above/below average, I know there are some standard tests, because my kids schools participate in a program that evaluates students for fitness. It is mostly screening tests, to see if someone is falling below what is considered "normal". Of course it is adapted to kids, but I suspect the teen version is pretty close to what an adults would be tested for.
They have tests for 4 different evaluations: strength, speed, endurance and flexibility.
From what I recall from the end of the year evaluation from my oldest, the basics were 1 rep max lifting (with dumbbells), sit ups and push-ups, sprints and long jumps, endurance run (I think it was something like 10-15 mins jog or so) and for flexibility I have no idea what it is called, but where you get to sit with legs extended and try to reach your toes or beyond, plus the one where you sit with the soles of your feet facing each other and try to bring your feet close to your body.

the touch your toes is a sit and reach test for flexibility, the other one is for hip flexibility.