Reply With QuoteFitness is task dependent. If the task is a hot dog eating contest, then Joey Chestnut is the fittest man in the world. If the task is running 100m, then it's Usain Bolt. Neither one is more fit than the other, they are just different.
Member
Definition of fitness
Just thought this was interesting and I would share it.
I posted the question on my facebook page "What is your definition of fitness?" Got some good educated answers and some well the usual ones you would expect. Ones that are not context dependent as fitness MUST be. Ones more based on aerobic capacity and those in the relative strength master of none camp.
Below Ill add some of the finer points I added maybe this well spur some conversation.
First I ask?
Would you all not say fitness is context dependent?
then baiting the fish I ask this
Who is more fit? A person who can deadlift say 1010 lbs one time or a person who can run the 100 in 9.6 seconds? Or the a man who runs the new York marathon in 2 hours 7 minutes. Or the person who Deadlifts 800 runs the 100 in 10.5, and runs the NYC Marathon in 3 and a half hours.
Of course the first person chimes in to say its the last guy or girl this is where I disagree and you can then read my reasoning.
Id actually argue that any and all of the first three are in better fitness then the last guy. Fitness being your ability to do the task required of you with hopefully a bit left over. The first three hypothetical people would have all broken world records in their chosen crafts. Reached the pinnacle of fitness in their sport, where as the last person, while well rounded was not fully prepared in any of his. He lacked fitness to some degree in every endeavor or he/she would have had the ability to break a world record.
Now yes if your goal is to be well rounded, a jack of all master of none, then yes he would have great fitness in that context, but No more then any of the other three as they ARE the definition of fitness in their craft.
This is where the word fitness gets misconstrued and abused and why it IS by nature of the beast context dependent. Fit and fitness has to be defined by what the goal of the individual is.... See More
Yes I would hate life running a 5k I would do it if I had to but it would suck and Id likely be last. Then again my Fitness is very high as evidenced by the multiple records I hold. If I were unfit I would not have that ability.
To go even further you often hear the arguement about relational strength, and or cardiovascular ability again being the definition of fitness. Actually sadly most often fitness is tied into cardiovascular ability though it can have nothing to do with it. But back on topic. You / I hear those people all the time "well sure your strong and can deadlift 700lbs and I can only deadlift 400 max but Id kick your ass in a a mile run and doing 100 chins and situps and man I weight 175 and dl 400 so relationally I am stronger.
You know what in real life the weight doesnt matter how much you weigh it just needs to be picked up. If a car was on your sister and you had to move it Id put my mloney in the real workld on the big strong guy not the relational guy.
In turn let say we take me with a 725 lb deadlift and the guy that can run a mile faster then me do 100 chins and 100 sit ups faster then me but can only deadlift 400 and put us in a race. Let say we have us do an easy 600 lb deadlift which is usually my third real warm up, then we have to run a mile then do 100 chins and 100 sit ups and we had a day to do it. Id smoke the dead lift then id drag ass running the mile hating it but I would do it, then it would take me some time to knock out the 100 chins as I can only currently do about 17 but id do then and maybe a few snack in between and then id do the 100 sit ups again slowly. All the while where is the more "Fit" the one that is less strong. He's back at the start sitting on his ass as there is NO way no matter how many hours that are in the day that he can lift 200lbs over his max ability.
I can do everything he can. It may take me longer but i can do it no matter how much I hate it I can get it done. But there aint no way he can do everything I can when rubber hits the road. Thats real life. LOL
about a minute ago ·
Thoughts?
Member
Fitness is task dependent. If the task is a hot dog eating contest, then Joey Chestnut is the fittest man in the world. If the task is running 100m, then it's Usain Bolt. Neither one is more fit than the other, they are just different.
Member
Although the task dependence comment is valid, this last statement seems a bit, well, out to lunch.... at least if we are talking about physical fitness here. Last I checked, the socially defined term (generally how definitions of words are arrived at btw) does not include stuffing one's face. Not that I don't enjoy eating big with the best of them.Originally Posted by Jason B
Member
My only thought is this:
I think they are all fit, and I think it is hard to make direct comparisons. Doing so reminds me of the kids in high school who would debate whether the Starship Enterprise would defeat a BattleTech Mechwarrior. However, there is a law of diminishing returns with a training investment.
So for most of us, why not start with establishing a strong work capacity across broad time and modal domains? (Am I allowed to say that without crossing the Wall of Fire to neutralize my R6 implant to face the ruler of the Galactic Crossfit Confederacy?)
Mark said, "Specialization is for insects." I'm pretty sure he was talking about isolated vice full body motion exercizes. But I think the point, at least in general, still stands. Don't be afraid to try new things. There is a lot of benefit to be gained in a short amount of time just by trying.
Member
fit·ness (ftns) n.
1. The state or condition of being fit; suitability or appropriateness.
2. Good health or physical condition, especially as the result of exercise and proper nutrition.
3. Biology The extent to which an organism is adapted to or able to produce offspring in a particular environment.
Clearly we are combining 1 and 2 in our definition. Let's not forget about 3.
Member
Mel Siff addressed this long time ago:
Mel Siff on Crossfit, from the Supertraining archives:
We were asked by the editor of Girevik Online Magazine to comment on material by Greg Glassman. Well, I proceeded to the Girevik site at: http://www.girevikmagazine.com/ and found the following (my comments are made throughout the excerpts):
-----------------
<Interviews
Greg Glassman is the founder of CrossFit, one of the most advanced fitness protocols around. He has some unique and challenging ideas on the nature of fitness and he was kind enough to share them with Girevik Magazine. He also publishes the CrossFit Journal and has agreed to offer a free issue to our readers, entitled "What is Fitness?"
---------------
EXCERPTS FROM CrossFitness page:
<What Is Fitness and Who Is Fit?
........Perhaps the definition of fitness doesn't include strength, speed, power, and coordination though that seems rather odd. Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary defines "fitness" and being "fit" as the ability to transmit genes and being healthy. No help there. Searching the Internet for a workable, reasonable definition of fitness yields disappointingly little
Worse yet, the NSCA, the most respected publisher in exercise physiology, in their highly authoritative Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning doesn't even attempt a definition.
[***NSCA members here- - please confirm or debunk. Mel Siff]
Crossfit's Fitness For CrossFit the specter of championing a fitness program without clearly defining what it is that the program delivers combines elements of fraud and farce. The vacuum of guiding authority has therefore necessitated that CrossFit's directors provide their own definition of fitness. That's what this issue of CrossFit Journal is about, our "fitness."
[***Mel Siff: If he had read Chs 1.5, 1.16 and 2.3 of "Supertraining," he would have noticed that there is no "vacuum" of guiding authority - I have gone to great lengths (and many pages) to define all aspects of fitness very carefully by examining its usage by Eastern and Western sports scientists. I then go on to show how it differs from two other measures of human performance, namely "work capacity" and "preparedness." Before one makes accusations of sports science in general containing serious vacuums, it is important to have studied a very wide variety of the most important books which might offer information on a given topic, otherwise one's opinions come across as unsubstantiated arrogance. The alleged vacuum may exist only because one has not adequately researched the entire topic.
Note that it is essential to define fitness and all related terms in the context of physical training and performance, not across disciplines including evolution theory and medicine. It is also important not to play Procrustean games to fit the definition to one's own preconceptions and
biases, which unfortunately happens to be the case with the CrossFit group.]
Our pondering, studying, debating about, and finally defining fitness have played a formative role in CrossFit's successes. The keys to understanding the methods and achievements of CrossFit are perfectly imbedded (sic) in our view of fitness and basic exercise science.
It will come as no surprise to most of you that our view of fitness is a contrarian (sic) view. The general public both in opinion and in media holds endurance athletes as exemplars of fitness. We do not....>
[*** Mel Siff: By commenting that this is their "view" of fitness, they are already implying the application of Procrustean methods and suggesting that all other scientific definitions are incorrect, despite the fact that they have been used successfully for many years. Later in their book you will notice that they are attacking one view of "fitness" (as I did in great detail in Ch 6 of "Facts & Fallacies of Fitness") on the basis that far too many people regard fitness as being synonymous with cardiovascular endurance. While this criticism is certainly warranted, it is inappropriate to apply the same conclusions to many other sports scientists and coaches who definitely do not think of fitness in this way. The NSCA, sports scientists and many others today certainly do not think of fitness in that naive manner.]
-------------------
Our first model evaluates our efforts against a full range of general physical adaptations, in the second the focus is on breadth and depth of performance, with the third the measure is time, power and consequently energy systems. It should be fairly clear that the fitness that CrossFit advocates and develops is deliberately broad, general, and inclusive. Our specialty is not specializing. Combat, survival, many sports, and life reward this kind of fitness and, on average, punish the specialist.
Sickness ==> Wellness ==> Fitness
...based on measurements of:
Blood pressure
Body fat
Bone Density
Triglycerides
Good and Bad cholesterol
Flexibility
Muscle Mass
etc
Our assumption is that if everything we can measure about health will conform to this continuum then it seems that sickness, wellness, and fitness are different measures of a single quality: health.
[*** Mel Siff: While many medical and health texts and authorities will regard sickness and wellness as lying on some approximate type of continuum (presuming that such conditions are linearly related, which they don't happen to be), fitness is not placed along the same continuum, according to the definitions of physical fitness.
Many pages of "Supertraining" are devoted to developing a Pyramidal Model of Musculoskeletal Fitness (plus cardiovascular endurance to complete the picture) which includes dozens of different "fitness factors" (strength, speed, speed-strength, strength-speed, strength-endurance,
flexibility-strength, skill-endurance, etc (see Ch 1.16.4), so their attempts to develop a novel model of "fitness" have been overshadowed by all the Eastern and Western sports science which enabled this Pyramid to be constructed.]
Many authorities (e.g. Mel Siff, the NSCA) make a clear distinction between health and fitness. Frequently they cite studies that suggest that the fit may not be health protected. A close look at the supporting evidence invariably reveals the studied group is endurance athletes and, we suspect, endurance athletes on a dangerous fad diet (high carb, low fat, low protein).
[*** Mel Siff: Not just "many" - the fact is that most authorities in medicine and science make a very clear distinction between health and fitness, because clinicians have treated and coaches have trained people who are very fit for various sporting activities or manual labour, but have
harboured serious or terminal diseases. Many top athletes suffer from diabetes, asthma, cardiac problems, genetic disorders, some form of cancer or other very significant illnesses, yet they are "fit" for what they do in sport. Only at a much later stage when the illness overcomes the defensive or recuperative powers of the body, is fitness affected. Moreover, it is very well known that some very healthy people are lazy, fat, sedentary and very "unfit" for almost any physical activity that we can mention. Note that my evidence is not based on studies of endurance sport alone, but on a far wider spectrum of activities.
CrossFit in devising their "Challenge" or survival type of extremely varied fitness system are intentionally obfuscating the issue by stipulating that this sort of eclectic fitness is the "best show in town" and sidestepping the fact that athletes are fit for one or a very small number of sports, simply because it is impossible to become a national or world champion in dozens of different sports. That sort of training can be very challenging and rewarding, but it is not necessarily superior to other fitness programs, especially for specific sports.
By the way, that CrossFit approach is not at all original or novel because it is simply a Westernized approach to what has been known for many years as general complex training in Russia and Eastern Europe. A far more balanced approach involves what Verkhoshansky called conjugate training (see plenty of detail on this approach to "Cross Fitness Training" in "Supertraining.
Instead of trying to denigrate others who are concentrating on improving performance in their chosen sport, they should simply have distinguished between general and specific fitness. They could then have stated that the aim of their programme is to offer a far more general and "holistic" type of fitness, one which might serve some role during the GPP (General Physical Preparation) phase of sports conditioning, but not which could significantly enhance sport specific performance. They should simply have commented that there is a time and place for a different type of fitness for everyone and that not one training scheme suits all.]
Member
...
As a note of interest, Mel Siff PhD, whom we often respect and admire, holds his atherosclerotic disease and subsequent heart attack as anecdotal evidence of the contention that fitness and health are not necessarily linked because of his regular training and "good diet". When we researched his dietary recommendations we discovered that he advocates a diet ideally structured for causing heart disease – low fat/high carb. Siff has fallen victim to junk
science!
[*** Mel Siff: While I have cited my own case to show that one can be apparently very fit aerobically and anaerobically, I certainly did not use that one case study to prove my point. I noted that the medical profession as a whole has dealt with many others like me (others I mentioned recently included James Fixx and Ed Burke, Boston Celtic Reggie Lewis, Olympic figure skater Sergei Grinko, as well as several young sports stars suffering from HCM) - I would be a totally unscientific simpleton to use a sample size of 1 to prove a point, so a remark like that seriously misrepresents me.
Interestingly, I cannot recall anyone by the name of Glassman ever staying in the Siff household or studying me in the laboratory to examine my eating habits, so I am intrigued to know where he found this inside information. The abbreviated tale of my cardiac rehab programme
(http://www.worldfitness.org/drmelsiff.html) certainly said nothing about my specific breakdown of macronutrients in my diet.
Had he read a little more carefully what I wrote, he would have noticed that my diet comprises something like 50-60% lipids (no fried foods, no transfats, no animal fat, plenty of fish) and under 30% carbohydrates (no refined carbs) and hasn't deviated much from that sort of balance for many years - I have never been a lover of high carb diets and have eaten little or no sugar
(other than about 1-2 tablespoons of honey or a few servings of fruit a day). Where on earth does he obtain that nonsense from about my diet?
Most important, I would like to know what "junk science" I have fallen prey to - in fact I find that remark very insulting and inappropriate, especially since it seems to be based solely on sheer opinion. So, I fully expect Glassman to elaborate via a letter to this list what this alleged "junk
science" is. Maybe if he really would like to find out more about my lifestyle, he could attend one of my Supertraining Camps and learn a great deal more about what a far wider spectrum of scientists think about fitness! He could also test his "fitness" to cope with very hot and very cold water in our restoration facility (hot temp for the "fitter" is about 112-114F), but I noticed that his CrossFit system does not directly condition one to cope with environmental extremes or high levels of pain that many of us have to cope with medically at some stage of our lives
-------------
We recommend Bob Anderson’s Stretching. This is a simple no nonsense approach
to flexibility. The science of stretching is weakly developed and many athletes like gymnasts who demonstrate great flexibility receive no formal instruction. Just do it. Generally, you want to stretch in a warm-up to establish safe, effective range of motion for the ensuing activity and
stretch during cool down to improve flexibility.
[*** Mel Siff: While Bob Anderson's book may offer a neat little compendium of static stretching, it does not address the full spectrum of different types of static, passive, ballistic and dynamic flexibility. The science of stretching may appear to him to be weakly developed because he may not be very familiar with a broad range of scientific articles on the subject, especially from Russia (which I have summarised in Ch 3 of "Supertraining"). Bob's book certainly offers little or nothing of any note that has not been covered by yogi hundreds of years before, nor does it offer any updated science at all.]
----------------
Olympic weightlifting, as it is often referred to, develops strength (especially in the hips), speed, and power like no other training modality.
[*** Mel Siff: While Olympic lifting develops great power (strength-speed), it does not necessarily enhance speed "like no other training modality" – the movements in weightlifting are by no means as fast as those in table tennis, badminton, baseball pitching or any throwing or striking action and in many cases the most competent performers in these activities have not all trained
with Olympic lifts. As a weightlifter, I would prefer not to admit these facts, but it is time that this myth be abandoned that weightlifting on its own automatically develops some form of universal "speed" that applies to all sports. The speed developed in an athlete who uses weightlifting depends on how competently the lifting skills are used as a foundation or adjunct to the sport specific speed skills.]
----------------
There is a good deal more which warrants dissection, but I shall leave that to anyone else who may feel inclined to do so.
Finally, here is a statement made by Glassman in his interview on Girevik Magazine:
"While admitting that there are surely needs specific to any sport, the bulk of sport specific training has been ridiculously ineffective. The need for specificity is nearly completely met by regular practice and training within the sport not in the strength and conditioning environment."
[*** Mel Siff: This implies that the bulk of sport specific training has also been ridiculously ineffective even in the former USSR and Eastern Europe where their athletes dominated many world sports with their ridiculous sports specific methods. It would be interesting to know how many Olympic winners have used CrossFit methods. If he is to state that such methods are
ineffective, then he must produce research based on a survey of the world's best athletes to support his opinion. Maybe he was referring to the situation in the USA. His last sentence, of course, implies that strength conditioning is almost completely redundant in all sports. ]
He goes on to state:
"If you come to us with a 4-minute mile, six months into it you are going to be 30 seconds slower but a whole hell of a lot fitter. Similarly, if you come to us with a 900-pound squat, in six months it's going to be 750 pounds, but you, too, will be much fitter. A 4-minute mile and a 900-pound
squat are both clear and compelling evidence of a lack of balance in your program. ..."
[*** Once again it becomes clear that he is playing Procrustean games by making comparisons according to his specific definition of fitness which confuses "holistic" or general fitness with sport specific fitness. The track coach would conclude from this that his runner has decreased his
fitness for running the mile and that is all that counts. It doesn't matter if he can climb Mt Everest without breathing apparatus or wrestle King Kong to death; that poor miler is a has-been in his own sport. Similarly, that poor powerlifter will have dropped way down towards novice ability. What he calls lack of balance is nothing more than criticism of anyone becoming a top performer in a given single sport.
If we follow his same argument in all walks of life, then everyone should be doctors, builders, athletes, lawyers, dentists, chiropractors, linguists, priests, mullahs, teachers, mathematicians, pilots, computer experts, physiotherapists, engineers, musicians, artists, soldiers, chess masters, and so and so forth. Sorry, my friend, but life today has become filled with so much information, so many careers, so many hobbies, so many technologies and so many sports that specialization has become essential. In other words, it is inevitable that all of us will be impoverished or "unfit" in many fields and that is perfectly "all right", as long as it doesn't lower you quality of life too much. While I think that it is wonderful to attempt to become a Renaissance Person in as many fields as possible (that is why I sleep such a little and train so much), the rewards of becoming a superspecialist can be very great.
If we really wish to set up a SuperFit programme then we should undoubtedly include mental, physical and spiritual qualities, for all the holistic physical fitness in the world is not going to compensate for grave deficits in the realm of the brain, for, as you age, the latter can persist at a level which rivals that of the young, while your physical fitness never will.
Dr Mel C Siff
Denver, USA
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Supertraining/
Member
Finally! That clears it up. Jean-Luc Picard would totally kick Han Solo's ass in a cage fight.
Member
Who ever stated that olympic lifting was the best 'speed enhancer' ?[*** Mel Siff: While Olympic lifting develops great power (strength-speed), it does not necessarily enhance speed "like no other training modality" – the movements in weightlifting are by no means as fast as those in table tennis, badminton, baseball pitching or any throwing or striking action and in many cases the most competent performers in these activities have not all trained
with Olympic lifts. As a weightlifter, I would prefer not to admit these facts, but it is time that this myth be abandoned that weightlifting on its own automatically develops some form of universal "speed" that applies to all sports. The speed developed in an athlete who uses weightlifting depends on how competently the lifting skills are used as a foundation or adjunct to the sport specific speed skills.]
Isnt it common sense that olympic lifting is about power, not speed.
Speed can mean so many different things. Speed in shot put relies on power just like olympic lifting. Speed in swinging a table tennis bat would have little relevance to olympic lifts because it is too light. You cannot really utilise maximum power against something so light, it is a skill built on practice with the bat not a barbell.
And any type of running except for a very short explosive sprint, is dependent of endurance/cardiovascular fitness.
This talking about 'speed' as a universal concept for all sports is silly. As speed can mean so many different things, in many sports speed will rely at least partially if not wholly on power. Power is a universal concept, power can only mean power. work(force) / time
When talking about tennis, olympic lifts maybe more relevant as the raquet is heavier and being resisted by the force of the incoming ball at great speed. There is more scope to use full body to drive power (generated at the hip) into the ball during the very short time it is in contact with the racquet.
Member
Well of course one must be in good health nothing can put a damper on perfoemance and therefore fitness like injury or death. Its a bit hard to perform when your taking the big dirt nap. LOL
I agree to a point sure everyone should have a general graps of training and nutrition. Then however if you have a desire to be anything but maybe high average your going to have to choose. Things will suffer to be the best you can at other things.But I think the point, at least in general, still stands. Don't be afraid to try new things. There is a lot of benefit to be gained in a short amount of time just by trying.
You must specialize and realize to be the best at one thing other things must suffer and realize pushing any sport or endeavor to the limit does NOT mean health. They do NOT go hand in hand anything in excess, the amounts required to be the best, or best you have the ability to be, will detract from other things.
So yes fitness is 100% context dependent.
Posting Permissions