New posts

a minimum standard of fitness?

Jan. 13, 2015, 9:23 p.m.
Posts: 3154
Joined: Nov. 23, 2002

well?

what would you define as the minimum level of aerobic and anaerobic fitness people should ascribe to?

a couple of things i didn't initally mention are and individual physical limitations. to be clear, physical limitations are things, genetic/accident/injury/disease related, that would prevent people from being able to participate in physical activities.

age is something that may include physical limitations, but those limitations may have been caused by inactivity over a lifetime. from a purely observational standpoint, i have seen many older adults who are capable of achieving the minimum standards i suggested. one of the reasons i see for this is their consistent particitipation in physical activity over the course of their lifetime. i think it's fair to say though that expectations may decrease as age increases.

We don't know what our limits are, so to start something with the idea of being limited actually ends up limiting us.
Ellen Langer

Jan. 13, 2015, 9:27 p.m.
Posts: 11969
Joined: June 4, 2008

What a strange question, where did you come up with this?

Who can answer this?

Jan. 13, 2015, 9:27 p.m.
Posts: 15758
Joined: May 29, 2004

The ability to walk to the closest store or restaurant instead of driving.

Pastor of Muppets

Jan. 13, 2015, 9:35 p.m.
Posts: 11969
Joined: June 4, 2008

This is my reasoning..

I want to use my consciousness as long as I can
Muscle memory is real
My play time activities and a penchant for walking everywhere provide me with more than enough aerobic exercise

Given the above, keep strength training, progressively do more mobility work as I age and keep having fun and I should l be covered.

I'm loathe to give a hard and fast number on what I should be able to lift and how long I can move for. In my experience people start training for all the wrong reasons.

Jan. 13, 2015, 9:47 p.m.
Posts: 3154
Joined: Nov. 23, 2002

in terms of aerobic performance:

minimum for a 10km run time (level ground) would be 75 minutes.
good performance would be 10km run in under 50 minutes.

minimum for a 2km run time would be 16 minutes
good performance would be under 10 minutes

for bike related:
being able to climb Fromme from the water tower to 7th Secret in 90 minutes
good time would be doing it in under 50 minutes
*on a typical 5/5 am/enduro type bike.

in terms of anaerobic performace:

minimum for squats with 1x bodyweight
good performance would be 1.5x bodyweight or higher

minimum number of chinups would be 5 for men, 2 for women
good number would be 10 or more for men, 5 or more for women

minimum number of pushups would be 10 for men and 4 for women
good number would be 16 or more for men and 8 or more for women

minimum weight for deadlifts would be with 1x bodyweight
good performance would be 1.5x bodyweight or higher

minimum time for a 400m run would be 2 minutes
good time would be under 80 seconds

i've suggested this minimums in light of the health benefits provided as well as the capacity of the human body for vigorous physical work.

We don't know what our limits are, so to start something with the idea of being limited actually ends up limiting us.
Ellen Langer

Jan. 13, 2015, 9:49 p.m.
Posts: 3154
Joined: Nov. 23, 2002

ok, let's keep this on focus.

let's hear your ideas or feel free to question what i've suggested.

We don't know what our limits are, so to start something with the idea of being limited actually ends up limiting us.
Ellen Langer

Jan. 13, 2015, 10:39 p.m.
Posts: 481
Joined: May 8, 2010

i don't know about your fromme example…. i can do water tower to 7th in under 45 min, but i go race cyclocross and get my butthole stomped on in intermediate…..

i know in relative terms (to the general population) i am in decent/good shape. maybe it's hard to tell on a personal level when i look around because there are so many very fit cyclists in vancouver and the S2S region

Jan. 13, 2015, 10:43 p.m.
Posts: 20
Joined: Aug. 20, 2010

Since i am "good" for aerobic by your measures, and not yet at minimum for anaerobic despite working on it for a year now… your measures make sense to me based on my self-assessment and knowing what my limits are (in crossfit workouts).

Jan. 13, 2015, 10:45 p.m.
Posts: 3154
Joined: Nov. 23, 2002

i don't know about your fromme example…. i can do water tower to 7th in under 45 min, but i go race cyclocross and get my butthole stomped on in intermediate…..

i know in relative terms (to the general population) i am in decent/good shape. maybe it's hard to tell on a personal level when i look around because there are so many very fit cyclists in vancouver and the S2S region

well, i said good, not great.

for clarification if we were to put things on a scale of 1-10, good would be about a 6 or 7 and the minimum would be about a 4 or 5.

We don't know what our limits are, so to start something with the idea of being limited actually ends up limiting us.
Ellen Langer

Jan. 13, 2015, 10:46 p.m.
Posts: 3154
Joined: Nov. 23, 2002

Since i am "good" for aerobic by your measures, and not yet at minimum for anaerobic despite working on it for a year now… your measures make sense to me based on my self-assessment and knowing what my limits are (in crossfit workouts).

stop doing crossfit and your anaerobic measures will come up pretty quickly.

seriously, crossfit is not very good at building strength.
if in a year of training you're not at a minimum for anaerobic then one of two things are happening.

1 - your training program is very ineffective
2 - you're not putting in nearly enough effort.

or maybe a combination of the two. this isn't mean as a slam, just an observation based on my 20 years plus of training both myself and others.

f you want, come by my gym, pay the drop-in and sign up for a free program set-up and i'll put together a routine that will have you smash those numbers in a few months.
paln on spending about an hour and a half to get it done.

We don't know what our limits are, so to start something with the idea of being limited actually ends up limiting us.
Ellen Langer

Jan. 14, 2015, 5:33 a.m.
Posts: 15758
Joined: May 29, 2004

Dont delete my posts.I was serious,although a little tongue in cheek or what ever.

People in general should at least be able to perform the most basic of life tasks without using modern conveniences (the car).

It's alarming that some people cannot/will not walk even one km to the store and back.

Pastor of Muppets

Jan. 14, 2015, 6:31 a.m.
Posts: 8242
Joined: Dec. 23, 2003

if i don't like yer post i will delete it …sweet power my precious… i have waited so long..

Jan. 14, 2015, 8:01 a.m.
Posts: 3154
Joined: Nov. 23, 2002

Dont delete my posts.I was serious,although a little tongue in cheek or what ever.

People in general should at least be able to perform the most basic of life tasks without using modern conveniences (the car).

It's alarming that some people cannot/will not walk even one km to the store and back.

i chopped it because one of the ideas of this sub-forum is to be supportive and understanding and a place where people can ask what may be personal questions without fear of getting mocked. there can be a number of different reasons beyond personal lifestyle that lead people to poor physical conditioning that may not be visible on the surface. as such, note the edit this time. same for Reductimat's post as well.

note - i may have been a bit quick with the delte so i've brought them back in an edited form. but in the spirit of the op and the question poised, do you really feel that being able to walk a few block's should be the minimum?

We don't know what our limits are, so to start something with the idea of being limited actually ends up limiting us.
Ellen Langer

Jan. 14, 2015, 8:06 a.m.
Posts: 6449
Joined: Nov. 19, 2002

as much as possible in as many disciplines as possible..

Jan. 14, 2015, 8:36 a.m.
Posts: 712
Joined: Aug. 10, 2010

1 hour at 70%-80% maximum heart rate

Shredding hypothetical gnarr

Forum jump: