Most effective form of non-surgical gender-reassignment available for men

That's a point I didn't make.
I'm also a proponent of anaerobic training, I do it far more that I run. Being able to bang out a slack handful of miles at a decent pace is a basic human function IMHO.
I know it's not fashionable at the moment but I stand by my comment that endurance and ultra endurance athletes are the fitter (in the physiological sense) than any crossfit follower.
Please also note that I said "running", not "jogging"

I think you are not quite correct with your last statement about Crossfit/Multi-sport type trainees and endurance and ultra-endurance athletes or trainees.

In the end I think it all boils down to what your individual physiological needs and goals are - to not consider a professional MMA fighter as fit as, say, Scott Jurek is not quite correct, I think. They just use different pathways for their individual needs.

Generalised statements are exactly what makes the original article by Staley somewhat stale-ish - but that was his point, stir the pot, rub salt into a wound - or make people think logically about exercise.

Even the jogging proponent who created the jogging craze apaprently was part of later studies that showed that LSD only was detrimental to health, according to Dan John.

And Tabata's findings were actually quite revolutionary. But if you want to be an endurance athlete, and run ultramarathons, you have to log the miles into your legs. Only focusing on interval training may not work out in the end.

Check scienceofrunning.com for some additional info and data.

Anyways, I want to compete in a half marathon, and I need to run longer runs to accomodate/teach my legs the distance, interval training can make me faster, but I still need parts of the distance.

Weight training is complementary to the energy pathways and the creation of tension necessary for running with a strong core.

You misunderstand me. I was not referring to sport specific fitness. I was referring to physiological fitness. Of course a runner is going to be better at running and a crossfitter better at….erm….crossfit. Fitness is still measured the same way.
I'm still standing by my comment that an ultra athlete will be fitter in the medical/physiological sense than mr Xfit.

You misunderstand me. I was not referring to sport specific fitness. I was referring to physiological fitness. Of course a runner is going to be better at running and a crossfitter better at….erm….crossfit. Fitness is still measured the same way.
I'm still standing by my comment that an ultra athlete will be fitter in the medical/physiological sense than mr Xfit.

The only way you are measuring fitness is running a long way. How's their vertical leap. That's what I want to know.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

That's a point I didn't make.
I'm also a proponent of anaerobic training, I do it far more that I run. Being able to bang out a slack handful of miles at a decent pace is a basic human function IMHO.
I know it's not fashionable at the moment but I stand by my comment that endurance and ultra endurance athletes are the fitter (in the physiological sense) than any crossfit follower.
Please also note that I said "running", not "jogging"

I think we're in agreement. Can you define 'fitter' in this context? It seems like you mean 'can do X thing in Y way for Z duration'. Maybe I'm stuck in the Crossfit definition that fitness is about versatility, or 'improved work capacity over broad time and modal domains', which is a really broad and inclusive definition. I'm not sure the ultra endurance athlete would be able to successfully do a lot of stuff outside of the one thing they're really really good at.

Ultimately this is all dependent on how you define fitness.

The only way you are measuring fitness is running a long way

No I'm not. I have stated clearly that I am not referring to sports specific fitness. Please read again and then comment.
I shall say again PHYSIOLOGICAL fitness; and yes, I equate true fitness to cardiovascular fitness.

Cardiovascular fitness is the ability of the heart and lungs to supply oxygen-rich blood to the working muscle tissues and the ability of the muscles to use oxygen to produce energy for movement.

Cardiovascular fitness is generally measured in VO2 max.
Pro road cyclists have VO2 max around 90ml/kg/min, Seb Coe's was 82ml/kg/min XC skiers are 85-90ml/kg/min. A quick google suggests Fronings' is 46ml/kg/min
That's exactly what I mean.
I'm not saying any of these athlete types are better than another, and indeed Froning will be the most verstaile by a long way. But he's not the fittest (in the truest sense of the word).

VO2 max is certainly a solid way to evaluate fitness.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

No I'm not. I have stated clearly that I am not referring to sports specific fitness. Please read again and then comment.
I shall say again PHYSIOLOGICAL fitness; and yes, I equate true fitness to cardiovascular fitness.

Cardiovascular fitness is generally measured in VO2 max.
Pro road cyclists have VO2 max around 90ml/kg/min, Seb Coe's was 82ml/kg/min XC skiers are 85-90ml/kg/min. A quick google suggests Fronings' is 46ml/kg/min
That's exactly what I mean.
I'm not saying any of these athlete types are better than another, and indeed Froning will be the most verstaile by a long way. But he's not the fittest (in the truest sense of the word).

i'll give you a definite "sorry this is wrong" on this one. the reason being is that you're measuring physiological fitness by only one factor - cardiovascular fitness. so while i do agree with you that CV fitness is important, it is not the only measureable component. the sceintifically accepted definition of what fitness is includes 5 health and 6 skill realted components.

the other issue here is that you're saying physiological fitness which i assume to mean the health related components. however in the sense you're using it it is a bit of a misnomer as physiological can include the skill related definitions as well. if we look at a definition of physiology it is the branch of biology dealing with the functions and activities of living organisms and their parts, including all physical and chemical processes. what you're specifically referring to is actually biological fitness - ie VO2 max

the 5 accepted health related components of fitness are:

1.muscular strength
2.muscular endurance
3.cardiovascular endurance
4.body composition
5.flexibility

so in that context, extreme endurance athletes are not the fittest individuals.

Again this presumes that fitness is defined solely by V02 max. This suggest that a person who scores a zero on all those other important physical capacities (like power, speed, flexibility, agility, etc) or other health markers (like bone density or disease resistance) but has a high V02 max would be considered fit?

*edit: syncro beat me to it

HA!

i'll give you a definite "sorry this is wrong" on this one. the reason being is that you're measuring physiological fitness by only one factor - cardiovascular fitness. so while i do agree with you that CV fitness is important, it is not the only measureable component. the sceintifically accepted definition of what fitness is includes 5 health and 6 skill realted components.

the other issue here is that you're saying physiological fitness which i assume to mean the health related components. however in the sense you're using it it is a bit of a misnomer as physiological can include the skill related definitions as well. if we look at a definition of physiology it is the branch of biology dealing with the functions and activities of living organisms and their parts, including all physical and chemical processes. what you're specifically referring to is actually biological fitness - ie VO2 max

the 5 accepted health related components of fitness are:

1.muscular strength
2.muscular endurance
3.cardiovascular endurance
4.body composition
5.flexibility

so in that context, extreme endurance athletes are not the fittest individuals.

That's not really correct though is it? And who are they accepted by?
strength? composition? (this one especially is complete crap) flexibility?. How could you correctly weight a score for all of those to find out who is the fittest? How do you measure flexibility? You couldn't. It's impossible. There is no way someone could be fitter than an ultra athlete because they have a better bench. It's a total nonsense.
And, I'm not even a dog in this race. I'm far from an endurance athlete; I'm a rugby player.

That's not really correct though is it? And who are they accepted by?
strength? composition? (this one especially is complete crap) flexibility?. How could you correctly weight a score for all of those to find out who is the fittest? How do you measure flexibility? You couldn't. It's impossible. There is no way someone could be fitter than an ultra athlete because they have a better bench. It's a total nonsense.
And, I'm not even a dog in this race. I'm far from an endurance athlete; I'm a rugby player.

The Crossfit definition of fitness is pretty comprehensive and includes a few dimensions that syncro's reply missed:

1. Cardiovascular/respiratory endurance - The ability of body systems to gather, process, and deliver oxygen.
2. Stamina - The ability of body systems to process, deliver, store, and utilize energy.
3. Strength - The ability of a muscular unit, or combination of muscular units, to apply force.
4. Flexibility - the ability to maximize the range of motion at a given joint.
5. Power - The ability of a muscular unit, or combination of muscular units, to apply maximum force in minimum time.
6. Speed - The ability to minimize the time cycle of a repeated movement.
7. Coordination - The ability to combine several distinct movement patterns into a singular distinct movement.
8. Agility - The ability to minimize transition time from one movement pattern to another.
9. Balance - The ability to control the placement of the bodies center of gravity in relation to its support base.
10. Accuracy - The ability to control movement in a given direction or at a given intensity.

It's not that flexibility or agility is measurable. But we can agree that between two athletes who are perfectly identical, the one who is more flexible and agile is fitter.

The point is not necessarily that each domain is measurable. It's that the overall resulting physical capacity under a wide range of conditions is superior, which is testable any number of ways.

That's not really correct though is it? And who are they accepted by?
strength? composition? (this one especially is complete crap) flexibility?. How could you correctly weight a score for all of those to find out who is the fittest? How do you measure flexibility? You couldn't. It's impossible. There is no way someone could be fitter than an ultra athlete because they have a better bench. It's a total nonsense.
And, I'm not even a dog in this race. I'm far from an endurance athlete; I'm a rugby player.

yes it is correct, it's accepted by the sceintific community. it's accepted by every university phys ed, human kinetics or kinesiology progam around the world and accepted in probablty every 1st year text used in teaching on the subject. there are clearly definied tests for measuring flexibility. it's not nonsense it's fact.

go hunt around on google for a bit, the information is out there and there is plenty of it.

The Crossfit definition of fitness is pretty comprehensive and includes a few dimensions that syncro's reply missed

the crossfit definition has been adapted from the accepted 5 health and 6 skill related components of fitness i referred to earlier.

5 health:

1.muscular strength
2.muscular endurance
3.cardiovascular endurance
4.body composition
5.flexibility

6 skill:

1. agility
2. balance
3. coordination
4. power
5. speed
6. reaction time

all of these components have definite measureable paramaters.

hahaha crossfit definitions!!

No I'm not. I have stated clearly that I am not referring to sports specific fitness. Please read again and then comment.
I shall say again PHYSIOLOGICAL fitness; and yes, I equate true fitness to cardiovascular fitness.

Cardiovascular fitness is generally measured in VO2 max.
Pro road cyclists have VO2 max around 90ml/kg/min, Seb Coe's was 82ml/kg/min XC skiers are 85-90ml/kg/min. A quick google suggests Fronings' is 46ml/kg/min
That's exactly what I mean.
I'm not saying any of these athlete types are better than another, and indeed Froning will be the most verstaile by a long way. But he's not the fittest (in the truest sense of the word).

I once had the Chance to talk to the members of the swedish xc skier national Team in the Valadalen area of middle Sweden while they were in their summer camp getting ready for the Long road ahead. I do not remember any names, I talked for quite some time to one of the male members while the rest was just resting after a gruelling uphill run with "nordic Walking" poles/sticks.

Both male and female athletes were wearing tight clothes, were seriously lean, had quite some mass in comparison to most ultrarunners I have seen, were able to kick ass in the weightroom and on the road, were road Biking, mountain Biking and the like in the "off" season - and had some serious skills.

And they were way fitter than any Marathon runner I have encountered.