general fitness (a state of health and well-being)
specific fitness (a task-oriented definition based on the ability to perform specific aspects of sports or occupations).
There is an obvious between these 2 categories – a person has to be generally fit before they can become specifically fit. This is the abstract concept of fitness, but it does not give us any idea of what a fit person looks like or what he or she might be able to do. To move from the abstract to the concrete definition of fitness we need to examine the key elements of fitness:
Cardiovascular Fitness
Muscular Strength
Muscular Endurance
Flexibility
There are various ways to test or evaluate a person’s fitness level based on these categories – 1 mile walk/run tests, aerobic step tests, push-up or sit-up tests, range of motion tests, body fat calculations, body mass index, etc. Then based on the “average” results of each age group we could assign every person a fitness level. If someone wants to improve their fitness level, they need a good exercise program that addresses and improves all of these elements.
Now that we have an idea of what fitness means, the next question is what activity does one choose to become [more] fit? There are so many modes or types of exercise to choose from – swimming, cycling, running, weight training, core training, yoga, martial arts, dancing, the list goes on and on and on.
Once we select a mode of exercise, then we have to determine how to quantify the actual workout sessions:
Intensity – How hard do I work?
Duration – How long do I exercise for?
Volume – How many sets and repetitions/workout?
Load – How much resistance (if any) is needed?
At this point in the discussion, it is obvious that understanding and developing fitness is more complicated than most people realize! You would never have guessed it if you looked up the word “fitness” in the dictionary. Websters online dictionary defines fitness as “the quality or state of being fit.” That seems simple . . . However, the words “quality” and “state” are quite different terms to use in a single definition. If someone has the “quality” of being fit it almost implies that it is part of who they are, and not the result of what they do. On the contrary – the phrase “state of being” suggests that we have to actively do something to be fit.
I think all this information is important, but in my opinion, we need a new definition of fitness that is less academic and more functional. When we separate fintess into categories and elements we get a piecemeal appraoch to exercise programming which is time-consuming and dull. In my next post – Fitness Defined Part 2 – I will propose a new definition for fitness and explain why it might help more people understand and develop their own fitness level.
This entry was posted on June 17, 2009, 9:30 pm and is filed under General Comments. You can follow any responses to this entry through RSS 2.0.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Fitness – Defined
Wikipedia defines fitness in two categories:
There is an obvious between these 2 categories – a person has to be generally fit before they can become specifically fit. This is the abstract concept of fitness, but it does not give us any idea of what a fit person looks like or what he or she might be able to do. To move from the abstract to the concrete definition of fitness we need to examine the key elements of fitness:
There are various ways to test or evaluate a person’s fitness level based on these categories – 1 mile walk/run tests, aerobic step tests, push-up or sit-up tests, range of motion tests, body fat calculations, body mass index, etc. Then based on the “average” results of each age group we could assign every person a fitness level. If someone wants to improve their fitness level, they need a good exercise program that addresses and improves all of these elements.
Now that we have an idea of what fitness means, the next question is what activity does one choose to become [more] fit? There are so many modes or types of exercise to choose from – swimming, cycling, running, weight training, core training, yoga, martial arts, dancing, the list goes on and on and on.
Once we select a mode of exercise, then we have to determine how to quantify the actual workout sessions:
At this point in the discussion, it is obvious that understanding and developing fitness is more complicated than most people realize! You would never have guessed it if you looked up the word “fitness” in the dictionary. Websters online dictionary defines fitness as “the quality or state of being fit.” That seems simple . . . However, the words “quality” and “state” are quite different terms to use in a single definition. If someone has the “quality” of being fit it almost implies that it is part of who they are, and not the result of what they do. On the contrary – the phrase “state of being” suggests that we have to actively do something to be fit.
I think all this information is important, but in my opinion, we need a new definition of fitness that is less academic and more functional. When we separate fintess into categories and elements we get a piecemeal appraoch to exercise programming which is time-consuming and dull. In my next post – Fitness Defined Part 2 – I will propose a new definition for fitness and explain why it might help more people understand and develop their own fitness level.
This entry was posted on June 17, 2009, 9:30 pm and is filed under General Comments. You can follow any responses to this entry through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.