Fitness Is Relative
March 11th, 2010Fitness means many things to many people. Unfortunately, when most people say they are healthy, they really mean that at that particular moment they are free of any known illness, do not have symptoms, and have a feeling of well-being at rest. Absence of disease is a negative definition of health and fitness.
Adequate fitness allows the individual to perform his daily chores without interference by fatigue, to have sufficient physical reserve to meet unexpected emergencies safely, and to have enough extra energy to enjoy leisure time. It is positive in its implications and thus can be attained and maintained only by activity, not by rest.
While fitness is easily defined, it is difficult to measure, particularly after college years. If one strives toward being fit, it is only fair that one should be able to assess how far along the road to fitness he has travelled. He should be able to say, “I am fit” or “I am not fit” or “I am getting there.”
However, the human economy, being in a constant state of internal and therefore fairly invisible flux, is not amenable to the measurements available to evaluate, for example, the federal economy. There is no convenient metric or decimal appraisal of fitness, no series of figures which can be fed into an adding machine with a slip of paper stating, “You are 86 percent in shape” or, worse, “You are 2 percent fit.”
Many excellent tests have been devised to set up standards of fitness for specially designated groups. At the service academies, for example, officer candidates must perform an irreducible number of push-ups, pull-ups, sit-ups, dips, rope climbs or shuttle runs (these vary from year to year) if they are to pass the physical fitness requirements of these academies. Likewise, most school systems have adopted a variety of fitness measurement programs in an attempt to bring all students up to an at least acceptable lower limit. Read the rest of this entry »