What’s your definition of physical fitness?
“The physical ability to perform everyday tasks with ease.”
Does that mean that my everyday tasks and the guy do the road’s tasks are the same? No. Neither is our fitness. My fitness needs to allow me to train in my sport and still have enough energy at the end of the day to teach 4-5 Tae kwon do classes. The guy down the street needs to get through the stress of the workday, come home chase the kids around and still be able to cut the grass after dinner. If I start having trouble getting through evening classes I need to look at my fitness, this has happened, a change in diet helped. Guy down the road gets out of breath cutting the grass, he thinks maybe he should take up jogging again, or at least quit smoking. Basically they are the same just a matter of degree or intensity. I love it when people comment on how great a shape I am in, because by their standards this is true. But by my standards, or the standards of 90% of this board I need to get some work done. Gotta go the yoga mat awaits.
OK, let me re-phrase: Do you consider someone like Paul Tergat to be fit? How about an offensive lineman in the NFL? Sumo wrestler? IMH winner?
I think Jim’s point is that it all depends on what you want to do with your life. Fit for a world class marathon runner is different than fit for a NFL lineman, or sumo wrestler. I guess if you can still move your thumb, you are fit for a couch potato. It’s like choosing the ‘best’ athlete, it depends on your definition.
Physical Fitness- fis-ic-al fit-nes - 1. the stae being at one peak performance in a given event. 2. Any given Gopher. 3. Not your average American. (Also see “Get-off-yer-ass-n-work”)
So if I only care about playing video games, I’m fit as long as I can manage to manipulate the controls on my X-Box?
Unfortunately yes. Of course everyone else who has slightly higher expectations, will think you are a fat slob. 
You guys better stop calling me a fat slob before my self-esteem gets bruised and I sue your pants off.
I think that general fitness has to include a healthy balance of cardiovascular and muscular endurance, strength, and flexibility. I don’t think it should be confined to “the ability to perform the tasks you choose to do.” Just because some couch potato is happy getting weak and flabby in front of the boob tube doesn’t mean he’s fit.
Personally, I wouldn’t call Paul Tergat fit, and I don’t consider a world-class sumo wrestler to be fit. I think they’re both superbly adapted to the demands of their chosen sport, but they’ve sacrificed a certain degree of general fitness in order to excel in a specific area.
Yep. That’s exactly where I’m heading with this.
It looks like you are linking some level of health to your definition of fitness, where being fit for a particular activity may actually be unhealthy, but then again you fall into the trap of what is considered healthy.
You seem to want fit to be the definition of the physical ideal, the balance between size, strength, aerobic capacity, and flexibility. While a general ideal might be possible, some would consider it a compromise between the many ideals for different activities or lifestyles.
While a general ideal might be possible, some would consider it a compromise between the many ideals for different activities or lifestyles.
Yeah, that’s certainly true. But I question the extremes to which some people take it. While I think it’s entirely reasonable for Paul Tergat to trade away 97% of his upper body strength in order to perform at the level he does, I don’t think it’s reasonable for a typical age grouper to do the same. (I know, most don’t, and everyone makes their own judgement on where to draw the line.)
I’ve also noticed that a lot of endurance athletes look down on other types of athletes (say, power lifters) as not being “fit,” which is a little like the pot calling the kettle black, IMO.
Matt, your logic makes me nervous.
**While a general ideal might be possible, some would consider it a compromise between the many ideals for different activities or lifestyles. **
Axiom #3 of power yoga: “Sports do not get us in shape. In fact, sports get us out of shape.”
This refers to the fact that all sports are by nature specific. We train to swim, bike, and run. We do not train to hit a baseball, or throw a javelin. Therfore we are training some parts of our bodies more than others. This can lead to muscular imbalance and possibly to injury. The theory is if you train all your muscle groups equally, you will have less injury, because opposing muscle groups will be strong enough to prevent one muscle from overwhelming the joint connective tissues and so on. I don’t buy this one hundered percent but there is evidence that you are better off physically with something like functional training excercises than weight lifting. You won’t get the Arny biceps doing this but you would be more fit.
From Merriam-Webster:
Main Entry: fit·ness 
Pronunciation: 'fit-n&s
Function: noun
1 : the quality or state of being fit
2 : the capacity of an organism to survive and transmit its genotype to reproductive offspring as compared to competing organisms; also : the contribution of an allele or genotype to the gene pool of subsequent generations as compared to that of other alleles or genotypes
Unfortunately (or fortunately) the thinking power (brain) of man has made him somewhat immune to this traditional definition. You can have a fat slob with wife, 4 kids and 10 grandkids or a top 10% triathlete who ends up a (willing or unwilling) loner because of lower social time or skills. Who is more fit?
At some primitive level, its still all about immortality or continuing your line (having kids). Being more attractive and able physically still does help, but as I said - the brain complicates all this.
Your question should be “Define physical fitness for XXXX activity.” Then the answer is easy.