Who Thinks Healthy Weight Is Related To Fitness Level?

[bcalvanese]

I spent the last year and a half improving my fitness level. When I first started I could barely walk a mile at a slow pace without having to lay down for an hour and feeling like I was going to die. So far I have lost over 50 lbs. I never really changed my diet aside from learning how to eat a little smarter and ballparking my calories.

Currently, I can power walk at a 4.0 to 4.5 mph pace for about 10 miles, and am starting to add periods of jogging into my walks because I am having a hard time getting my heart rate up just by walking. I have also reduced my resting heart rate from the 80's to the 60's over this time.

I average 5 to 10 miles of power walking every single day. I walk at local parks very fequently and notice many other people walking/jogging/running. I notice many people of all ages and fitness levels, and the ones that are fit do not look over weight at all. The ones that are struggling a little look slightly over weight, and the ones who are struggling a lot look overweight or even obese.

When I notice these things it brings me back to myself when I first started out and how I must have looked to other people who saw me struggling, and I always give them the thumbs up as I go by.

This makes me think that a healthy body weight is directly related to a good fitness level.

It is true that you can lose weight by dieting alone, but you will be dieting for the rest of your life.

It is true that you exercise your butt off, eat like a glutton, and not lose weight.

I believe that if you can get to a "GOOD" fitness level and not eat like a glutton, a healthy body weight will happen all by itself.

When I say a "GOOD" fitness level, I mean you should be able to jog/run 2 miles, be able to do at least 50 push-ups, do at least 50 sit-ups, and do at least 5 chin-ups. I am just ballparking these numbers from back when I was in the Army.

I consider my fitness level to be "FAIR" currently, but I am working to get into the "GOOD" range.

I am ceratain that a lot of people will disagree, and this is just my opinion, but I would like to hear other peoples opinions as well.

[WendyB]

Seriously?

When I say a "GOOD" fitness level, I mean you should be able to jog/run 2 miles, be able to do at least 50 push-ups, do at least 50 sit-ups, and do at least 5 chin-ups. I am just ballparking these numbers from back when I was in the Army.

Im 65 and there is no way Im going to do 50 push-ups, do at least 50 sit-ups, and do at least 5 chin-ups <-- This does not make me fit

I walk 4 miles every day. I do the the other but I dont push my self to do 50

[Dominique]

I agree with @WendyB that your criteria for fitness look more like requirements for firemen or joining the army. The general population can be reasonably fit and healthy without meeting these. 

[bcalvanese]

---

@WendyB wrote:

Seriously?

When I say a "GOOD" fitness level, I mean you should be able to jog/run 2 miles, be able to do at least 50 push-ups, do at least 50 sit-ups, and do at least 5 chin-ups. I am just ballparking these numbers from back when I was in the Army.

Im 65 and there is no way Im going to do 50 push-ups, do at least 50 sit-ups, and do at least 5 chin-ups <-- This does not make me fit

I walk 4 miles every day. I do the the other but I dont push my self to do 50

---

I'm sorry. I forgot about the gender/age factor.

Maybe it should go by something similar to the military standards.

My main point is that people who are at a good fitness level don't seem to have an issue with their weight.

Back when I was in the army I never had to worry about my weight, and now that I am working towards a good fitness level, I worry less and less about my weight. I'll be 59 this month, and I think it is within my grasp to be able to do 50 push-ups, 50 sit-ups, 5 chin-ups, and run 2 miles.

[bcalvanese]

---

@Dominique wrote:

I agree with @WendyB that your criteria for fitness look more like requirements for firemen or joining the army. The general population can be reasonably fit and healthy without meeting these. 

---

It is basically based on what I remember from back in my Army days, and I did forget to mention the gender/age thing.

Back when I was in the Army, the only people I ever saw that had weight issues are the same people who had trouble with their PT test (fitness level).

I have noticed pretty much the same thing observig other people over the past year and a half, so I have to think there is something to this.

Many people struggle with dieting, and people have different interpretation of what a good fitness level is, and many people discount exercise as having very little to do with a healthy body weight.

In general, I don't think people push themselves hard enough because they think it's easier to diet, but it's a known fact that most diets fail in the long run. I think suffering through "even a couple years" to get to a good fitness level well out weighs a whole life time of being on the diet roller coaster.

And this is just my opinion.

[FitBeforeFifty]

The Mayo clinic defines fitness this way:

"Generally, fitness is assessed in four key areas, including aerobic fitness, muscular strength and endurance, flexibility, and body composition."

According to the American College of Sports Medicine:

"A physical fitness assessment includes measures of body composition, cardiorespiratory endurance, muscular fitness, and musculoskeletal flexibility"

@bcalvanese is correct to add in muscular fitness as a component of a fitness assessment. While someone can certainly be healthy with just walking alone, I don't think walking is a stand alone criteria for fitness.

[USAF-Larry]

---

@FitBeforeFifty wrote:

@bcalvanese is correct to add in muscular fitness as a component of a fitness assessment. While someone can certainly be healthy with just walking alone, I don't think walking is a stand alone criteria for fitness.

---

Whether or not "walking is a stand alone criteria for fitness" depends on the individual. There was a time when I couldn't walk, and had to use a wheelchair. The doctor said I would probably never walk again. But, through dedicated physical therapy, I gradually moved to a walker, and then a cane. The doctor was wrong, I could walk again!

But, walking is my primary means of exercise, and both the doctor and I am very happy with it. When you have 3 crushed vertebrae with reconstructive surgery implanting plates in the spine, push-ups, sit-ups, squats, and chin-ups are not options. But, walking is. For me, walking is a stand alone criteria for fitness. And, since it has gotten me into my 70's with excellent health, I am happy with that criteria.

[JohnRi]

There are so many interpretations of fit.  I can say with certainity that I'm currently in top 10% of my personal fitness level.  At 23, I could play raquetball for 3 hours, 4-5 times a week.  But, I was heavier then, at least 10 lbs, and I had a different muscle structure than I have today.  I'm sure I would be able to beat my 23 year self in some things, like bench pressing.  But the 23 year of me would be quicker, and probably have a longer endurance than I have today.  Although I doubt 23 year old me could walk 6 miles at 4 MPH.  I'm sure 23 year old me would kick my butt at raquetball, assuming my skill was good as his was. I'm just not as quick as I was then. 

I see people every day running that are far heavier than I am.  They can run 6 miles, no issues.  I can't run for more than 30 seconds. 

There are people in this world that are FIT, yet they are overfat.  Weight, fat%, muscle strength, endurance, cardio strength.  All of these are factors in defining fitness level. 

I have never been able to do a pull up.   Not one.  With my current fitness training, I suspect that I will be able to do one soon.  I might be able to do one now for all I know.  I haven't tried. 

I consider myself pretty fit for a fat guy.  But I've got a long way to go to I consider myself "Fit".

I'll admit my long term goal is to get into what I consider althetic range.  Body fat under 14%, with a good muscle structure, strength, and endurance.  I want to get to the point, I can do almost anything regarding exercise.  Will I get there?  No idea.  But's it's my goal.  From flabby couch potato to athlete.  That's my goal...

[FitBeforeFifty]

---

@bcalvanese wrote:

...

My main point is that people who are at a good fitness level don't seem to have an issue with their weight.

...

---

If you apply the definition of fitness I posted which includes body composition, by definition you can't be fit and over fat. There are people that are over fat and might assess well in the other areas but would still not be considered fit.

But, I'm getting tediously technical with the definition ... I get your point and I completely agree.

I think this is similar to the rich get richer ... the fit get fitter. 

I do things now that I couldn't possibly have done when I was overweight and out of shape. In fact, I do things now that I couldn't do when I was 20 years old. On Thursdays I go for a run and/or lift weights in the morning and then play sand volleyball for 2.5 hours in the afternoon heat with people 1/2 my age. On Saturday mornings I get up early and go for a 10 mile run. On Sundays I will lift weights for 1 - 1.5 hours and immediately go for a run between 3 and 6 miles for a combined 2.5 hour workout. On the other days I'm not at those extremes but still manage a 5 or 6 mile run or a 1 hour lifting session. That kind of activity level burns a lot of calories and I couldn't do it at 50 years of age without being in excellent shape. I didn't start there, however. In 2011 I was nearly obese and completely out of shape. I eat more now than I ate back then, so my activity level is the key for me maintaining my goal weight for 4 years now. The key to maintaining that activity level is being fit -- it's sort of a circular dependency but once you've entered the loop it's easier to maintain a healthy body composition.

[bcalvanese]

---

@FitBeforeFifty wrote:

The Mayo clinic defines fitness this way:

"Generally, fitness is assessed in four key areas, including aerobic fitness, muscular strength and endurance, flexibility, and body composition."

According to the American College of Sports Medicine:

"A physical fitness assessment includes measures of body composition, cardiorespiratory endurance, muscular fitness, and musculoskeletal flexibility"

@bcalvanese is correct to add in muscular fitness as a component of a fitness assessment. While someone can certainly be healthy with just walking alone, I don't think walking is a stand alone criteria for fitness.

---

The Army is pretty much the same.

Cardio endurance, muscular strength/endurance, flexability, and lean body mass.

When I was in the Army (and in my early 30's) I could do 70 push-ups in 2 minutes, 70 sit-ups in 2 minutes, and run 2 miles in 14 minutes.

I could eat anything I wanted and never had to even think about body weight.

I'm going to be 59 this month, and I think if I work hard at it, I may be able to come close to (or even match) that even at my age.

[bcalvanese]

---

@FitBeforeFifty wrote:

---

@bcalvanese wrote:

...

My main point is that people who are at a good fitness level don't seem to have an issue with their weight.

...

---

If you apply the definition of fitness I posted which includes body composition, by definition you can't be fit and over fat. There are people that are over fat and might assess well in the other areas but would still not be considered fit.

But, I'm getting tediously technical with the definition ... I get your point and I completely agree.

I think this is similar to the rich get richer ... the fit get fitter. 

I do things now that I couldn't possibly have done when I was overweight and out of shape. In fact, I do things now that I couldn't do when I was 20 years old. On Thursdays I go for a run and/or lift weights in the morning and then play sand volleyball for 2.5 hours in the afternoon heat with people 1/2 my age. On Saturday mornings I get up early and go for a 10 mile run. On Sundays I will lift weights for 1 - 1.5 hours and immediately go for a run between 3 and 6 miles for a combined 2.5 hour workout. On the other days I'm not at those extremes but still manage a 5 or 6 mile run or a 1 hour lifting session. That kind of activity level burns a lot of calories and I couldn't do it at 50 years of age without being in excellent shape. I didn't start there, however. In 2011 I was nearly obese and completely out of shape. I eat more now than I ate back then, so my activity level is the key for me maintaining my goal weight for 4 years now. The key to maintaining that activity level is being fit -- it's sort of a circular dependency but once you've entered the loop it's easier to maintain a healthy body composition.

---

Sounds like you have an exremely high fitness level and at 50 you should be proud of that.

I am taking it slow and steady. A little over a year ago I was obese (close to 230 lbs.), and so out of shape I could barely walk a mile at a slow pace without having to lay down for an hour. I kept doing it 2 to 3 times a day until I could actaully get a training effect. Once I started getting a training effect, I started feeling the difference and kept pushing myself. Now I can power walk at over a 4 mph pace for about 10 miles.

I started mixing jogging in with the walks because I have trouble getting my heart rate up just by walking. I started with 1 minute of jogging and 2 minutes of power walking for about 3 miles. Today (for the first time) I did a half mile of jogging and a half mile of power walking for 5 miles.

The CDC recomends 150 minutes per week of exercise to maintain a good fitness level. my approach has been doubling that to get to a good fitness level and then maintaining it. So far I more than double it every week.

I want to be able to do at least 50 push-ups, 50 sit-ups, and jog 3 miles. I think at 59 thats a pretty good fitness level, and I shouldn't have to worry about body weight at that point. But then again, I really don't have to track my weight all that much as it is now.

[WendyB]

I consider myself pretty fit. I walk I do weights at least 4 times a week and I do other thinks as well.

I do Push ups and all you listed but I don't do 50 and stick to the same 3. Varitey is the key. I do many weight routines

Best of luck to you

[bcalvanese]

---

@WendyB wrote:

Excuse me I'm  now Gender specific?

I consider myself pretty fit. I walk I do weights at least 4 times a week and I do other thinks as well.

I do Push ups and all you listed but I don't do 50 and stick to the same 3. Varitey is the key. I do many weight routines

Best of luck to you

---

No. You're not gender specific, but the Army fitness score is. There are 2 charts (woman/men), and the number of pushups/situps & run times are based on age ranges.

http://usarmybasic.com/army-physical-fitness/apft-standards#.V6Muw4-cGM8

I'm not trying to insult anyone, and this is just my opinion based on my experience and observation of others in general.

I think it's great to see people out there walking/jogging/biking no matter what fitness level.

[Dominique]

---

@bcalvanese wrote:

---

I really don't have to track my weight all that much as it is now.

---

OTOH, tracking my weight takes me 15 seconds everyday: step on my Aria first thing in the morning, data gets automatically uploaded to my Fitbit account and passed on to Trendweight. Why wouldn’t I do it? Should I wait until I can no longer fit in my jeans as a signal to do something about my weight? One can be fit and still overeat. Tracking your weight is a good way to make sure things do not get out of control.

[GershonSurge]

@bcalvanese

You have great observational skills. I agree the ability to maintain a healthy body weight is related to the amount of exercise a person does. I'd make the definition of exercise broader. I've noticed I feel my best when I'm burning at least twice my resting metabolic rate (RMR) in calories a day regardless of the activity. Using a general rule allows people to get exercise in many ways.

As I understand it, the word fitness means the physical ability to do necessary tasks. In the Army, it was the ability to be fit to go to war in the infantry. They use a fitness tests to evaluate three arbitary exercises and running. This narrow focus allows a soldier to pass the test while being unfit for duty. Still, the standards for this test are high for all age groups. I'd prefer a test that evaluated all major muscle groups plus cardio.

For myself, about six weeks ago, I started resistance training. I go to Planet Fitness every morning and cycle through three routines totaling 35 exercises. Shortly, this will increase to 45 exercises. When I get to 15 exercises a day, it will take 90 minutes to complete them. I'll measure my fitness by my improvement in these exercises.

I'm recovering from a pulled back muscle and a torn achilles tendon, but should be ready to return to running in about a week. I'll follow the resistance workout by 90 minutes of running. Then I'll come home and work around the house for about three hours. 

In my opinion, it's unfair to give a qualitative rating of fitness as compared to others as people have different goals. I'd rather compare myself to my performance a month ago.

Don't confuse fitness with health. It is possible to have a fit body based on outside appearance and be close to a heart attack inside. Fitness comes from exercise. Health comes from diet and the absence of risk factors such as smoking. Fitness can be measured by exercise performance. The big four measurments of health are weight, blood pressure, total cholorestoral, and regular bowel movements. Two or three times a day should be considered normal.

Both fitness and health have been demonstrated to increase lifespan, and more importantly, increase the quality of that lifespan. 

There are other measures such as mental health, etc. 

Overall, at 63 I've found it's possible to feel like I'm 20 inside even though the numbers show I'm not as capable of the same levels of physical activity. However, I can be active for the same amount of time.

[bcalvanese]

---

@GershonSurge wrote:

@bcalvanese

You have great observational skills. I agree the ability to maintain a healthy body weight is related to the amount of exercise a person does. I'd make the definition of exercise broader. I've noticed I feel my best when I'm burning at least twice my resting metabolic rate (RMR) in calories a day regardless of the activity. Using a general rule allows people to get exercise in many ways.

As I understand it, the word fitness means the physical ability to do necessary tasks. In the Army, it was the ability to be fit to go to war in the infantry. They use a fitness tests to evaluate three arbitary exercises and running. This narrow focus allows a soldier to pass the test while being unfit for duty. Still, the standards for this test are high for all age groups. I'd prefer a test that evaluated all major muscle groups plus cardio.

For myself, about six weeks ago, I started resistance training. I go to Planet Fitness every morning and cycle through three routines totaling 35 exercises. Shortly, this will increase to 45 exercises. When I get to 15 exercises a day, it will take 90 minutes to complete them. I'll measure my fitness by my improvement in these exercises.

I'm recovering from a pulled back muscle and a torn achilles tendon, but should be ready to return to running in about a week. I'll follow the resistance workout by 90 minutes of running. Then I'll come home and work around the house for about three hours. 

In my opinion, it's unfair to give a qualitative rating of fitness as compared to others as people have different goals. I'd rather compare myself to my performance a month ago.

Don't confuse fitness with health. It is possible to have a fit body based on outside appearance and be close to a heart attack inside. Fitness comes from exercise. Health comes from diet and the absence of risk factors such as smoking. Fitness can be measured by exercise performance. The big four measurments of health are weight, blood pressure, total cholorestoral, and regular bowel movements. Two or three times a day should be considered normal.

Both fitness and health have been demonstrated to increase lifespan, and more importantly, increase the quality of that lifespan. 

There are other measures such as mental health, etc. 

Overall, at 63 I've found it's possible to feel like I'm 20 inside even though the numbers show I'm not as capable of the same levels of physical activity. However, I can be active for the same amount of time.

---

You make a lot of good points and I agree people should work on total fitness.

I would like to mention that the military "does" focus on this. If you look at pushups, situps, pullups (marines), and running, this does work avery major muscle group and cardio. Also, during PT sessions every morning (at least when I was in the army) they focused on many different types of exercise (not just pushups and situps). I think it is quite smart to work all the major muscle groups using the least number of exercises to save time and still get good results.

I will use kayaking as an example.

If you kayak "fast and hard" for a mile non stop, you can work all the pulling and pushing muscles in your upper body with each stroke. You will also keep your core engaged, and get a cardio. And it is only a single activity that can be done for 30 to 60 minutes.

This is only my personal prefference, but I dont want to have to do a bunch of different exercises to get the same results that I can get with a small handful of exercises.

On the other hand, there is nothing wrong with changing things up here and there and try new things, but overall I just want to get it done in a reasonable amount of time.