I've been thinking a lot about fitness since I started running again. Probably an obvious statement. :) Specifically, about measuring fitness, and if standards can be used to measure fitness.
I'm a Air Force brat and spent a few years in the Army. For me, fitness is measured by a PT test, and that is how you know that you are 'fit'. I wondered then, and I wonder again now, how do these tests measure up to the US (or world) in general. If you pass an army APFT (42 pushups in 2 min, 52 situps in 2min, 2 miles in 15:54, at least when I was in for males 17 - 21), are you fit?
I still plan on shooting to pass the APFT, possibly adding in the Marine Corps requirement for pullups (because I could never do more than a handful of them). I suppose if I run a marathon at any pace, I qualify as fit, but I need to have a standard to measure myself by, I guess.
Anyone else?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Using rough estimations of VO2, that PT run time would suggest average aerobic fitness (50th percentile).
As far as the others go, they're muscle endurance measurements and, yeah, those numbers are alright, but don't tell you much about your "whole body" fitness.
Want a good whole body fitness test? Map out 1.5 miles (6 laps on a standard track). Run it. Then: Divide 483 by your time and add 3.5. This is an estimate of your VO2max.
For a man 30-39, a VO2 max of 43 is average, 48 is pretty good, and over 52 is great!
...or that might seem like a lot of work ... haha.
Thanks. Very good to know. And it meant I went and learned more about VO2max.
Once I can run continuously again, I need to get my heartrate, and might as well check my VO2max while I'm torturing myself. :)
Post a Comment