This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Hello folks,
Having taken an interest in "how fit actually am I getting" this winter, I've been looking at how best to "quantify" fitness - I think it's easy to miss how you improve in fitness over a winter because you're constantly pushing harder anyway, so even when you are getting fitter you don't notice it because you just go harder/faster/longer. Other than doing teh same route/day out time after time, and even then snow/weather conditions would change, it's hard to egt a handle on any improvements. (Note - I'm speaking mainly from a SOLO climbing/mountaineering/biking perspective.)
So today I've been looking at some fitness indicators. Recovery Heart Rate seems to keep cropping up.
Some questions from it though:
Most sites/methods of measurement seem to suggest that, essentially, you measure your HR at conclusion of exercise, wait a minute or two, then measure it again. Higher the difference, better your fitness. However, just wondering whether there is any difference in how LONG you've been at your high end heart rate?
For example, properly going for it on the bike for 5 minutes can get me up to 160BPM quite easily, then 2 minutes rest takes me back to 75BPM fairly happily. However, would this likely be the same if i was to get the HR up high for longer? Would recovery time be the same regardless of duration? One site suggested it can take hours to get back to near normal resting pulse, which seemed a bit mental to me.
Thoughts appreciated, as well as any other "quantifiable" fitness tests folks know of, or am I resigned to joining a gym and setting times/limits/programmes on machines...
But NOT the bleep test. Please god, not the bleep test. Never again. Ever.
Cheers,
Gorodn
In reply to peebles boy:
Having previously come from the uk bike racing scene on both road and mtb there's one rule through all others that I stuck to when I measured my resting pulse. That is that true 'rested' pulse is measure when just woken up. Given that your body rests and recovers through sleep, the most rested time is first thing before your motor system starts to work.
My own thinking is that it will take far longer than a few minutes to come back to a real rested state, more like the few hours the site you saw says. Once you stop pushing things, your body will obviously require less oxygen, but your system will then start to rebuild. So the heart will still be working harder while doing this second function.
Having previously come from the uk bike racing scene on both road and mtb there's one rule through all others that I stuck to when I measured my resting pulse. That is that true 'rested' pulse is measure when just woken up. Given that your body rests and recovers through sleep, the most rested time is first thing before your motor system starts to work.
My own thinking is that it will take far longer than a few minutes to come back to a real rested state, more like the few hours the site you saw says. Once you stop pushing things, your body will obviously require less oxygen, but your system will then start to rebuild. So the heart will still be working harder while doing this second function.
In reply to peebles boy:
I thought it did take a long time, its one of the advantages of exercise that it raises your BMR for hours afterwards, so I always assumed there would be a concomitant increase in heart rate.
I thought it did take a long time, its one of the advantages of exercise that it raises your BMR for hours afterwards, so I always assumed there would be a concomitant increase in heart rate.
In reply to peebles boy:
Depends how deep a hole you dig I suppose. If you run a hard marathon, your heartrate can be above normal for hours or even days as your body gradually gets back to some kind of normality.
160 probably isn't terribly high (though it's personal - might be high for you). If you do something sustained it would get higher and recovery would take longer.
In terms of measuring fitness, I think a benchmark standard route/outing that is not too conditions dependent is a fair approach, but you do need to do it repeatedly, and measure the trend. Individual attempts can give 'off' readings for all sorts of reasons (sleep, food, viruses, conditions, stress etc). You can go for something easy to repeat like a 5km running loop, but ideally you should go for something that's a closer approximation to your 'goal' activity.
Another way is to measure how fast you can move at a given heart rate. ie if you run/hike/cycle at a given low heart rate, then how much progress do you make in a given time. Eg. two hours on a favourite route or flat ground. By holding the exertion fairly constant and measuring output, you are examining your ability to do more without increasing effort. Lots of triathletes and others who 'go long' reckon that a large part of fitness is down to raising your 'easy' performance level.
Depends how deep a hole you dig I suppose. If you run a hard marathon, your heartrate can be above normal for hours or even days as your body gradually gets back to some kind of normality.
160 probably isn't terribly high (though it's personal - might be high for you). If you do something sustained it would get higher and recovery would take longer.
In terms of measuring fitness, I think a benchmark standard route/outing that is not too conditions dependent is a fair approach, but you do need to do it repeatedly, and measure the trend. Individual attempts can give 'off' readings for all sorts of reasons (sleep, food, viruses, conditions, stress etc). You can go for something easy to repeat like a 5km running loop, but ideally you should go for something that's a closer approximation to your 'goal' activity.
Another way is to measure how fast you can move at a given heart rate. ie if you run/hike/cycle at a given low heart rate, then how much progress do you make in a given time. Eg. two hours on a favourite route or flat ground. By holding the exertion fairly constant and measuring output, you are examining your ability to do more without increasing effort. Lots of triathletes and others who 'go long' reckon that a large part of fitness is down to raising your 'easy' performance level.
In reply to peebles boy:
theres something called the harvard step test which measures how fast your heart rate drops after a prescribed amount of exercise.
http://www.brianmac.co.uk/havard.htm
its also good because its repeatable. Even if you dont have a 45cm bench, as long as you step the same height each time you do the test it will still allow you to gauge you progress
theres something called the harvard step test which measures how fast your heart rate drops after a prescribed amount of exercise.
http://www.brianmac.co.uk/havard.htm
its also good because its repeatable. Even if you dont have a 45cm bench, as long as you step the same height each time you do the test it will still allow you to gauge you progress
In reply to hamsforlegs:
yeah you have huge variability.. running is great for picking up early illness.. I almost always know 2-3 days before it happens as my running gets affected.
yeah you have huge variability.. running is great for picking up early illness.. I almost always know 2-3 days before it happens as my running gets affected.
In reply to IainRUK:
I know what you mean; I find that top gear is still there, but even 'medium' feels way too hard.
My climbing warmups are also a clue - if my timing and precision take ages to dial in, the lurgy has landed.
True of all stats and measurements - look for the trend.
I know what you mean; I find that top gear is still there, but even 'medium' feels way too hard.
My climbing warmups are also a clue - if my timing and precision take ages to dial in, the lurgy has landed.
True of all stats and measurements - look for the trend.
In reply to peebles boy:
I would suspect that it doesn't matter how long you're at your max for, the key is to measure it one minute and two minutes when you stop. If you're up at 85% max, you're not going to be able to stay up there long anyway. So as long as it's the same exercise it shouldn't matter.
Maybe a 5k run would be an easy way to repeat.
I'm guessing you would be looking at some kind of exponential curve. Dropping from 85% to 60% after a minute then 50% after another, 45% after another. I've just pulled those figures out of thin air.
I would suspect that it doesn't matter how long you're at your max for, the key is to measure it one minute and two minutes when you stop. If you're up at 85% max, you're not going to be able to stay up there long anyway. So as long as it's the same exercise it shouldn't matter.
Maybe a 5k run would be an easy way to repeat.
I'm guessing you would be looking at some kind of exponential curve. Dropping from 85% to 60% after a minute then 50% after another, 45% after another. I've just pulled those figures out of thin air.
In reply to peebles boy:
You're absolutely right, the duration of exercise as well as its intensity has a big bearing on recovery time. The effect you're talking about is known and fully quantifiable, it's known as EPOC or excess post-exercise oxygen consumption.
Broadly it's a measure of the oxygen debt accumulated during exercise, and can be measured in terms of how far elevated one's O2 uptake is above baseline following exercise, and for how long this excess consumption of O2 remains. Hams and IainR are right: hard exercise results in an increase in basal metabolic rate - EPOC is just a way of quantifying this increase.
There's an introduction to the concept here explaining some of the key phys-hoggery (Brian Mackenzie is a knowledgeable and reputable coach, ignore the silly ads in the webpage):
http://www.brianmac.co.uk/oxdebit.htm
And a study abstract showing that trained athletes tend to recover more effectively than untrained people, following both absolute and relative exercise stress. Unsurprising in itself probably, but interesting in seeing how it ties up the scientific data to reality:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9216958
EPOC can be measured (if you still care by now ) either with pulse rate testing at given intervals, or more reliably with a HRM with the correct software. These aren't cheap mind you, and the data is probably only of interest when someone is training toward a specific event. Here EPOC is massively useful, and can be used in conjunction with heart rate variability (HRV) data to determine how close an individual is to over-training.
Tall Paul is spot on: measure resting pulse after waking for a reliable reading.
You're absolutely right, the duration of exercise as well as its intensity has a big bearing on recovery time. The effect you're talking about is known and fully quantifiable, it's known as EPOC or excess post-exercise oxygen consumption.
Broadly it's a measure of the oxygen debt accumulated during exercise, and can be measured in terms of how far elevated one's O2 uptake is above baseline following exercise, and for how long this excess consumption of O2 remains. Hams and IainR are right: hard exercise results in an increase in basal metabolic rate - EPOC is just a way of quantifying this increase.
There's an introduction to the concept here explaining some of the key phys-hoggery (Brian Mackenzie is a knowledgeable and reputable coach, ignore the silly ads in the webpage):
http://www.brianmac.co.uk/oxdebit.htm
And a study abstract showing that trained athletes tend to recover more effectively than untrained people, following both absolute and relative exercise stress. Unsurprising in itself probably, but interesting in seeing how it ties up the scientific data to reality:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9216958
EPOC can be measured (if you still care by now ) either with pulse rate testing at given intervals, or more reliably with a HRM with the correct software. These aren't cheap mind you, and the data is probably only of interest when someone is training toward a specific event. Here EPOC is massively useful, and can be used in conjunction with heart rate variability (HRV) data to determine how close an individual is to over-training.
Tall Paul is spot on: measure resting pulse after waking for a reliable reading.
In reply to Bimblefast:
Can't we just ignore that though if we're looking for a simple test that's repeatable once a month with the same subject.
We're just going to be looking at the two minutes immediately after hard exercise.
After those two minutes rest, the subject will be starting their warm down, so the HR will probably climb again.
Can't we just ignore that though if we're looking for a simple test that's repeatable once a month with the same subject.
We're just going to be looking at the two minutes immediately after hard exercise.
After those two minutes rest, the subject will be starting their warm down, so the HR will probably climb again.
In reply to DancingOnRock:
In answer you could, but it would only be accurately reflective of adaptation if performed in the same way at the same time after exactly the same session. Further, this session would have to be repeated at the same intensity, in order to demonstrate a lowered heart rate as a marker of physiological improvement. That would mean being able to exactly quantify the session values (split times, power etc.). That's easy when running a known route, or using equipment such as a WattBike or a Concept2 rower, but the OP's not doing that kind of thing, not training in that way.
Aside from that, the only simple test I can think of which meets your requirements is monitoring baseline resting pulse. It's quite a coarse measurement, as it's easily influenced by things such as emotional state, how rested one is, how well hydrated etc. Further, it takes a long time to see significant changes so it's hard to pin down exactly which sessions have had the greatest effect. Even so over a long period it can provide excellent feedback on adaptation.
One can demonstrate improvement in terms of increased output at any given intensity or in terms of decreased stress at any given output. Intensity of physiological stress is most easily measured via HR monitoring either manual or electronic, the latter is preferable as it is more accurate and doesn't require the subject to stop moving!
In answer you could, but it would only be accurately reflective of adaptation if performed in the same way at the same time after exactly the same session. Further, this session would have to be repeated at the same intensity, in order to demonstrate a lowered heart rate as a marker of physiological improvement. That would mean being able to exactly quantify the session values (split times, power etc.). That's easy when running a known route, or using equipment such as a WattBike or a Concept2 rower, but the OP's not doing that kind of thing, not training in that way.
Aside from that, the only simple test I can think of which meets your requirements is monitoring baseline resting pulse. It's quite a coarse measurement, as it's easily influenced by things such as emotional state, how rested one is, how well hydrated etc. Further, it takes a long time to see significant changes so it's hard to pin down exactly which sessions have had the greatest effect. Even so over a long period it can provide excellent feedback on adaptation.
One can demonstrate improvement in terms of increased output at any given intensity or in terms of decreased stress at any given output. Intensity of physiological stress is most easily measured via HR monitoring either manual or electronic, the latter is preferable as it is more accurate and doesn't require the subject to stop moving!
In reply to Bimblefast:
Well his repeatable exercise is " properly going for it on the bike for 5 minutes can get me up to 160BPM quite easily, then 2 minutes rest takes me back to 75BPM fairly happily."
I would say using this, his best solution would be seeing how quickly his HR goes back down to 75BPM, rather than just spot measuring it after 2mins.
When running I usually stop my watch at the end of the exercise and don't monitor my warm down walk, or what happens to my HR during that period.
Maybe that's the bit we should actually be interested in and could probably split the garmin .tcx file later on.
Well his repeatable exercise is " properly going for it on the bike for 5 minutes can get me up to 160BPM quite easily, then 2 minutes rest takes me back to 75BPM fairly happily."
I would say using this, his best solution would be seeing how quickly his HR goes back down to 75BPM, rather than just spot measuring it after 2mins.
When running I usually stop my watch at the end of the exercise and don't monitor my warm down walk, or what happens to my HR during that period.
Maybe that's the bit we should actually be interested in and could probably split the garmin .tcx file later on.
Post edited at 11:56
In reply to DancingOnRock:
If the OP decides to use that as his repeatable exercise, there is more than one variable at play. As his body adapts, 160 bpm will become proportionally 'harder' to achieve i.e. he will have to increase power output to achieve this given HR. As such, while the recovery data will be interesting and may provide a corollary, there are too many variables to establish an accurate, simple test. If you look in the link to the study abstract, that covers some of this ground.
...my personal recommendation for testing baseline fitness would be to disregard HR completely, for what it's worth. Run / row / bike as hard as you can for a given distance or time. These results are absolutely quantifiable, simple to interpret, repeatable and easy to obtain (if a bit uncomfortable, ha). For me, HR data is most useful to prevent overtraining, and to help someone stick to a training plan. Recovery rates are interesting, but provide no concrete information on what one can *actually* do.
If the OP decides to use that as his repeatable exercise, there is more than one variable at play. As his body adapts, 160 bpm will become proportionally 'harder' to achieve i.e. he will have to increase power output to achieve this given HR. As such, while the recovery data will be interesting and may provide a corollary, there are too many variables to establish an accurate, simple test. If you look in the link to the study abstract, that covers some of this ground.
...my personal recommendation for testing baseline fitness would be to disregard HR completely, for what it's worth. Run / row / bike as hard as you can for a given distance or time. These results are absolutely quantifiable, simple to interpret, repeatable and easy to obtain (if a bit uncomfortable, ha). For me, HR data is most useful to prevent overtraining, and to help someone stick to a training plan. Recovery rates are interesting, but provide no concrete information on what one can *actually* do.
In reply to Bimblefast:
That's an interesting concept. I'm marathon training. My LSRs are done at around 140-150BPM. All I find is that for a given heart rate I'm running faster. 140-150 equates to 73-77% of my max. By definition, I'm running at the same effort, I don't find it any harder to run faster, I just run faster at that HR.
> As his body adapts, 160 bpm will become proportionally 'harder' to achieve i.e. he will have to increase power output to achieve this given HR.
That's an interesting concept. I'm marathon training. My LSRs are done at around 140-150BPM. All I find is that for a given heart rate I'm running faster. 140-150 equates to 73-77% of my max. By definition, I'm running at the same effort, I don't find it any harder to run faster, I just run faster at that HR.
Post edited at 12:44
In reply to DancingOnRock:
I think I understand - do you mean that over time you experience an increase in pace at 140-150 bpm?
*edit: sorry, that's not clear. I mean, as your training plam progresses, do you find you can go faster at a given heart rate?
I think I understand - do you mean that over time you experience an increase in pace at 140-150 bpm?
*edit: sorry, that's not clear. I mean, as your training plam progresses, do you find you can go faster at a given heart rate?
Post edited at 12:56
In reply to Bimblefast:
Yes. Maybe last year I was running 10:00/mi @ 150bpm and now I run 8:50/mi @ 150bpm.
Yes. Maybe last year I was running 10:00/mi @ 150bpm and now I run 8:50/mi @ 150bpm.
In reply to DancingOnRock:
or do what i do at the end of a run.
stop watch, reset, start watch again.
that way i get my run as one file and my warmdown as another
or do what i do at the end of a run.
stop watch, reset, start watch again.
that way i get my run as one file and my warmdown as another
In reply to DancingOnRock:
Sounds like you have a good plan... You're experiencing the effect of training well: as above, one can measure adaptation to exercise demands either in terms of increased output (i.e. wattage, pace) at any given workout intensity or in terms of decreased stress (relatively lower HR) at any given output.
Measuring both is interesting, but can't really provide a reliable test.
*Another edit, lol: above you're describing the former, ande when you run the race this will be the case too, only at a best-effort intensity!
Sounds like you have a good plan... You're experiencing the effect of training well: as above, one can measure adaptation to exercise demands either in terms of increased output (i.e. wattage, pace) at any given workout intensity or in terms of decreased stress (relatively lower HR) at any given output.
Measuring both is interesting, but can't really provide a reliable test.
*Another edit, lol: above you're describing the former, ande when you run the race this will be the case too, only at a best-effort intensity!
Post edited at 13:23
In reply to DancingOnRock:
Yes. For long distance stuff, this is a very good way of measuring fitness, as in my post above. Lots of coaches and athletes work on this basis for a whole range of performance goals.
Same heartrate + faster movement = fitter.
Watch the trend, not the individual performance. I find this method is slightly less prone to weird readings if the exertion level used is quite low. Even if you're a bit tired/dry/ill, your body somehow seems to be able to get into the same efficient 'just rolling along' kind of state.
Of course, one of the things that this is measuring is improvements in efficiency. This is fine in the context of actually wanting to improve performance, since efficiency is a component of 'fitness' in that sense. If you just want to improve muscular and cardiovascular adaptations, it could be seen as confounding the data. But then measuring improvement gets really difficult!
Yes. For long distance stuff, this is a very good way of measuring fitness, as in my post above. Lots of coaches and athletes work on this basis for a whole range of performance goals.
Same heartrate + faster movement = fitter.
Watch the trend, not the individual performance. I find this method is slightly less prone to weird readings if the exertion level used is quite low. Even if you're a bit tired/dry/ill, your body somehow seems to be able to get into the same efficient 'just rolling along' kind of state.
Of course, one of the things that this is measuring is improvements in efficiency. This is fine in the context of actually wanting to improve performance, since efficiency is a component of 'fitness' in that sense. If you just want to improve muscular and cardiovascular adaptations, it could be seen as confounding the data. But then measuring improvement gets really difficult!
Post edited at 13:12
In reply to hamsforlegs:
That's what I'm thinking. You hit a ceiling with your fitness. After which training doesn't m me you any 'fitter' all you achieve is muscular adaptation.
That's what I'm thinking. You hit a ceiling with your fitness. After which training doesn't m me you any 'fitter' all you achieve is muscular adaptation.
In reply to DancingOnRock and hamsforlegs:
Fitness *is* efficiency - it's the body's response to increased physiological stress. The adaptation is driven only by the chosen stress... a weightlifter will become powerful and strong, whereas a marathon runner will become efficient and light. Of course fitness is multifactorial, with various accepted definitions, usually including such factors as strength, cardiovascular endurance, muscular endurance, power etc. There will always be some crossover, and CV endurance is central as it uniquely 'enables' the other aspects; even so the extent to which your adaptaions are defined as muscular, CV or whatever is irrelevant. I'm not sure it's possible to hit a ceiling as such with CV adaptations (assuming you mean that) but it is generally accepted that improvements versus time / effort become gradually more incremental as fitness improves.
Fitness *is* efficiency - it's the body's response to increased physiological stress. The adaptation is driven only by the chosen stress... a weightlifter will become powerful and strong, whereas a marathon runner will become efficient and light. Of course fitness is multifactorial, with various accepted definitions, usually including such factors as strength, cardiovascular endurance, muscular endurance, power etc. There will always be some crossover, and CV endurance is central as it uniquely 'enables' the other aspects; even so the extent to which your adaptaions are defined as muscular, CV or whatever is irrelevant. I'm not sure it's possible to hit a ceiling as such with CV adaptations (assuming you mean that) but it is generally accepted that improvements versus time / effort become gradually more incremental as fitness improves.
In reply to Bimblefast:
I should have said 'movement economy' rather than efficiency.
Your general point about the multifactorial nature of fitness has to be right.
There has been quite a lot written about 'ceilings' for CV fitness, and some speculation that eg. marathon runners might be running quite close to the limit. Eg. the chemical processes required for aerobic energy are running quite close to optimised, and the rate of anaerobic provision is at the point where the athlete essentially ceases to function not far after the finish line. Of course, genetics and improvements in movement economy and bodweight distribution will squeeze out more.
Of course, CV 'ceilings' are not really relevant to most of us! I do think that movement economy is a bigger part of running performance than often gets discussed.
Whether maximising CV fitness is the correct use of time for most people is a separate debate. I think most people should think harder about foundational strength and movement. That's a different discussion.
I should have said 'movement economy' rather than efficiency.
Your general point about the multifactorial nature of fitness has to be right.
There has been quite a lot written about 'ceilings' for CV fitness, and some speculation that eg. marathon runners might be running quite close to the limit. Eg. the chemical processes required for aerobic energy are running quite close to optimised, and the rate of anaerobic provision is at the point where the athlete essentially ceases to function not far after the finish line. Of course, genetics and improvements in movement economy and bodweight distribution will squeeze out more.
Of course, CV 'ceilings' are not really relevant to most of us! I do think that movement economy is a bigger part of running performance than often gets discussed.
Whether maximising CV fitness is the correct use of time for most people is a separate debate. I think most people should think harder about foundational strength and movement. That's a different discussion.
In reply to hamsforlegs:
Wish UKC had a 'like' button, yes I see what you mean. There's an interesting article here examining the various commonly-accepted components of fitness and how they interact:
http://www.lonkilgore.com/Redefining_Fitness.pdf
And yes, regarding the popular focus on 'CV' to the exclusion of other fitness factors I think we're probably much in agreement. I feel the notion of developing essential foundational strength has been so distorted by popular images of bodybuilders in the public consciousness that most people are terrified of it.
Wish UKC had a 'like' button, yes I see what you mean. There's an interesting article here examining the various commonly-accepted components of fitness and how they interact:
http://www.lonkilgore.com/Redefining_Fitness.pdf
And yes, regarding the popular focus on 'CV' to the exclusion of other fitness factors I think we're probably much in agreement. I feel the notion of developing essential foundational strength has been so distorted by popular images of bodybuilders in the public consciousness that most people are terrified of it.
In reply to peebles boy:
Back to the OP:
If you want quantifiable, it's got to be either a maximal-effort test, or heart-rate based. Recovery time is an excellent indicator of progress, but as I mentioned earlier gives no info on what you can actually do, and as an isolated value means nothing without a preceding workout of known intensity or output. HR monitoring allows both in-session and recovery values to be accurately plotted, and progress over time is easy to see.
Over max-effort tests or races, this method has the advantage of not having to cough up a lung
Back to the OP:
If you want quantifiable, it's got to be either a maximal-effort test, or heart-rate based. Recovery time is an excellent indicator of progress, but as I mentioned earlier gives no info on what you can actually do, and as an isolated value means nothing without a preceding workout of known intensity or output. HR monitoring allows both in-session and recovery values to be accurately plotted, and progress over time is easy to see.
Over max-effort tests or races, this method has the advantage of not having to cough up a lung
In reply to Bimblefast:
Cheers for all your input in this - looks like there's something to be said for looking at not only how my overall fitness is influenced "on the hill" but also (and I guess more quantifiably) how to go about setting up observed improvements through specific training/fitness test, in terms of distance/time/intensity and following on from this recovery rates. Hell, at this rate I might even end up taking a structured approach to training at some point....!
Cheers,
Gordon
Cheers for all your input in this - looks like there's something to be said for looking at not only how my overall fitness is influenced "on the hill" but also (and I guess more quantifiably) how to go about setting up observed improvements through specific training/fitness test, in terms of distance/time/intensity and following on from this recovery rates. Hell, at this rate I might even end up taking a structured approach to training at some point....!
Cheers,
Gordon
In reply to peebles boy:
It's a slippery (and very geeky) slope
> Hell, at this rate I might even end up taking a structured approach to training at some point....!
It's a slippery (and very geeky) slope
In reply to peebles boy:
Just for interest, here's my plots for Friday night's 6x1000m session. I'm slightly overtrained an recovering from a rubbish half last Sunday and a horrible cold.
Enjoy.
http://connect.garmin.com/activity/449051013
Just for interest, here's my plots for Friday night's 6x1000m session. I'm slightly overtrained an recovering from a rubbish half last Sunday and a horrible cold.
Enjoy.
http://connect.garmin.com/activity/449051013
In reply to peebles boy:
Have you noticed how people running these tests seem to be crippled by the time they are 40?
> But NOT the bleep test. Please god, not the bleep test. Never again. Ever.
Have you noticed how people running these tests seem to be crippled by the time they are 40?
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Fri Night Vid Le Toit de Ben - Quebec 1958
This week's Friday Night Video whisks us back to Val-David, Quebec, in the Autumn of 1958. Two daring young climbers embark on the ascent of a route that seemed unattainable, resembling a roof suspended in the air, defying all the conventions of the time....
3 May
Loading Notifications...