This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
My Googling skills came up short so I'm hoping the group wisdom might prove more fruitful.
Is there a general measure of fitness and strength (together or apart)? I know there's work being done re climbing specific measures but I'd prefer a generalised one if poss.
Climbing motivates me but actually some of the non specific stuff like riding my bike or running, I feel is worthwhile in it's own right and has a positive impact on my climbing. I feel fitter and stronger than I was at 35 and there's a part of me wanting to do the same again between now and 55! (I realise the soft gains are got so the difference is unlikely to be as great - I'll settle for any!).
I don't want a home measure as the process of booking and completing an assessment gives me a date and time with an objective result and I feel that would be much better motivation.
Any ideas?
Is there a general measure of fitness and strength (together or apart)? I know there's work being done re climbing specific measures but I'd prefer a generalised one if poss.
Climbing motivates me but actually some of the non specific stuff like riding my bike or running, I feel is worthwhile in it's own right and has a positive impact on my climbing. I feel fitter and stronger than I was at 35 and there's a part of me wanting to do the same again between now and 55! (I realise the soft gains are got so the difference is unlikely to be as great - I'll settle for any!).
I don't want a home measure as the process of booking and completing an assessment gives me a date and time with an objective result and I feel that would be much better motivation.
Any ideas?
In reply to flopsicle:
Loads of stuff on exrx that might be of interest:-
http://www.exrx.net/Testing.html
Loads of stuff on exrx that might be of interest:-
http://www.exrx.net/Testing.html
In reply to geordiepie:
I remember having to do the vertical jump test many years ago as one of the physical selection tests I had to do for the Army, I was useless at it, couldn't reach the minimum standard which confused the hell out of the instructor as I was well above average for the running and pull up tests,
I remember having to do the vertical jump test many years ago as one of the physical selection tests I had to do for the Army, I was useless at it, couldn't reach the minimum standard which confused the hell out of the instructor as I was well above average for the running and pull up tests,
In reply to flopsicle:
In "Training for the New Alpinism" - my current training bible - House and Johnson advise the following non-specific simple test:
Number of Situps in 60s
Number of Chinups in 60s
Number of Pushups in 60s
Number of Box jumps in 60s
Timed 300m vertical (ish) climb with 20% bodyweight - or the equivalent in box steps if you live in Cambridgeshire ( I use the climb op Jacob's Ladder to Kinder Low ).
> Any ideas?
In "Training for the New Alpinism" - my current training bible - House and Johnson advise the following non-specific simple test:
Number of Situps in 60s
Number of Chinups in 60s
Number of Pushups in 60s
Number of Box jumps in 60s
Timed 300m vertical (ish) climb with 20% bodyweight - or the equivalent in box steps if you live in Cambridgeshire ( I use the climb op Jacob's Ladder to Kinder Low ).
Post edited at 15:45
1
In reply to flopsicle:
Mark Twight's description of "a good level of general fitness":
Strength/ Power Standards:
Deadlift: 2x bodyweight male, 1.5x female
Front Squat: 1.5x bodyweight male, 1.25x female
Overhead Squat: 1.25x male, 1x female
Clean: 1x bodyweight male, 1x female
Jerk: 1x bodyweight male, 75% bodyweight female
Turkish Get-up: 50% bodyweight male, 50% female
Strength Endurance Standards:
Deadlift: 25x @ 225# male, 15x 135# female
Bench Press: 10x @ 185#, no standard for females
Back Squat: 20x @ bodyweight, same for females
Pull-up (straight bar, dead hang, no kip): 15x male, 3x female
Power Endurance Standards:
Ten-minute KB Snatch Test: >150 @ 53#, >200 @ 25# female, >150 @ 35# female
Sandbag Get-up @ +/- 50% bodyweight, max reps in 7 minutes: (target >35 reps), same for female
Cardio-respiratory Power Standard:
Row 500m in 1:30 male, 1:50 female
Run 400m in 1:00 male
Cardio-respiratory Power Endurance Standard:
Row 2000m in 7:15 male, 8:45 female
Row 5000m in 19:00 male, 22:30 female
Run 1.5 miles in 9:00 male, 9:30 female
Run 5km in 22:00
Mark Twight's description of "a good level of general fitness":
Strength/ Power Standards:
Deadlift: 2x bodyweight male, 1.5x female
Front Squat: 1.5x bodyweight male, 1.25x female
Overhead Squat: 1.25x male, 1x female
Clean: 1x bodyweight male, 1x female
Jerk: 1x bodyweight male, 75% bodyweight female
Turkish Get-up: 50% bodyweight male, 50% female
Strength Endurance Standards:
Deadlift: 25x @ 225# male, 15x 135# female
Bench Press: 10x @ 185#, no standard for females
Back Squat: 20x @ bodyweight, same for females
Pull-up (straight bar, dead hang, no kip): 15x male, 3x female
Power Endurance Standards:
Ten-minute KB Snatch Test: >150 @ 53#, >200 @ 25# female, >150 @ 35# female
Sandbag Get-up @ +/- 50% bodyweight, max reps in 7 minutes: (target >35 reps), same for female
Cardio-respiratory Power Standard:
Row 500m in 1:30 male, 1:50 female
Run 400m in 1:00 male
Cardio-respiratory Power Endurance Standard:
Row 2000m in 7:15 male, 8:45 female
Row 5000m in 19:00 male, 22:30 female
Run 1.5 miles in 9:00 male, 9:30 female
Run 5km in 22:00
Post edited at 15:51
2
In reply to galpinos:
OH god! I am now officially depressed! I work up feeling fit, now I feel like a couch potato.
OH god! I am now officially depressed! I work up feeling fit, now I feel like a couch potato.
1
In reply to flopsicle:
It is Mark Twight so he's never going to just say, "yeah, just getting round a 10k is an achievement in itself".....
All good things to aim for. Personally, I'd class it as an aspirational list, not a minimum standard. Apart from the running things I'd fail on all of them.
It is Mark Twight so he's never going to just say, "yeah, just getting round a 10k is an achievement in itself".....
All good things to aim for. Personally, I'd class it as an aspirational list, not a minimum standard. Apart from the running things I'd fail on all of them.
In reply to flopsicle:
Firstly, congratulations on being fitter and stronger than you were twenty years ago. People such as yourself are leading the way in proving that getting older does not have to equate with becoming weak, unfit and unhealthy.
It's surprisingly tricky to get a decent generalised measure of fitness without a large suite of different tests. Obviously the concept of fitness is multifactorial, incorporating the obvious things like aerobic endurance, strength, power, explosivity, agility etc. But compounding the issue is the fact that testing any given movement pattern involves some degree of skill. As such, experience in the movement can have a huge influence on the test result.
A meaningful test of aerobic power is probably the easiest to achieve without a lot of coaching: running and cycling for example are fairly basic movement patterns. A broad measure of anaerobic power is also reasonably easy to achieve with vertical jump testing. Practice it once or twice a day for a couple of weeks and you'll have likely picked the low-hanging fruit as it were in terms of improvements, so you should have a realistic measure at that point.
But strength is much harder to quantify without having experience in the movement at heavy loads. The strength standards found in the ExRx site linked above are about right; even so it's not really worth discussing strength levels outwith the paradigm of training and progression. As such, your current bouldering grade may be a better guide as to (upper body) strength and power. If you decide to get into functional strength training, you can start assessing your strength for the main powerlifting movements using the Wilks coefficient (plenty of online calculators) or the Sinclair coefficient for Oly lifting.
Many universities offer decent exercise testing services, for example
http://www.surreysportspark.co.uk/performanceservices/shpi/services/Exercis...
But other components of fitness are just as if not more worthy of concern (particularly for the older athlete), as they correlate closely with injury risk. Primarily these are mobility and neuromotor coordination. These can be assessed with a comprehensive functional movement screen; many sports physios and sports therapists conduct this screening. It's not expensive and very worthwhile in identifying tight / weak areas and patterns, helping to prevent injury going forward.
FWIW, I think you should take the long view. It's about your ability to progress and maintain this lifestyle; intrinsically this means staying as uninjured as possible. The tests you're after will only provide a snapshot of current ability, and can be influenced greatly by things such as hydration, tiredness, stress levels etc. I would personally look into buying an HRM if you don't currently own one, and doing a run or cycle of a known distance. Record time, average HR and peak HR. You can then refer to this data as your training progresses; repeating the route you create an accurate log of aerobic fitness while avoiding the stress of maximal testing. I'd definitely recommend the functional movement screen too, and following a 'prehab' program based on its results.
Luke
Edited for grammar.
Firstly, congratulations on being fitter and stronger than you were twenty years ago. People such as yourself are leading the way in proving that getting older does not have to equate with becoming weak, unfit and unhealthy.
It's surprisingly tricky to get a decent generalised measure of fitness without a large suite of different tests. Obviously the concept of fitness is multifactorial, incorporating the obvious things like aerobic endurance, strength, power, explosivity, agility etc. But compounding the issue is the fact that testing any given movement pattern involves some degree of skill. As such, experience in the movement can have a huge influence on the test result.
A meaningful test of aerobic power is probably the easiest to achieve without a lot of coaching: running and cycling for example are fairly basic movement patterns. A broad measure of anaerobic power is also reasonably easy to achieve with vertical jump testing. Practice it once or twice a day for a couple of weeks and you'll have likely picked the low-hanging fruit as it were in terms of improvements, so you should have a realistic measure at that point.
But strength is much harder to quantify without having experience in the movement at heavy loads. The strength standards found in the ExRx site linked above are about right; even so it's not really worth discussing strength levels outwith the paradigm of training and progression. As such, your current bouldering grade may be a better guide as to (upper body) strength and power. If you decide to get into functional strength training, you can start assessing your strength for the main powerlifting movements using the Wilks coefficient (plenty of online calculators) or the Sinclair coefficient for Oly lifting.
Many universities offer decent exercise testing services, for example
http://www.surreysportspark.co.uk/performanceservices/shpi/services/Exercis...
But other components of fitness are just as if not more worthy of concern (particularly for the older athlete), as they correlate closely with injury risk. Primarily these are mobility and neuromotor coordination. These can be assessed with a comprehensive functional movement screen; many sports physios and sports therapists conduct this screening. It's not expensive and very worthwhile in identifying tight / weak areas and patterns, helping to prevent injury going forward.
FWIW, I think you should take the long view. It's about your ability to progress and maintain this lifestyle; intrinsically this means staying as uninjured as possible. The tests you're after will only provide a snapshot of current ability, and can be influenced greatly by things such as hydration, tiredness, stress levels etc. I would personally look into buying an HRM if you don't currently own one, and doing a run or cycle of a known distance. Record time, average HR and peak HR. You can then refer to this data as your training progresses; repeating the route you create an accurate log of aerobic fitness while avoiding the stress of maximal testing. I'd definitely recommend the functional movement screen too, and following a 'prehab' program based on its results.
Luke
Edited for grammar.
Post edited at 18:09
1
In reply to flopsicle:
Glad it gave you a laugh. Any food for thought in that though? Or was I wide of the mark.
Glad it gave you a laugh. Any food for thought in that though? Or was I wide of the mark.
In reply to Murderous_Crow:
It was really good, I was just off to put little un to bed when I first replied. It explains why there's no quick test to google.
I do have a HRM, run with Strava and generally take a life style approach but I kind of fancy a long term punt at something which appeals to me, just the cheek to want to be fitter/stronger at 55 than 45. If it was simpler (seems not) it'd have been cool to take a measure or two maybe every 6 mths or year.
Mind you it does have demotivating backfire potential too!!
It was really good, I was just off to put little un to bed when I first replied. It explains why there's no quick test to google.
I do have a HRM, run with Strava and generally take a life style approach but I kind of fancy a long term punt at something which appeals to me, just the cheek to want to be fitter/stronger at 55 than 45. If it was simpler (seems not) it'd have been cool to take a measure or two maybe every 6 mths or year.
Mind you it does have demotivating backfire potential too!!
In reply to flopsicle:
I think you’re absolutely spot on in your goal. I share it too, and having looked at the research I’m convinced it’s entirely possible for most people to continue getting stronger well into older age. Moreover, the degree and rate of physical decline is within our own control to a large extent.
If you want some simple tests to benchmark where you are in general terms, you still need a variety of tests to cover the main bases, and you’ll need to train the movements to some degree (especially the strength exercises) both to optimise results and avoid injury.
I know it's not exactly what you were asking for, but FWIW I’d suggest the following, as they're all pretty easy to do and repeatable:
Anaerobic power: vertical jump
Strength: deadlift and overhead press, 1RM
Aerobic endurance: 2k row, 5k run
Mobility / neuromotor: functional movement screen
Body composition: waist to hip ratio
As an aside, the max effort 2k row provides a good proxy for VO2 max, see:
http://www.concept2.com/indoor-rowers/training/calculators/vo2max-calculato...
The risks of testing are obviously injury, and poor score leading to demoralisation. Also remember that maximal effort testing is exactly that so ensure appropriate recovery afterward. And clearly one can have both good and bad days, so it’s worth taking all test results with a pinch of salt.
Luke
I think you’re absolutely spot on in your goal. I share it too, and having looked at the research I’m convinced it’s entirely possible for most people to continue getting stronger well into older age. Moreover, the degree and rate of physical decline is within our own control to a large extent.
If you want some simple tests to benchmark where you are in general terms, you still need a variety of tests to cover the main bases, and you’ll need to train the movements to some degree (especially the strength exercises) both to optimise results and avoid injury.
I know it's not exactly what you were asking for, but FWIW I’d suggest the following, as they're all pretty easy to do and repeatable:
Anaerobic power: vertical jump
Strength: deadlift and overhead press, 1RM
Aerobic endurance: 2k row, 5k run
Mobility / neuromotor: functional movement screen
Body composition: waist to hip ratio
As an aside, the max effort 2k row provides a good proxy for VO2 max, see:
http://www.concept2.com/indoor-rowers/training/calculators/vo2max-calculato...
The risks of testing are obviously injury, and poor score leading to demoralisation. Also remember that maximal effort testing is exactly that so ensure appropriate recovery afterward. And clearly one can have both good and bad days, so it’s worth taking all test results with a pinch of salt.
Luke
2
In reply to galpinos:
Those strength standards are pretty much spot on for me - I exceed some and am a bit below on others... with two big (huge exceptions).
Row 2000m - 7:15 is fast
and Turkish Get-up: 50% bodyweight male, WTF?
Cheers
LD
Those strength standards are pretty much spot on for me - I exceed some and am a bit below on others... with two big (huge exceptions).
Row 2000m - 7:15 is fast
and Turkish Get-up: 50% bodyweight male, WTF?
Cheers
LD
1
In reply to Lurking Dave:
Indeed, I'd be doing a TGU with a 37.5kg (+/- a bit) kettlebell which is a bit inconceivable!
Indeed, I'd be doing a TGU with a 37.5kg (+/- a bit) kettlebell which is a bit inconceivable!
In reply to Lurking Dave:
I suppose it just depends what you're good at - a front squat at 1.25 times my body weight seems quite far-fetched to me, never mind overhead, but the 2000m row in 7:15 seems doable
> Those strength standards are pretty much spot on for me - I exceed some and am a bit below on others
I suppose it just depends what you're good at - a front squat at 1.25 times my body weight seems quite far-fetched to me, never mind overhead, but the 2000m row in 7:15 seems doable
1
Testing to objective ‘standards’ outwith a paradigm of training and athletic development is at best of academic interest only. Even for competitive athletes, testing serves only to identify areas for improvement (tests are selected for their relevance to the athlete and event).
Trends are much more important, both for general trainees and athletes. As such it’s fine for the average person to have a set of tests they can periodically use to benchmark themselves against the main measures of ‘fitness’. But of far more use is a training diary (and HRM for aerobic / power endurance work). This lets one track progress over time, auto-regulate when feeling particularly tired or strong, and ensure the principles of training (specificity, overload, recovery, adaptation, reversibility) are held in mind and used to guide training intelligently.
Strength standards such as the above also have a fatal flaw for those at the extremes of bodyweight: someone at (healthy) lower BW will find it significantly easier to reach the BW-based strength standards above than someone who is naturally heavy. They’re also irrelevant for anyone who is currently overweight.
Trends are much more important, both for general trainees and athletes. As such it’s fine for the average person to have a set of tests they can periodically use to benchmark themselves against the main measures of ‘fitness’. But of far more use is a training diary (and HRM for aerobic / power endurance work). This lets one track progress over time, auto-regulate when feeling particularly tired or strong, and ensure the principles of training (specificity, overload, recovery, adaptation, reversibility) are held in mind and used to guide training intelligently.
Strength standards such as the above also have a fatal flaw for those at the extremes of bodyweight: someone at (healthy) lower BW will find it significantly easier to reach the BW-based strength standards above than someone who is naturally heavy. They’re also irrelevant for anyone who is currently overweight.
1
In reply to nufkin:
2000m in 7:15 seems very doable. 500m in 1:30 doesn't. The running ones seem easy in comparison.
There is nothing really long there - e.g. a marathon in under 3 hours. or even walk for 40 miles each day for 5 days. All of which is equally functional compared to the given tasks.
It seems like a list of things that cross-fit people think are important. The only thing they forgot was 'talk about cross' for one hour with repetition, but no deviation or hesitation
Strength Endurance Standards:
Deadlift: 25x @ 225# male, 15x 135# female
Bench Press: 10x @ 185#, no standard for females
Why are these in lb, where as everything else in in %age bodyweight? Again Seems like cross-fit competition standards coming through. So whatever your size you can deadlift 100kgs? (and why do women get let off with only 60kg if they might be larger and taller.)
(editted for second clause)
2000m in 7:15 seems very doable. 500m in 1:30 doesn't. The running ones seem easy in comparison.
There is nothing really long there - e.g. a marathon in under 3 hours. or even walk for 40 miles each day for 5 days. All of which is equally functional compared to the given tasks.
It seems like a list of things that cross-fit people think are important. The only thing they forgot was 'talk about cross' for one hour with repetition, but no deviation or hesitation
Strength Endurance Standards:
Deadlift: 25x @ 225# male, 15x 135# female
Bench Press: 10x @ 185#, no standard for females
Why are these in lb, where as everything else in in %age bodyweight? Again Seems like cross-fit competition standards coming through. So whatever your size you can deadlift 100kgs? (and why do women get let off with only 60kg if they might be larger and taller.)
(editted for second clause)
Post edited at 14:06
1
In reply to Dave B:
Agree, it does look very CFT-esque. Sign of the times...
Other folks I know have been using these as a collective test.
400m run for time.
1 mile run for time.
Max reps strict pull-ups.
Max distance horizontal broad jump.
Max weight deadlift.
There also some good test drills the NFL use, a cone agility drill is one for example.
Agree, it does look very CFT-esque. Sign of the times...
Other folks I know have been using these as a collective test.
400m run for time.
1 mile run for time.
Max reps strict pull-ups.
Max distance horizontal broad jump.
Max weight deadlift.
There also some good test drills the NFL use, a cone agility drill is one for example.
In reply to Dave B:
The running ones seem odd as well. 9 minutes for 1.5 miles is a lot harder than 22 minutes for 5k, unless you are only used to intense cardio efforts of less than 10 minutes. As you say a CF bias, rather than a true focus on what is required for an endurance sport like mountaineering.
> 2000m in 7:15 seems very doable. 500m in 1:30 doesn't. The running ones seem easy in comparison.
The running ones seem odd as well. 9 minutes for 1.5 miles is a lot harder than 22 minutes for 5k, unless you are only used to intense cardio efforts of less than 10 minutes. As you say a CF bias, rather than a true focus on what is required for an endurance sport like mountaineering.
1
In reply to Andy Hardy:
Turkish get up:
youtube.com/watch?v=2dx2rM1FSgE&
KB Snatch Test
You have to do that number of Kettle bell snatches at that weight within 10 minutes with good form, so greater than 150 reps with a 53lb kettle bell for a man.
Turkish get up:
youtube.com/watch?v=2dx2rM1FSgE&
KB Snatch Test
You have to do that number of Kettle bell snatches at that weight within 10 minutes with good form, so greater than 150 reps with a 53lb kettle bell for a man.
In reply to Dave B:
Nah, they're fairly simple tests. A CF test would include such absurd things as handstand pushups, or a burpee box jump combo followed by a muscle up onto your partner's head.
Shutting up about CrossFit for five minutes would be much more of a challenge.
> It seems like a list of things that cross-fit people think are important.
Nah, they're fairly simple tests. A CF test would include such absurd things as handstand pushups, or a burpee box jump combo followed by a muscle up onto your partner's head.
> The only thing they forgot was 'talk about cross' for one hour with repetition, but no deviation or hesitation
Shutting up about CrossFit for five minutes would be much more of a challenge.
3
2
In reply to Dave B:
Ah! Not kg! (doable...)
One bit of advice for the OP: don't wait for your 50s to improve - maintaining's hard enough and getting harder. Funny that.
(I'm more philosophical though about this than I'd've expected. Probably due to plummeting testosterone levels...)
> 2000m in 7:15 seems very doable. 500m in 1:30 doesn't. The running ones seem easy in comparison.
> Strength Endurance Standards:
> Deadlift: 25x @ 225# male, 15x 135# female
> Bench Press: 10x @ 185#, no standard for females
> Why are these in lb, where as everything else in in %age bodyweight? Again Seems like cross-fit competition standards coming through. So whatever your size you can deadlift 100kgs? (and why do women get let off with only 60kg if they might be larger and taller.)
Ah! Not kg! (doable...)
One bit of advice for the OP: don't wait for your 50s to improve - maintaining's hard enough and getting harder. Funny that.
(I'm more philosophical though about this than I'd've expected. Probably due to plummeting testosterone levels...)
In reply to Andy Hardy:
As an alternative to Morty's suggestion, I find it a really helpful exercise for shoulder stability, along with the Side Plank with Dumbell.
> What the hell is a Turkish get up?
As an alternative to Morty's suggestion, I find it a really helpful exercise for shoulder stability, along with the Side Plank with Dumbell.
1
In reply to Dave B:
It was a list of things Mark Twight (alpine legend) put down as having a good level of general fitness. You had to be able to have that level in all areas at once though. None were classes as a high syandard, more about being an all-rounder. It was from his Gym Jones site. I don't think he's into Crossfit, I think he just road bikes (mainly) and climbs (a little).
It was a list of things Mark Twight (alpine legend) put down as having a good level of general fitness. You had to be able to have that level in all areas at once though. None were classes as a high syandard, more about being an all-rounder. It was from his Gym Jones site. I don't think he's into Crossfit, I think he just road bikes (mainly) and climbs (a little).
In reply to galpinos:
I think there's a bit of legal history between Gym Jones and CrossFit. The former got quite a lot of press for training Gerard Butler for 300 and Henry Cavill for Superman.
> It was from his Gym Jones site. I don't think he's into Crossfit, I think he just road bikes (mainly) and climbs (a little).
I think there's a bit of legal history between Gym Jones and CrossFit. The former got quite a lot of press for training Gerard Butler for 300 and Henry Cavill for Superman.
In reply to galpinos:
Yes, I've noticed that. Which makes it all a bit odd. I understand that he has a commercial venture similar to the CF franchise.
http://sealfit.com/ex-crossfit-devotees-take-new-gyms-to-the-next-level/
> I'd say Mark Twight was reasonably handy at mountaineering......
Yes, I've noticed that. Which makes it all a bit odd. I understand that he has a commercial venture similar to the CF franchise.
http://sealfit.com/ex-crossfit-devotees-take-new-gyms-to-the-next-level/
Post edited at 21:29
In reply to galpinos:
I know who Mark Twight is.
They are all moves popularised by Cross fit. He was into cross fit in a big way...
It is the disparity I was talking about.
I know who Mark Twight is.
They are all moves popularised by Cross fit. He was into cross fit in a big way...
It is the disparity I was talking about.
In reply to planetmarshall:
I was under the impression he training the 300 cast but not Gerald Butler as Butler quit early on agent a difference of opinion with Twight.
I was under the impression he training the 300 cast but not Gerald Butler as Butler quit early on agent a difference of opinion with Twight.
As an aside, UKC admins: I think it's a pretty crappy feature to enable anonymous 'dislikes'. It puts me off wanting to reply to topics.
...if you disagree with me, take the time to frame a response and explain why, maybe we can have a constructive discussion. To dislike anonymously in discussions like these is weak and discourteous.
...if you disagree with me, take the time to frame a response and explain why, maybe we can have a constructive discussion. To dislike anonymously in discussions like these is weak and discourteous.
3
In reply to The New NickB:
>As you say a CF bias, rather than a true focus on what is required for an endurance sport like mountaineering.
But flopsicle asked for general, non-climbing-specific measures. And evidently that's Mark Twight's idea of "a good level of general fitness", not mountaineering-specific goals.
And there's never going to be an objective measure of "general fitness"; it's always going to be dependent on what aspects the person setting it believes to be most important (strength, endurance, power-endurance, explosive power, flexibility, agility, co-ordination, etc..), which will be shaped by their own athletic context.
Tangentially, people might be interested in Twight's contribution to "Training for the New Alpinism" -- he has an essay on his involvement with CrossFit and the period when he believed that you could train for endurance sports using just short-duration, high-intensity methods, and how he found out the hard way that it didn't work for him and moved away from that.
>As you say a CF bias, rather than a true focus on what is required for an endurance sport like mountaineering.
But flopsicle asked for general, non-climbing-specific measures. And evidently that's Mark Twight's idea of "a good level of general fitness", not mountaineering-specific goals.
And there's never going to be an objective measure of "general fitness"; it's always going to be dependent on what aspects the person setting it believes to be most important (strength, endurance, power-endurance, explosive power, flexibility, agility, co-ordination, etc..), which will be shaped by their own athletic context.
Tangentially, people might be interested in Twight's contribution to "Training for the New Alpinism" -- he has an essay on his involvement with CrossFit and the period when he believed that you could train for endurance sports using just short-duration, high-intensity methods, and how he found out the hard way that it didn't work for him and moved away from that.
1
In reply to Murderous_Crow:
This has been discussed on other, amusing threads. The balance of opinion is heavily against your view.
Sometimes, usually in fact, I don't want a constructive discussion especially if the main points have already been made. 'Dislike' is an easy way of passing a quick comment. That this is 'weak and discourteous' is your opinion, which I won't try to change. It's not my opinion, hence 'dislike'. Go on, dislike this post, give it a try. You might like it
> As an aside, UKC admins: I think it's a pretty crappy feature to enable anonymous 'dislikes'. It puts me off wanting to reply to topics.
This has been discussed on other, amusing threads. The balance of opinion is heavily against your view.
> ...if you disagree with me, take the time to frame a response and explain why, maybe we can have a constructive discussion. To dislike anonymously in discussions like these is weak and discourteous.
Sometimes, usually in fact, I don't want a constructive discussion especially if the main points have already been made. 'Dislike' is an easy way of passing a quick comment. That this is 'weak and discourteous' is your opinion, which I won't try to change. It's not my opinion, hence 'dislike'. Go on, dislike this post, give it a try. You might like it
1
In reply to slab_happy:
I don't think it is a good measure of non-climbing specific fitness as it is far too strength focussed and what cardio there is focussed on short and intense efforts.
As you suggest, Twight wrote it at a time when he was very involved in CF and his lack of attention to endurance found him out.
If the OP has an interest in riding a bike for a few hours or walking in the hills all day. This is going to be of limited help.
I don't think it is a good measure of non-climbing specific fitness as it is far too strength focussed and what cardio there is focussed on short and intense efforts.
As you suggest, Twight wrote it at a time when he was very involved in CF and his lack of attention to endurance found him out.
If the OP has an interest in riding a bike for a few hours or walking in the hills all day. This is going to be of limited help.
In reply to johnjohn:
I 'liked' it instead, as you took the time to write a reply
>'Dislike' is an easy way of passing a quick comment
No it's not. It's an easy way of applying a generic and coarse disapproval to a post in which many different points may have been made. Which one? Weak, discourteous yes - also lazy.
>especially if the main points have already been made.
In my case, they haven't. The 'dislikee' didn't bother to explain themselves, which renders the concept of a discussion board rather useless does it not.
Luke
I 'liked' it instead, as you took the time to write a reply
>'Dislike' is an easy way of passing a quick comment
No it's not. It's an easy way of applying a generic and coarse disapproval to a post in which many different points may have been made. Which one? Weak, discourteous yes - also lazy.
>especially if the main points have already been made.
In my case, they haven't. The 'dislikee' didn't bother to explain themselves, which renders the concept of a discussion board rather useless does it not.
Luke
1
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...