Am I fit, or is everyone else really unfit?

[Elvis]

Hard to tell from the video, but I think it's safe to say we are much better distance runners than any of our close relatives. And there's certainly not many things we eat that we can beat at a sprint.

However listening to some people's aversion to maintaining a healthy level of cardio vascular fitness I am reminded of this Rippetoe quote:

Quote

Only people willing to work to the point of discomfort on a regular basis using effective means to produce that discomfort will actually look like they have been other-than-comfortable most of the time. You can thank the muscle magazines for these persistent misconceptions, along with the natural tendency of all normal humans to seek reasons to avoid hard physical exertion.

[Elvis]

However I will admit if I am forced to that I am inclined to believe our ancestors got a lot of their food by being sneaky and carrying a spear.

[Odevans]

Quote

9.47 is pretty good mate. I'm training for the Royal Marines, and the best time I've seen on their forum for the PJFT is 7.39. Most lads are around the 9-9.30 mark, and the fittest are around 8-8.30. It might be different for RN candidates, but for RM we do 1.5 miles at 'squad' pace (under 12.30) and then do another 1.5 miles for best effort, which needs to be under 10.30.

If you have a look around the RM forum you'll find plenty of training tips for how to improve your time.

Totally missed this post.

Nah, the standards of the RN are totally different, to that of the RM - big time! The CPO at my local careers office, was quite impressed with my time - which tells me that most candidates are closer to the maximum time. Shocking!

What I was pleased to hear, is due to the fact that I am in a competitive sport (and, as far as I'm aware, significantly better than anyone else in the military at what I do, at my weight), I am allowed to be at the lower-end of the fitness scale. Not that I'd want to be one of the unfit ones, but I'm glad that the option is there!

James, when did you go into the RN, and what happened?

[NU_nutrition_TS]

Quote

...some people's aversion to maintaining a healthy level of cardio vascular fitness...

It's not a case of an aversion to maintaining (or attaining) a healthy level of cardiovascular fitness, it is more a case of being highly dubious that conventional 'cardio' exercise is the only or best way to achieve it!

[MJ.23]

Quote

You have probably done yourself a favour - and is the reason I do not rate 'cardio' very highly as an exercise: high intensity exercise, like heavy resistance training, will probably do more to improve heart/lung efficiency and cellular aerobic function than hours of trudging along on a treadmill!

Personally I am starting to turn away from this reasoning.

In my opinion the cardio argument is pretty irrelevant due to the context in which it is placed. Fitness is correlated from foundational health principles. Avoiding processed food, getting good sleep, drinking lots of water, managing stress etc... are what determine your health which is a huge part of your fitness.

If you shift to an american diet (not conforming to social stereotypes here; just an example) consisting of all of the ridiculous stuff they consume; any training programme will not offset this lifestyle nearly enough to offer suitable prolonged health.

Imo the end result is that your training programme (regardless of training protocol, aerobic, anaerobic etc...) is a hobby and a therapeutic outlet. When combined with a healthy lifestyle it can aid in disease prevention and prolong life. The two are mutually dependant.

Another point which I believe is pretty obvious is the money involved in the cardio industry. It is spewed out from personal trainers, adverts for exercise equipment, companies who sell exercise equipment etc... that running on the treadmill, elliptical etc... can prevent cardiovascular disease. This is vastly offset by the preventative qualities of a healthy lifestyle. I personally believe most of the cardio buzz is purely for monetary purposes; however this does not make it useless (imo).

Leading on from this Nu, have you ever researched into the start up of the grain industry (hydrogenating plant oils) vs the health of the population in the following years? From doing a little reading; it seems the first recorded heart attack (~1921) was only a few years after the entire grain industry was mobilised. This is not to say people did not have them before this time; but I think it is interesting nonetheless.

If cardio can be used by people to reduce stress and to manage their own emotions then let them do it; as this will greatly benefit their health and well being. I am not sure if the same argument extends to marathon distances though. Imo the worst case scenario is to lead an unhealthy lifestyle and train for long distance marathons.

[NU_nutrition_TS]

I'm not sure, but... Are you agreeing to disagree with me there?!

Like a lot of things (eating Twinkies or smoking cigarettes, for example), if conventional 'cardio'* makes you happy/relieves stress or tension, have at it! Just don't be under the illusion that you are achieving anything particularly positive physiologically - certainly not improved cardiovascular capacity or cellular aerobic efficiency.

Personally, I cannot think of anything more boring or stressful than doing exercises designed for hamsters!

* I'm talking here of jogging, doing laps, treadmill running, stationary cycling etc., etc.

Re: Grains, hydrogenated oils and heart attacks: Tom Naughton covers this in his docu-comedy "Fat Head". I think one criticism levelled at this observation is that the sophistication of diagnostic techniques also took a leap forward around the same time so that may explain (at least in part), according to these critics, the sudden up-tick in recorded CVD cases.

[Elvis]

Quote

It's not a case of an aversion to maintaining (or attaining) a healthy level of cardiovascular fitness, it is more a case of being highly dubious that conventional 'cardio' exercise is the only or best way to achieve it!

yes, because most people goal is to chew-up calories in "the fat burning zone", even though their weight doesn't change week to week and they do nothing to improve/protect their lbm, they still expect to get leaner my some miracle, this isn't cardio

edit: oh I forgot they may actually wave some chrome 2kg dumbbells around ineffectively too