General Fitness markers for a population

Patsy167

Interesting discussion on the radio earlier about some general fitness metrics that could be used to measure the fitness levels in Ireland - something like a BMI for fitness. (It would serve as a rough guide for large populations with lots of nuances and caveats when looking at sub-populations.)

I was looking online earlier and many seem to suggest Pushups and a run time as a starting point. I have always been drawn toward the idea of General Physical preparedness as a way of training long-term and the standards different armies around the world use is always interesting.

https://www.t-nation.com/training/practical-guide-to-gpp

https://apply.army.mod.uk/how-to-join/can-i-join/fitness/physical-entry-standards

Keen to get Boardsies thoughts on what would be some standards, targets, or exercises that would be useful for this. What ranges would you give based on age, weight, training history?

Black Sheep

I think it’s important to distinguish between what are reasonable, achievable objective standards ... and what is the average performance of our increasingly sedentary, over-fed, mess of a general population.

We could publish a standard based on the average performance standard of the population as a whole that the people who don’t reach it would still complain about it. And that would be a standard that was really poor.

If we published objective standards that people should in theory be able to meet, important to realise that probably 90% of people would not meet them. That’s a reflection on the general population, and where we are with our diet, our activity levels and our attitude to physical culture and sport.

For men:-

Bodyweight bench press (Too conservative?)
150% to twice bodyweight deadlift
Bodyweight to 150% squat
3-10 pull-ups depending on bodyweight

To the above I would add a timed 1.5 mile run. I’d go with something like police entrance standards or thereabouts. Won’t be that taxing.

I would consider the above achievable basic to good standards for the male population, achievable in 1-2 years. And maintainable for quite a while.

If I could only have one single testing standard, I would use pull ups. The best indicator of overall health and strength. Capturing grip strength and strength to mass ratio. I have yet to see an unhealthy person (by any criteria) who would not be shown up by a pull ups based standard. This is not true of other metrics.

I haven’t put up female standards because I wouldn’t feel confident judging them but certainly I’d put up a decent timed pull-up hold or a single strict pull up. For a woman a set of legit full push-ups is also a great benchmark.

Totally accept the above are years off for the general population but as a species we are so capable of it, it’s depressing.

Patsy167

Black Sheep wrote: »

If we published objective standards that people should in theory be able to meet, important to realise that probably 90% of people would not meet them. That’s a reflection on the general population, and where we are with our diet, our activity levels and our attitude to physical culture and sport.

For men:-

Bodyweight bench press (Too conservative?)
150% to twice bodyweight deadlift
Bodyweight to 150% squat
3-10 pull-ups depending on bodyweight

To the above I would add a timed 1.5 mile run. I’d go with something like police entrance standards or thereabouts. Won’t be that taxing.

Whoa! - Those standards look very ambitious, even for those with a decent amount of training.

An interesting angle on it is looking at what test could be used to objectively say that "this population or country is fitter than another"

Something like 10-20 pushups for a male aged 20-50 and 1 mile in 10 mins would at least allow most people to participate in the testing

Cill94

I'm not sure if you're asking what we think people should aim for, or what would actually be practical for the government to use as part of some kind of nationwide research study.

If it's the former, then I'd go with something like what Blck Sheep stated. Pull-ups in particular. 99% of people aren't doing strict pull-ups unless they are both strong and somewhat lean. Combine that with a run or erg endurance test and you have a pretty good idea of general fitness.

However if it's the latter, then you run into an issue of practicality. General population is so weak that it would be very hard to select a standardised strength exercise that everyone could perform. It's for this reason that most of these kind of studies tend to use dynamometry, either a hand grip version or the leg extension one, where you just isometrically contract as hard as you can.

Two of the strongest people I know were in very highest percentile on the hand grip and bone density test in the Genofit study UCD are conducting. So you don't necessarily have to have someone deadlift, squat, etc. to detect if they're strong.

Black Sheep

Patsy167 wrote: »

Whoa! - Those standards look way too ambitious for a general population. 10-20 pushups for a male aged 20-50 and 1 mile in 10 mins would surely be more realistic?

Of course you can choose an achievable standard for most of the population that they might be able to meet if it’s sufficiently low.

It has no bearing on what is an objective standard men should shoot for.

Mellor

Black Sheep wrote: »

I think it’s important to distinguish between what are reasonable, achievable objective standards ... and what is the average performance of our increasingly sedentary, over-fed, mess of a general population.

It thought it was asking more about useful markers rather than standards to aim for. For example BMI is the market, <25 is the standard.

I agree that deadlift, squat, bench, pull-ups are obvious choices for people who go to the gym.
I think a proper wide population assessment would need options with less equipment.
Like maybe swap bench for press ups, but need to standardise the rep. Squats also have some issues with different types not being equal.

2-2.5km run sounds good.

Black Sheep

Fair enough, I may have misunderstood the Q!

Patsy167

Cill94 wrote: »

I'm not sure if you're asking what we think people should aim for, or what would actually be practical for the government to use as part of some kind of nationwide research study.

The conversation I was listening to was very much on what "should" the average person walking down the street be able to do with no training. The debate then went into what categories, standards, exercises would be used

Cill94

Patsy167 wrote: »

The conversation I was listening to was very much on what "should" the average person walking down the street be able to do with no training. The debate then went into what categories, standards, exercises would be used

Ah okay. If it's just something for people to shoot for themselves then I think Dan John has some pretty good standards for men and women.

http://danjohn.net/2013/04/strength-standards-sleepless-in-seattle/

Black Sheep

Patsy167 wrote: »

The conversation I was listening to was very much on what "should" the average person walking down the street be able to do with no training. The debate then went into what categories, standards, exercises would be used

Without hearing the conversation it’s hard to know, but were they talking about “should” as in, what their peers can do (I think we can agree - a really low bar) or “should” as in, by an objective standard?

I think then there is the question of do you set lower achievable waypoints on that journey to meeting the objective standard?

And if you want it to be easily administered and trained for, then yes, you’re talking basic movement patterns and minimal equipment.

Possibly you do end up with something like timed runs and push-up standards. If at all possible I would fight to retain pull ups or timed hold as a standard, somehow.

If a test of general health and fitness were to be widely administered then I guess there are clinical approaches. The UCD study Cilian mentioned certainly comprehensively tests the volunteers. My appointment at their testing centre on Pearse st took about 40 minutes I think.

Patsy167

Here's the context - https://www.sportireland.ie/sites/default/files/media/document/2021-01/ot_nolsp.pdf

National Minimum Fitness Test

Physicskid9

What's the rationale though? It's almost certainly going to paint a very sorry picture.

Would it be in a hope that the results would spur people on to improve themselves?

Intuitive

It sounds like a great idea. I'm a middle aged woman, I have an injury that prevents me from running. Swimming is not possible at the moment. I walk a lot, that my only exercise. I used do a lot of sport when I was younger so I was very fit but never did what I would can deliberate exercise, it was a consequence of my lifestyle.

The system has to cater for people like me, who don't even know how to do a push up correctly or don't enjoy the gym. I'd love an assessment and something to aim for. As long as it doesn't involve any form of weight loss, the two aren't mutually exclusive. And you don't want someone to give up on the exercise when they inevitably give up the diet.

I'd be interested in hearing more on the topic.
On a side note I do believe that exercise had to enjoyable for people, otherwise they won't keep at it. It's the gym for some, walking for others, or team sports etc. So I'm saying there's no once size fits all.

pinkypinky

Planning to give these benchmarks a try when I have time at the weekend.

I think pull-ups as a guide for women would not work. Most people who don't go to a gym wouldn't have something suitable to perform one on, and most women do not have the upper body strength to even do one.

ted1

Not great at pull ups. But I can run a marathon. So am I fit or not ?

Alf Veedersane

ted1 wrote: »

Not great at pull ups. But I can run a marathon. So am I fit or not ?

No.

Fundamentally, it's about whether or not you would be able to stay safe when the zombie apocalypse happens. Zombies will be everywhere at ground level so running 26.2 miles matters not a jot.

Pulling yourself up to safe places is where it's at.

Soz.

ted1

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

No.

Fundamentally, it's about whether or not you would be able to stay safe when the zombie apocalypse happens. Zombies will be everywhere at ground level so running 26.2 miles matters not a jot.

Pulling yourself up to safe places is where it's at.

Soz.

Can’t flaw that logic.

Mellor

ted1 wrote: »

Not great at pull ups. But I can run a marathon. So am I fit or not ?

Depends how fast you can run the marathon.
Sub 3 hours, pretty fit.
Over 10 hours, more stubborn Id say

joe40

What are peoples views on this?

https://ot.rte.ie/fitness-test/

It is an interesting question, for me as a reasonably healthy 50 year old male what standard/standards should I meet to be able to call my fitness levels, healthy.

I think maybe a measure of exertion levels might be a safer way to judge. Just sending someone out to run as fast as they can or do push ups to failure could cause an injury.

Physicskid9

joe40 wrote: »

What are peoples views on this?

https://ot.rte.ie/fitness-test/

It is an interesting question, for me as a reasonably healthy 50 year old male what standard/standards should I meet to be able to call my fitness levels, healthy.

I think maybe a measure of exertion levels might be a safer way to judge. Just sending someone out to run as fast as they can or do push ups to failure could cause an injury.

It looks good. Simple and accessible for most people. I remember listening to an interesting podcast from the barbell medicine guys where they mentioned that the minimum level of aerobic fitness required to reduce risk of mortality was actually pretty low. Sorry I can't recall the measurement but it was surprisingly low.

They really stressed the importance of strength training in order to minimise the risk of sarcopenia as we age. It seems to be quite common for runners to be extremely fit (cardiovascularly) but very lacking when it comes to strength. It's a shame as it wouldn't require a whole lot of strength work to achieve a baseline level of strength that would drastically decrease their likelihood of developing sarcopenia (age related muscle loss) and therefore improve their quality of life as they age.

Cill94

Physicskid9 wrote: »

It looks good. Simple and accessible for most people. I remember listening to an interesting podcast from the barbell medicine guys where they mentioned that the minimum level of aerobic fitness required to reduce risk of mortality was actually pretty low. Sorry I can't recall the measurement but it was surprisingly low.

They really stressed the importance of strength training in order to minimise the risk of sarcopenia as we age. It seems to be quite common for runners to be extremely fit (cardiovascularly) but very lacking when it comes to strength. It's a shame as it wouldn't require a whole lot of strength work to achieve a baseline level of strength that would drastically decrease their likelihood of developing sarcopenia (age related muscle loss) and therefore improve their quality of life as they age.

You’re right about ‘fit’ people overestimating their strength. I’ve seen quite a few good runners be unable to do a single pull-up or deadlift 60kg.

On the flip side you have guys that can bench 150kg but couldn’t run to catch a bus.

Ultimately it just comes down to having some amount of balance in your fitness to be healthy.

ted1

Mellor wrote: »

Depends how fast you can run the marathon.
Sub 3 hours, pretty fit.
Over 10 hours, more stubborn Id say

About 4, I’m about 100kg. My rule of thumb is marathons and weight are linear.
2 hours =50kg
3 hours = 75 kg
4 hours = 100kg.

Alf Veedersane

ted1 wrote: »

About 4, I’m about 100kg. My rule of thumb is marathons and weight are linear.
2 hours =50kg
3 hours = 75 kg
4 hours = 100kg.

I scoffed and thought to myself that while Kipchoge looks like he's been built from paper clips, he's surely closer to 60kg.

Nope.

Black Sheep

pinkypinky wrote: »

Planning to give these benchmarks a try when I have time at the weekend.

I think pull-ups as a guide for women would not work. Most people who don't go to a gym wouldn't have something suitable to perform one on, and most women do not have the upper body strength to even do one.

You're correct here, but organisations / tests that use pull-ups as a metric for men scale them for females.

For example, a female might pass the test if she could hold her chin above the bar for a set amount of seconds. No requirement to be able to complete a full pull-up.

ted1

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

I scoffed and thought to myself that while Kipchoge looks like he's been built from paper clips, he's surely closer to 60kg.

Nope.

apparently he is 52 kg... https://www.olympicchannel.com/en/athletes/detail/eliud-kipchoge/

Alf Veedersane

ted1 wrote: »

apparently he is 52 kg... https://www.olympicchannel.com/en/athletes/detail/eliud-kipchoge/

Saw that. Probably shouldn't be...its not like he looks a whole lot heavier but it just sounds so light for an adult, non-dwarf man.

Mellor

ted1 wrote: »

About 4, I’m about 100kg. My rule of thumb is marathons and weight are linear.
2 hours =50kg
3 hours = 75 kg
4 hours = 100kg.

The energy used is pretty linear. So a 100kg guys used twice as much to cover 42kg. So if he takes twice as long, they are *burning at the same rate.

*Burning at the same for peiple of different sizes may not be equal