The first thing the probably comes to mind when you hear this question is an image of people who are really lean with have high muscle definition. How accurate is this?
In other fields, such as biology, fitness defined is a species ability to reproduce (so I guess all humans are pretty fit).
Looking at exercise physiology and their definition of fitness and comparing it to what people assume it is (having a six pack, giant biceps and chiseled chest) you begin to realize that our image of fitness is not correct. And what is advertised as fitness in the media – is really ‘Gym Fit’.
The true definition of fitness when looking at exercise physiology is “How well a person can perform a task” ie, how fast are they, how high can they jump, how long can they run, how much can they lift, are all simple examples of tasks that can show how fit an individual is.
Compare a world class sprinter to a world class marathon runner. First thing you notice is how their bodies are completely different. On top of that, their physiology is way different. The sprinter has more muscle mass composed of fast twitch fibers with a high alactic anaerobic ability, while the marathon runner has high aerobic ability. Two completely different energy systems being used, yet these people are both the most fit in their respective sports.
My point I am trying to get at is that fitness should be compared to your goals. If you goal is to look chiseled and have high muscle definition, then that is fantastic. If your goal is to be fit in a particular sport, or event, then that is great too. Know that just because you don’t look a certain way, it doesn’t mean you arent fit at what you do.
Hope you enjoyed!
CB
Physical Brake 