How fit are you

Toby King said:

Just reading some previous posts about fitness levels.
I too saw the thing about Carmicheals Fitness test about the flat out 3 mile
run.
If you did it 8 minutes you are super fit.

Is this a true test to prove your fitness level ?

As with most things, it's not that simple, and attempts
to compare disciplines are fraught with peril. VO2max
results for different sports vary for the same test
subject (person) as different muscles use more or less oxygen,
for example, and tests from one sport when applied to someone trained
for another are misleading at best. Last year I was pretty fit - won a
couple of long bike races, and finished the Warny (not last!), VO2max
of around 68 or so, but I couldn't run 5km if Bubba was chasing me on a
dirtbike with intent to carry out gaol loving.

8 minutes is a very short time (although technically
it's a endurance time, anything over 45 seconds-1min is).
That would imply that you had a pretty good aerobic capacity
and could run very well over middle distances.
Doesn't mean you can ride, or swim, or kayak, or XC ski etc ... or keep
on
trucking at a high level for 2 hours or more. So yeah, 8 mins is fit
for a middle distance runner over 5km (if Carmichael says so 🙂 ).

Now, what exactly do you mean by fitness? Pure aerobic capacity
(VO2max)? Even just working that out isn't simple, and the results for
one sport won't translate to fitness for another in many cases.

On 2005-08-08, Toby King (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

Quoted message said:

Just reading some previous posts about fitness levels.
I too saw the thing about Carmicheals Fitness test about the flat out 3 mile
run.
If you did it 8 minutes you are super fit.

3 mile *run*? In 8 minutes?

36 km/h? Gosh, I can't *cycle* that fast over 3 miles.

Unless you don't mean that _r_ word. 🙂

--
TimC

Quoted message said:

aibohphobia, n., The fear of palindromes

And here I thought it was the fear of robotic Japanese dogs.
-- Tom "Tom" Harrington

"Toby King" wrote in message ...

Quoted message said:

Just reading some previous posts about fitness levels.
I too saw the thing about Carmicheals Fitness test about the flat out 3
mile
run.
If you did it 8 minutes you are super fit.

Is this a true test to prove your fitness level ?

If I could run at 36.15km/h, I wouldn't need a bike on the BR!.. 🙂

cheers,
GPL

On 2005-08-08, GPLama (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

Quoted message said:

"Toby King" wrote in message ...

Quoted message said:

Just reading some previous posts about fitness levels.
I too saw the thing about Carmicheals Fitness test about the flat out 3
mile
run.
If you did it 8 minutes you are super fit.

Is this a true test to prove your fitness level ?

If I could run at 36.15km/h, I wouldn't need a bike on the BR!.. 🙂

Hah. I never bothered to check until now that a mile isn't exactly
1.6 km. Thanks go ogle!

Mind you, go ogle thinks that "3 miles/8 minutes in km/h" is "36.21024
km/h", so I take it you were using the imperial hour measurement? ;P

Isn't the fastest runner somewhere around 10 m/s? Yeah, sustaining
this over 3 miles probably would put you into the "super fit" category
🙂

--
TimC
I'm not a procrastinator! I'm temporally challenged! --unknown

"TimC" wrote in message ...

Quoted message said:

Hah. I never bothered to check until now that a mile isn't exactly
1.6 km. Thanks go ogle!

Mind you, go ogle thinks that "3 miles/8 minutes in km/h" is "36.21024
km/h", so I take it you were using the imperial hour measurement? ;P

I wondered when you would pipe up about accuracy... being an astronomer and
all 🙂 heheh

3 miles = 4.828032 kilometers (google)
4.82/(8/60) = 36.15... but I guess if you round to 4.83, then 36.225 🙂

I was never good at maths.. I'll stick to riding bikes 🙂

cheers,
GPL

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> "Toby" == Toby King <[email hidden]> writes:

Toby> Is this a true test to prove your fitness level ?

Fitness level's all about fit for purpose. I wager that an individual
who could achieve this would be a [censored] poor power lifter.
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\<,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)

Bleve said:

Toby King said:

Just reading some previous posts about fitness levels.
I too saw the thing about Carmicheals Fitness test about the flat out 3 mile
run.
If you did it 8 minutes you are super fit.

Is this a true test to prove your fitness level ?

As with most things, it's not that simple, and attempts
to compare disciplines are fraught with peril.

And reading my post when I didn't sanitycheck it *doh*

ride 5km in 8 mins is at least quite a possible thing to do 🙂

Sorry I should have been more clear.
Carmicheal I think had something to do with Lance Armstrong.
The 3 mile test, is on flat ground, and on a BIKE, not running.
If you can ride 3 miles in 8 minutes you are considered very fit.
"Toby King" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Just reading some previous posts about fitness levels.
I too saw the thing about Carmicheals Fitness test about the flat out 3

mile

Quoted message said:

run.
If you did it 8 minutes you are super fit.

Is this a true test to prove your fitness level ?

Toby

Toby King said:

Sorry I should have been more clear.
Carmicheal I think had something to do with Lance Armstrong.
The 3 mile test, is on flat ground, and on a BIKE, not running.
If you can ride 3 miles in 8 minutes you are considered very fit.
"Toby King" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Just reading some previous posts about fitness levels.
I too saw the thing about Carmicheals Fitness test about the flat out 3

mile

Quoted message said:

run.
If you did it 8 minutes you are super fit.

Is this a true test to prove your fitness level ?

Toby

woohoo! I tried the 5km TT around Hawthorn velodrome a while bakc and I
did it in 8 minutes flat.

Hang on, if I'm super fit, how come I'm a [censored] hill climber?

I'd say that the 3m/5km/whatever fitness test just shows how fast you
can ride 3m/5km/whatever. There are many kinds of 'fitness'.

--
Nick

NoZX6R said:

woohoo! I tried the 5km TT around Hawthorn velodrome a while bakc and I
did it in 8 minutes flat.

Hang on, if I'm super fit, how come I'm a [censored] hill climber?

I'd say that the 3m/5km/whatever fitness test just shows how fast you
can ride 3m/5km/whatever. There are many kinds of 'fitness'.

Let's not get carried away. I think the Carmichael system is being
grossly misrepresented here.

Basically in "The Lance Armstrong Performance Program" which is written
by Carmichael, he talks about figuring out your starting position within
the program.

He simply defines cyclists as either recreational or racing. For racing
cyclists it's more than 8 minutes is beginner and less than 8 minutes is
intermediate to advanced. There is then corresponding 7 week programs
for 'beginner', 'intermdiate' and 'advanced'. All it's doing is making
some generalizations so you can be pigeonholed into his program. Hardly
a measure of fitness.

Brett

Toby King said:

Sorry I should have been more clear.
Carmicheal I think had something to do with Lance Armstrong.
The 3 mile test, is on flat ground, and on a BIKE, not running.
If you can ride 3 miles in 8 minutes you are considered very fit.

36km/h for 8 minutes isn't anything spectacular for a racing
cyclist, but for an off-the-street punter it's pretty good,
and on the human fitness bellcurve, it's probably reasonably
high. Most ordinary people's VO2max's are around the 30's, which is
not
very fit at all.

spook said:

Let's not get carried away. I think the Carmichael system is being
grossly misrepresented here.

A little!

Quoted message said:

Basically in "The Lance Armstrong Performance Program" which is written
by Carmichael, he talks about figuring out your starting position within
the program.

He simply defines cyclists as either recreational or racing. For racing
cyclists it's more than 8 minutes is beginner and less than 8 minutes is
intermediate to advanced. There is then corresponding 7 week programs
for 'beginner', 'intermdiate' and 'advanced'. All it's doing is making
some generalizations so you can be pigeonholed into his program. Hardly
a measure of fitness.

He's been a bit lazy (Carmichael) or made some assumptions about
the level of mathematical competancy of his readers. The problem
with books that have programs in them is that they can't easily take
into account the individual's development or level of fitness. (yes,
I have the book and have read it). They're (books) a good place to
start, but they're just a starting point.

One of the the arts of coaching is interpreting the science to fit the
athlete. Very hard to do in a book!