Re: How unfit am I?
Posted: Wed Jul 28, 2021 8:46 am
This is fun
I always find your skills and expertise really valuable and interesting Alp, joking aside.
It seems that what we might be presenting here for Rob and his gloves to consider is two viewpoints about 'fitness', possibly at different ends or sides of the bikepacking spectrum. Expert technician and expert layabout perhaps. Or sports cyclist and proper bikepacker maybe... JOKE! . Both skillsets providing 'fitness', as I defined it above, for the appropriate purpose.
What most people are after is probably somewhere in between. But my '[un]fitness for purpose' definition still stands for all positions on that spectrum. Actually, 'race' bikepackers are perhaps different in that the effort goes on for long periods with little rest whereas us layabouts do a big bit of effort then slump for long periods in cafes or on riverbanks staring at the sky. Different 'fitness' required. The layabouts are nearer to 'cavemen' fitness - short intense spurts of food sourcing then lying around for ages snoozing, eating, drinking, shouting, procreating. Come to think of it the parallels are uncanny.
So, I'd offer that one answer, call it Reg's answer for sake of argument, to RMG is that 'unfit' does not really mean slow, lots of stops, low mileage, etc and therefore not necessarily to be worried about if other riding factors 'fit' the purpose more closely.
One more passing comment is I think there's a fine line between extreme-training enhanced performance and drugs/potions/powders enhanced performance. Indeed why not let contestants win by using any enhancements they wish? What's 'natural' and what isn't? From my tramp/layabout point of view anything above the background physical 'fitness' of a normally exercising person is 'un-naturally enhanced'
I always find your skills and expertise really valuable and interesting Alp, joking aside.
It seems that what we might be presenting here for Rob and his gloves to consider is two viewpoints about 'fitness', possibly at different ends or sides of the bikepacking spectrum. Expert technician and expert layabout perhaps. Or sports cyclist and proper bikepacker maybe... JOKE! . Both skillsets providing 'fitness', as I defined it above, for the appropriate purpose.
What most people are after is probably somewhere in between. But my '[un]fitness for purpose' definition still stands for all positions on that spectrum. Actually, 'race' bikepackers are perhaps different in that the effort goes on for long periods with little rest whereas us layabouts do a big bit of effort then slump for long periods in cafes or on riverbanks staring at the sky. Different 'fitness' required. The layabouts are nearer to 'cavemen' fitness - short intense spurts of food sourcing then lying around for ages snoozing, eating, drinking, shouting, procreating. Come to think of it the parallels are uncanny.
So, I'd offer that one answer, call it Reg's answer for sake of argument, to RMG is that 'unfit' does not really mean slow, lots of stops, low mileage, etc and therefore not necessarily to be worried about if other riding factors 'fit' the purpose more closely.
One more passing comment is I think there's a fine line between extreme-training enhanced performance and drugs/potions/powders enhanced performance. Indeed why not let contestants win by using any enhancements they wish? What's 'natural' and what isn't? From my tramp/layabout point of view anything above the background physical 'fitness' of a normally exercising person is 'un-naturally enhanced'