Mots clés: Education, Santé, Environnement, Numérique….
Thanks!
I don't know why fat people write the best paper about fitness
I might not be fit enough to answer your interesting question, yet, dear Marcel ...
I'll have to think . But for the moment, I should add that there is physical fitness, psychological fitness, social fitness, or even Intelectual fitness... (all together would be synonym of Health - whatever that means - ! )
(Psychological fitness should be a goal for every modern Human, but the most difficult one to attain... )
just adding to what dear Maria said,
"Spiritual Health / Fitness" rather than religious health / fitness matters these days as in the name of religion many unhealthy thoughts and actions are propagated! Which ultimately affects the fitness state of individual, community and the nation as a whole!
regards
Rathish
Fitness is applicable to the entire human energy force .Fitness is the must for every human beings as it involves both a healthy mind & healthy body .
Mind & body are two basic elements which remain the creative force for every individual to carry out there day to day activities as no human body will keep his existence without carrying out their day to day activities & the main important achievement for the individual with proper fitness represent healthy body -healthy mind -no depression ,& stress - no worries -& tension which are basic essence for the individual to carry out his activities with the successful impression .
This is my personal opinion
Dear Marcel. Another meaning comes from Genetic Algorithm. The concept of fitness is central to natural selection. In GA, each solution is evaluated on the basis of how well it solves the problem. This measure of the "goodness" of the solution is called its "fitness".
Fitness (biology) from Wikipedia: Fitness in population genetics models is a central idea in evolutionary theories. It can be defined either with respect to a genotype or to a phenotype in a given environment. In either case, it describes individual reproductive success and is equal to the average contribution to the gene pool of the next generation that is made by an average individual of the specified genotype or phenotype. The term "Darwinian fitness" can be used to make clear the distinction with physical fitness. Where fitness is affected by differences between various alleles of a given gene, the relative frequency of those alleles will change across generations by natural selection and alleles with greater positive effect on individual fitness will become more common over time; this process is known as natural selection. Fitness does not include a measure of survival or life-span; the well known phrase Survival of the fittest should be interpreted as: "Survival of the form (phenotypic or genotypic) that will leave the most copies of itself in successive generations."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_(biology)
Thus, fitness is defined from a proximate/ individual (e.g. medical, mental state, religion) versus a demographic/ evolutionary (e.g. number of the same phenotype/ genotype of which some are transmitted to the following generation) point of view?
But each 'individual entity' is unique in physical phenotype and genotype, right? Even twins are not exactly the same? So fitness can never be measured/captured/defined in an exact/static way?
Parrots and humans can have the same contributions to next generations, despite huge differences in phenotypic and genetic expression....
Can fitness only been defined at the intra-specific level, or can some populations or species also been defined as more fit than others?
Fitness = performance in relation to a certain goal/objective more or less achieved?
Something fits well in the design/environment, which may add an aesthetic aspect of what fitness might be?
But then design is used as a proxy/measure of fitness without exactly defining fitness?
Dear Cecilia. Indeed right. Funny how we all think of our own professional abilities first. I thought of Health, you immediately thought of design. In regards to fashion and clothes too, the design is fundamental.
What is your definition of 'fitness'?
To me fitness is defined as fit for the purpose whether the purpose is from the perspective of physical, mental, emotional, spiritual etc.
In an evolutionary Framework, apt to produce enough healthy offspring to prevent population decrease in following generations?
How can an individual gene be apt for the task given that there goal is to produce a protein or part of a molecule, or...., which they do very well? Is it the gene that is apt or the protein that result from the gene that is apt in a functional Framework (e.g. first versus second cause.. to achieve a goal)?
What comes to mind when you hear the word "fitness?" Endless rows of treadmills, an outdoor track covered with hurdles, a Pilates classroom filled with mats, towels and foam rollers? Or perhaps you envision a basketball team, tennis player, or strong shoulders and burly biceps.
Each of the above associations undeniably exemplifies an aspect of fitness. Treadmills and other pieces of cardio equipment, including the street you live on, help develop stamina and cardio-respiratory endurance. Pilates is excellent for improving flexibility and balance.
Hurdlers must have exceptional speed and power. Basketball and tennis players work hard to be not only fast but also agile, accurate and coordinated every second they're on the court. And as for those big biceps, you can bet the men and women who have them are lifting some heavy weights; strength is yet another marker of fitness.
As you can see, fitness is difficult to define succinctly. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines it as "the quality or state of being fit." That then begs the question,"Well, what is 'fit'?" "Fit," according to Merriam-Webster, means "in good physical condition; in good health." An example sentence the dictionary offers is, "He's fit for the race."
For more plz read at following link
http://www.charismamag.com/life/health/21246-what-is-your-definition-of-fitness
So you have the tools that leads to fitness (e.g. chemicals, material for exercice), you have the actors that use the tools that lead to fitness (e.g. individuals consisting of chemicals or tool users determining the apt to do something) and there is fitness as the end-product (e.g. as reflected in performance/productivity/....)?
But then again, evolutionary biologists might propose:
So you have the tools that leads to fitness (e.g. chemicals, material for exercice), you have the actors that use the tools that lead to fitness (e.g. individuals consisting of chemicals or tool users determining the apt to do Something), then there is the performance based on the apt to do Something that leads to fitness (e.g. obtaining sufficient food, obtaining sufficient protection, social performance to become attractive), and then there is fitness as the end-product (e.g. as reflected in the number of healthy offspring that make contributions to following generations)?
If the end-product cannot be measured in the field, proxies associated with the end-product will be used? E.g. Performance will be associated with the end-product and therefore called fitness?
it's a relative term .. but i think we could define it operationally by putting the minimum standards of living
Marcel:
Herbert Spencer coined the phrase: Survival of the fittest ! in terms of Charles Darwin's Natural Selection to ensure biological success of a species. But as Maria pointed out, that there may be Physical, Mental. Psychological, Emotional, Social and Spiritual Fitness combined to yield perfect HEALTH in modern humans.
Best
Syed
"The ability to carry out daily tasks (work and play) with vigour and alertness, without undue fatigue and with ample energy to enjoy leisure-time pursuits and to meet unforeseen emergencies” --- (Clarke 1976)
Components of Fitness
Depending on the source, the components of fitness vary considerably. Below are common components:
Cardiorespiratory endurance - typically measured by how long or fast a person can perform an activity and how this impacts measurements such as heart rate and oxygen consumption.
Muscular endurance - typically measured by how many repetitions of an exercise a person can perform. Common tests involve push ups and sit ups.
Muscular strength - typically measured by how much weight can be moved in relation to repetitions. Exercises involving multiple joints and muscle groups such as squats or bench press are often used.
Muscular power - typically measured by how much force can be generated during a given activity. Advanced equipment used by biomechanists are often needed to measure muscular power.
Flexibility - typically measured by how far a muscle group can be stretched or joint can be moved. The most common test involve the hamstrings and shoulders.
Balance - typically measured by how long a particular position can be held with or without some type of activity being performed. Simple tests such as standing on one leg can be used to assess balance. More advanced tests may involve standing on an unsteady object while trying to catch a ball.
Speed - typically measured by how quickly an individual can move from one point to another. The 40-yard dash is often used to assess speed.
Body composition - measured using a variety of tests and devices. Simple tests using mathematical equations or calipers are common and inexpensive. More advanced tests such as underwater weighing are far less common and much more expensive.
http://study.com/academy/lesson/what-is-fitness-definition-components-types-examples.html
The evolving definition of (physical) fitness
http://fitnessforlife.org/AcuCustom/Sitename/Documents/DocumentItem/12908.pdf
http://www.professorjohnthoday.com/downloads/Fitness.pdf
Perhaps everything in the human body can be defined as fitness components given that all will contribute to the performance, directly or indirectly, e.g. without a stomach no energy, no fitness component, no fitness?
Fitness components defined in ecology are different from physical fitness in that they focus on the next generation, e.g. as reflected breeding success per brood, number of eggs per brood, proportion of eggs hatched per brood, proportion of eggs resulting in independent offspring per brood, number of broods, offspring conditions, offspring health status, etc....
Hello folks,
Well fitness does not just mean being physically fit or healthy, it also means being mentally competent to perform a particular role or a task. Proper nutrition and mental peace is pre-requisite for being perfectly fit.
This is what I understand. But there may be many definitions depending on the context we are talking about.
Best wishes ! and I must say that a very interesting debate :)
Fitness is defined as being in good physical shape or being suitable for a specific task or purpose.
Read more at http://www.yourdictionary.com/fitness#opoKrEfBQMl3ZisK.99
ear dirs,
Check this out. I thought this article on Yoga fittness might contribute to the present discussion.
http://www.yogajournal.com/article/practice-section/is-yoga-enough-to-keep-you-fit/
Interesting with Yoga is that you do not have to run to remain in good shape!?
By the way, some species move much more than other species, implying that mobility in disassociated from fitness?
we have to adapt...
I brought up that idea of yoga, because of my dislike for the smell and excessive strain of modern fitness rooms. Strange fashion ! Nothing to do with my medical views of the healthy harmony that our bodies should have, to be fit. (Fit to cope with the stress our modern societies inflict...)
This is my personal view. (I hate "fitness rooms" ! )
Maria:
I dislike "Fitness Rooms" as well. Most people are unaware that these rooms are loaded with billions of harmful viruses and bacteria. The key point is adapting and coping with negative forces of Nature!
Best
Syed
But each individual body contains billions of micro-organisms filling up all the niches, so that those of other individual bodies have difficult to install, right? So there should be no contamination risks?
By the way, if each vertebrate has billions of micro-organisms on their physical body s a protective layer, do they belong to the vertebrate, just like cells or mitochondria Inside cells? Without these micro-organisms providing protect, no vertebrate fitness at all?
How to call this kind of fitness? "Symbiotic fitness", e.g. as reflected in the health/reproductive consequences of the associations between micro-organisms and vertebrates?
Yes, symbiotic ftness !!!
Great thought, dear Marcel.
As I read you, both on slow motion as on symbiosis, I thought of a marvellous sweet looking marsupial I met in the Amazon rain forest, the "preguiça" (bradypus / sloth), who very much like the koalas a precious symbiotic element who sleeps all day, hanging from trees. At night, it crawls down. This manages the essencial exchange of symbiotic parasites between the ground and the top of the trees.
I found it irresistible to grab and hug one of those sweet, sweet looking creatures, soon to realise that its fur is filled with crawling parasites and fungi ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown-throated_sloth
the sweet Brsadypus takes care of the Rain forest fitness.
Yes indeed ......if during childhood you are exposed to many micro-organisms causing frequent illness , this individual is going to become a healthier individual because of well developed acquired immunity and vice versa.
I prefer the definition given in The Structure of Biological Science
By Alexander Rosenberg. He says that fitness is an elementary concept that cannot be defined in other terms, just as temperature. We can measure differences in temperature (and in fitness), we can calculate consequences that other processes have on temperature (and on fitness), but we cannot define temperature in other elementary terms. So, the short answer is: there is no definition of fitness.
From Mahmoud Omid: This measure of the "goodness" of the solution is called its "fitness". Goodness is based on some criteria which depend on penalty functions.
She is very beautiful (fitness salon) but the cost of this - money and she is "a victim" of a beauty. It is impossible to gain all in all !
The same concept is true in math and in the information theory, in economy and in all fields of our life.
Interesting questions. As Maria has mentioned there is physical fitness which is usually what the word implies but also we know have emotional intelligence, social interaction abilities, intellectual ability with exercises for that as was as psychological fitness. Fitness can also be used to describe someone's ability to perform a task or a job. Someone may be physically unfit but be able to use a computer effectively. Looking at some definitions they also describe fitness as the ability to reproduce effectively.
So Marcel, you have lots of fitness choices. What specifically were you thinking of?
Good luck!
How do you define 'goodness' of the solution?
This is not a joke!
In evolutionary terms fitness is normally defined in terms of adaptation to the environment. Of necessity this should be seen in terms of adaptation to the local environment rather than in global or absolute terms.
Fitness = Good health and ability to tolerate high physical stresses
Fitness is your state of body and mind through which you you actually performs towards your immediate objectives of life.
It shows your overall energy level.
Marcel - you are correct. Ecologically this is represented as a failure to adapt to changed local conditions. The same happens in cancer - a cancer cell may be well adapted to the tumour environment but may not survive when transplanted to non-tumour tissues.
To be able to fit into the whole of the universe. Capture information and use it the right way to fulfill the unwritten command for which we are born.
I am going to assume you are referring to the meaning of 'fitness' in the context of evolutionary biology. In that context, 'fitness' is an heuristic concept, so it is and should be defined operationally. It is not as if evolutionary 'fitness' actually exists, and it is our job to get the definition right. I personally think population growth rate is about the most general definition of evolutionary fitness. You can take a measure of population growth rate as a measure of absolute fitness, but to make this measure useful in an evolutionary analysis you need to compare the growth rate of one population to that of other populations with which it competes. This definition allows you to consider evolutionary fitness at various levels of organization. If you want to focus on the relative fitnesses of individual organisms, you just think of those individuals as populations of genes.
I agree with Guy, but would argue that there is a valid metaphysical definition, which is the proportion of the living world that is attributable to an individual at some long distant point in the future (or something along those lines. This is not well thought out). Obviously this is unmeasurable. However, it is a small matter to define temporal components of fitness that will ultimately add up to this metaphysical definition.
Mathematically Arnold and Wade (1984) showed that if temporal fitness components were written as conditional probabilities (that is they can be multiplied to give total fitness), then it is perfectly legitimate to use components of fitness. Thus, a typical definition of fitness might be "how many offspring an organism produces". Actually this should be written as "how many offspring an organism produces given that it was born" or something like that. Similarly we might have a component of fitness that would be "the number of grand-offspring produced by the offspring given that the grandparent produced those offspring". Such measures get silly and over-lapping, but the point is that yes, it is true, for any practical definition of fitness you can come up with an exception. Arnold and Wade tell us that this is ok since ultimately we are always dealing with a temporal component of fitness anyway, and yes of course selection (after all, selection is the outcome of fitness differences) happening before and after the time we are documenting can negate the effects we observed.
Does your definition of fitness require that you can measure it with precision?
Example:
It's easy to estimate your own (short-term) physical fitness, based on fatigue or performance, but what about the other people you are observing? If someone is not active, is it the result of a constraint (can not act) or a decision (want not act)?
Genealogical trees/Pedigree analyses to quantify fitness? At what spatiotemporal scale? Would a member that does not produce biological offspring have fitness in a pedigree analysis of fitness?
I also think it is difficult to measure fitness, but
let's take the genomic fitness and the assumption that fitness reflects the ability to persist in time, i.e. across generations, does this imply that:
1) genes/gene complexes that are shared by more than one species have higher fitness than genes/gene complexes shared by only one species, assuming that genes/gene complexes shared by more species reflect longer evolutionary time scales than genes/gene complexes shared by only one species,
2) if humans and chimps share >98% of the genome, that the genes that belong to the >98% shared by humans and chimps have higher fitness than the genes that are either found in humans alone or in chimp alone,
3) genes that express intraspecific variation and that are only shared by one species have lower fitness than genes that do not express intraspecific variation and that are only shared by one species?
Should genomics therefore focus on functional genes contributing to fitness (i.e. genetic persistence across generations) in the parts of the genome that are shared by different species?
Just to stimulate a neutral discussion:
Thus, from a biological/evolutionary point of view, do animal genes (shared by animals and humans) have higher fitness than human genes (only shared by humans)?
Thus, accepting we define in this framework an Education fitness, are educated people more fit than uneducated people, e.g. think about the long-term/evolutionary consequences of high-tech approaches and the impact of the human population on the world environment?
Marcel - You seem to move across levels of organization in a multi-level perspective of selection processes and evolution. If you can clarify your perspective on this issue it might help others to articulate more appropriate responses. Thanks.
Based on the list provided above there are different/distinct definitions of fitness, each working at their own scale of analysis? Thus, do these different definitions of fitness have something in common? E. g. Perhaps it is the ability/capacity to maintain a biological aspect over different time periods, e.g. within versus across individuals versus across generations, etc., e.g. a body component or a mechanism influencing a body component that is maintained at shorter (e.g. within the individual) or longer time scales (e.g. across generations and therefore across species in that huge phylogenetic tree that interconnect via genetic transmission different generations and different species at evolutionary scales)?
Carbon might have the highest chemical fitness given that it is one of the basic chemical components shared by all living beings on Earth, and this from the initiation of biological life on Earth?
Charles and I tried to be relatively universal in our earlier posts in the sense that our definitions worked across scales of organization and a wide variety of contexts. The traditional evolutionary meaning of 'fitness' was based on the notion of relative survival and reproductive success, so it is limited in application to reproducing entities. Your extensions to body components within an individual (as opposed to across generations) and to carbon seem to be outside of this framework. I would suggest that you use a term other than 'fitness' to describe the functional importance or persistence of non-reproductive entities.
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/jbp/hl/1974/00000001/00000003/art00002
Fitness has been used well before Darwin, e.g. 1600 A.C.?
Fitness as a key word: 2.240.000 hits in Google Scholar
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness
Thus, are scientists that invent/use terminology language specialists?
Having the energy, strength and mental capability to feel, look and perform as good as possible.
Movement is life.To keep fit means health,strength,intellect,beauty,spirit.Fitness is a special culture,focusing on healthy (physical and moral) life-style(PE,routine,diet,special relevance to life,people,yourself).I think,it's widespread all over the world.We say,"it's better to wear out than to rust out"."Good health is above wealth"."A sound mind in a sound body".And "you are what you eat".Healthy cuisine:vegetables,water,1/3 of daily ration-protein,nuts.
http://justsport.info/pitanie/item/678-10-printsipov-pitaniya-fitnes-devushek
The World Health Organization (WHO) defined health in its constitution of 1948 as "a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity".
Fitness is the ability to meet the demands of a physical task.
http://www.brianmac.co.uk/conditon.htm
Thus, fitness is reflected in the act/action (e.g. proximate/mechanistic approach) or the consequence of the act/action (e.g. ultimate/evolutionary approach)?
Dear Marcel
Fitness represent the relative contribution of certain genotype in the next generation ,hence the good genotype has high fitness ( good viability and high fertility ) and contribute with high percentage of progeny in the next generation and as a result be the norm phenotype in the population.
While low fitness genotype ( low viability and poor fertility or may be sterility ) and contribute with low percentage ( or may be not contribute ) in the offspring of the next generation, so this genotype will be rare and represent the abnormal in the population.
Fitness represent the action of natural selection which drive the evolution and development.
All characteristics deal with fitness but in different degree .
Good Luck
Thus, fitness is the relative consequence of an act/action of one individual compared to consequences of acts/actions of other individuals belonging to the same population, but then how to define the limits of such a population that allow these comparisons?
The definition of fitness in genetics is simple: number of surviving offspring. In the past, the emphasis was on "surviving". Today, with more than 95% of children surviving, fitness is even easier to define: the more babies you pop out, the fitter you are!
Dear Marcel,
From the history of my Mom.It was very popular to make a pyramid "Rush"(break down)-it was a collective action at the stage.In my youth we did gymnastics,danced folk dances,went to the parade(about the 90-s) and did gymnastic (dancing) exercises on TV.It was extremely aesthetic performance-a lot of beautiful girls in the amazing clothes had to do the rhythmic movements at the square.Thanks to this sport policy in my school (in my school there were ballet lessons in Latvia and then in my University )I am rather sporty nowadays.I'm sure,it's very important to bring up love to sports (dancing)in the young (sensitive) period.Dear Marcel,I found the photos from my Mom's youth.I'm sure,who knows how to dance, this person won't be a hen in the dancing hall.Age doesn't matter.It's very important,that E.Jaques Dalcroze invented rhythmic gymnastics.
http://m.sovsport.ru/blogs/blog/bmessage-item/33358
Then the question is: if people want to be physically fit, to do what and why? To be happy, to be social, to impress, to construct Something, to...... ?
My aunty from St.Petersburg danced cancan in her 60-th anniversary. It means to be beautiful,unusual,unique,flexible,plastic,gracious,adorable,optimistic,a human being without age.I think,such sort of persons are created for admiration.As a rule,they are pleasant in communication,solid in friendship,responsible in work.They are kind,charitable,independent,because they are sure in their beauty and have no any complexes.
For me fitness means when a person is capable to do his or her basic work without depending on other in that case he or she can be called as physically and mentally fit.. And" depending on other" here means both physically and mentally.....
In the last case, nobody will be fit because living beings will never be truly independent?! If you do Something in life, you always will depend on other living beings, or not? Did you count how many direct or indirect interactions with other beings you had last week?
Dear Pyali
Term of Fitness used in our general life in the meaning you gave, and the term used specifically in many field of science to describe certain situation , for example in Quantitative genetics the term refer to relative contribution of genotype in the progeny of the next generation ( Falconar, 1986 ) and in statistics , chi-square test the goodness of Fit of data to theoretical case, and in Medicine Fit case refer to healthy case.
Good Luck
Can a culture or cultural aspect be more or less fit or reflect fitness, independent from genetic transmission? E.g. the relative contribution of culture types (e.g. the word OK versus another rarely used word versus a popular or non popular song) in the next generation might be fast and huge? Do culture types have higher fitness than genotypes given that culture transmitted to following generations involve both vertical (via biology-based family relationships) and horizontal transmission (not via biology-based family relationships)?
What is sleep quality: duration or what else, e.g. related to dreaming?
How does dreaming reflects FITNESS in Humans versus how does sleep duration reflects FITNESS in Humans versus how does sleep timing reflects FITNESS in Humans or how do changes in sleep patterns/timing/dreaming reflects FITNESS in Humans, ...? Sleep patterns/rhythms differ between organisms, so it must be linked to fitness somehow or reflect fitness....
By the way, sleep patterns have a strong cultural basis!?
Do you think that people that are able to stop thinking (e.g. for at least 10 seconds) have higher fitness than people that permanently think? Thinking must be exhausting, right?
Maria and Marcel:
According to your definition of FITNESS involving variety of types matching perfect HEALTH in Humans, the history of Science, however, bears ample evidence of showing that most individuals of extraordinary abilities actually lacked both physical and mental HEALTH. Should we be inclined to believe that most unfit individuals by some extraordinary traits sometimes turned out to be intellectually outstanding and made a lasting impact on human society.
Best
Syed
Dear Marcel,
What makes you think that we stop thinking during our sleep?
Much probably, our brains never stop their activity. And we only have a different kind of consciousness, from different areas of our brains... (this would explain sleep walking, and also the fact that some of us sleep tighter than others and some need shorter periods of sleep to regenerate their conscious brain activities...
Nevertheless, the question of good regenerating sleep may be crucial to the sense of fitness, in any of its broad senses, because the secret lies in regeneration of functions, either physical or mental.
The only case in which our brains fully stop thinking during waken hours, is in the remote case of certain epileptic states...
Dear Syed,
Your remark merits two up-votes! I think this is only possible when these people with exceptional traits are protected by other people, right? Otherwise they would not be able to survive (in the jungle)!?
Do you think this is possible in the animal world?
Yes, Syed is quite right.
Again, it comes to the moulding elasticity capacities of the brain. When we free some areas, as those involved on physical fitness, other areas will more easily develop and adapt to other tasks, as in thinking.
Probably, this is why we tend to reason better, when our body is at rest...
Probably, also, dear Marcel, this explains why animals don't become scientists. They have their brain functions more adapted to the survival needs of the jungle.
Our / their brains adapt.
Dear Sued,
Intellectual outstanding and making a lasting impact on society doesn't mean always positive and fitness must imply also some positive effects.
Fitness is the ability to see in everything the complementary because with this we can reach more, apply more and see more.
Human fitness equals/allows long-term vision versus Animal fitness equals/allows short-term vision?
Dear Marcel, "fitness" is for water pipes and jigsaw puzzles. For humans, I believe it was introduced with Fordism in the United States at a time when a steep increase in mass production made factories adopt a much more elaborate concept of the "assembly line" already improved by Paxton during the construction of the Cristal Palace in England in the 1850s. In the assembly line, all actions and body movements of the worker had to "fit" in the process so that the product would come out exactly as designed. The idea of "fitness" for humans is quite inhuman. If the question were asked in search of a scientific answer, Teilhard de Chardin would have answered that we humans are fit for too many things, and if we are not, we invent the tools that will make us fit. I find the present obsession with being fit is quite narcissistic and a fad that makes people spend a lot of money when, actually, their fitness serves no exact need of themselves or of humanity. See below how Charlie Chaplin mocks the bad effects of being another cog in the wheel of industry... Evidently, he did not "fit".
Best regards, Lilliana
Did at evolutionary time-scales, natural selection select for brains that promoted mental states (e.g. curiosity, boredom) that promoted mobility, e.g. to increase/maintain physical/mental training to improve/maintain medical-defined fitness at a certain level essential for survival/reproduction?
Apparently, Marcel, we invent tools before we need a mutation that will adapt better than us to a life-or-death necessity required by "natural selection". :-)
Saludos, Lilliana
In fact, we tend to "kill" mutations, we declare they are "monsters", we make a movie about them (for example, Elephant Man), and then we kill them.
We are a nasty humanity and tend to hate diversity.
Lilliana
Perhaps it would be nice to show examples of wild animals taking care of handicapped conspecifics?
Dear Colleagues,
Good Day,
"The Definition of Fitness for Sports
There is no single definition of fitness for sports. It has different meanings depending the specific demands of the sport and your personal status. The basic question, "What is fitness?" in general, and then "What is sport fitness?".
The General Definition of Fitness
Physical fitness has been defined as:
- A set of attributes (qualities) relating to people's ability to perform physical activity.
- A state of well-being with low risk of premature health problems and energy to participate in a variety of physical activities.
- The ability to meet the ordinary as well as the unusual demands of daily life safely and effectively without being overly fatigued and still have energy left for leisure and recreational activities.
Experts agree that it has many dimensions and levels. It has been further broken down into two categories of components that, collectively, help define it:
- Health-related: cardiorespiratory (aerobic), muscular strength and endurance, muscular flexibility, and body composition.
- Skill-related: agility, balance, coordination, power, reaction time, and speed.
See Fitness Components Any definition may include health-related and/or performance-related components, and they are not mutually exclusive--they overlap. You cannot develop power without training for speed and strength. Agility is comprised of speed, strength, power, flexibility, reaction time, balance, and coordination (skill), so sports training to improve one component also improves others."...
Please, see the link....
http://www.sports-training-adviser.com/definition-of-fitness.html
Does this mean there are generally at least two schools of thinking:
1) Fitness defined as medical aspects by those working with humans (e.g. medecine, sports, sociology etc...), perhaps ignoring the notions of Darwinian selection
versus
2) Fitness defined in an evolutionary/Darwinian Framework by those working with (wild) animals?
Dear Colleagues,
Good Day,
"Physical fitness is not only one of the most important keys to a healthy body, it is the basis of dynamic and creative intellectual activity."
------ John F. Kennedy
Based on what has been explained above I would think that the person that used for the first time the notion 'the Survival of the Fittest' (e.g. Charles Darwin referring to Herbert Spencer on page 75 in The Origin of Species, Signet Classic, New American Library), that this person must have had the medical inspired definition of fitness in mind, not the evolutionary-inspired definition?
The Survival of the Fittest in Sports....
Dear Colleagues,
Good Day,
"Reading is to the mind what exercise is to the body."
------ Joseph Addison
Charles Darwin in his book the Origin of Species used the same terminology of Spencer (the Survival of the Fittest), but perhaps adding a new dimension/personal interpretation deviating from the original idea of Spencer?
Darwin (page 89): 'This preservation of favourable individual differences and variations, and the destruction of those which are injurious, I have called natural selection, or the Survival of the Fittest'
Does Fitting in this new Darwinian context mean Something else than physical fitness, e.g. nicely fitting in the environment as indicated in the discussion on design and art (se above, message 7)?
Definitions of survival
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/survival
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest
Darwin started to use the idea of Spencer about the Survival of the Fittest in the later editions of Darwin's book 'The Origin of Species', which implies it was used outside the medical Framework?!
Fitness is indeed, more and more and very much a medical issue...
Nowadays, instead of directly fighting aggressive agents, in modern Medicine, we must thrive to endure our patients fitness to resist disease, or to combat illness, and the several side-effects of our modern treatments...
Marcel:
If you were to ask a more crisp and straightforward question about the kind of FITNESS you actually meant, then the answers and discussions would have taken a different course. At some point of time you would be expected to summarize the key issues involved for the sake of clarity to the viewers.
The phrase"Survival of the fittest" was first used by Herbert Spencer in 1864 (Principles of Biology), after he had read Charles Darwin's Origin of species (1859) and suggested that it conveys the same meaning as "Natural Selection" of Darwin. Spencer's phrase was first used by Darwin in 5th. edition of his book (published 10 February, 1869), and emphasizes on the preservation of favored races in the struggle for Life (both Animal and Plants). Obviously, it meant FITNESS exclusively in Nature, without connotation of Medical fitness of humans
Best
Syed.
Yes, but fitness was probably used well before Darwin and Spencer in old English, probably in a medical framework? Who then started to create the confusion?
Why the same word can have different meanings, even in a science Framework, e.g. across research fields? Because scientists are not language specialists, and just copy published terminology without knowing it's history?
Can someone tell me when 'fitness' was used for the first time? Apparently not found in a Dictionary listing words of 'Old' or Middle English?
http://www.librarius.com/gy.htm
Thanks!
My Oxford English dictionary is at my university office. Let me see if I can find the etymology of the word in English and get back to you!
Lilliana
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Ecology