What's more important: striving for maximal health/fitness and a long life or setting WRs or national records or team records in swimming?
I think the latter is overrated. I'm all for improving one's stroke and striving for PBs. Who isn't? PBs produce euphoria and pride and keep you on the path to improvement. But I wonder if restorative, technique based workouts that might help you improve in swimming and/or achieve world or local fame really help make one extremely fit or improve one's health? I think someone referred to Gary Hall as doing "sprinter" type high intensity training and doing his aerobic/strength training outside the pool, which seems perfectly sound. He's getting it all in. I think you need to get it all in and work hard. You gotta break a sweat. A lot. Frequently.
So will TI-ing your life away and looking pretty make you as fit as you can be? Isn't there something to be said for hard training? Not necessarily because it will improve your 50 free (everyone seems to agree it won't), but just to improve health, mental outlook, physical well being and keep the bod hot and the spouse interested? Plus, if you're a distance swimmer you gotta have some endurance. Talent and technique only get you so far, at least IMHO.
I just thought we were supposed to exercise more, and more intensely for optimal health.
Most definitions of "fitness" that are accomplished in 20 minutes a few times a week doing moderate activity are that you can get through the normal daily activities of today's AVERAGE lifestyle with a good energy level, no undue shortness of breath, and be able to cope with an emergency. I interpret that to mean that you can climb a few flights of stairs, run a couple of blocks if somebody is chasing you, shovel snow off your driveway. It doesn't mean that you will be sporting flat abs, be able to run a 10K under 60 minutes, swim a mile under 30 minutes. That is probably a lower threshhold than most members of this forum consider "fit". I knew a 40-ish person who was extremely unfit (candidate for heart transplant) who could still crank out a fast 50m sprint against advice without any training.
"Fitness" is a moving target. Mine is the shape that I was in 15 years ago ... and at that time I thought being "in shape" was the shape that I had been in 15 years earlier. :)
I agree with many of you that that fitness is not dependant upon the amount of yardage you do each day. It is dependant upon each person. Everyone is different and will get something unique out of each workout. Each of us will do our workouts for different reasons and for different goals, but as I said, if we are having fun, does it really matter? Focus on what is important to you and you can never lose.
None of it matters if you're not having fun and feeling fit.
NKFrench: Do we really have to train only 20 minutes for cardiovascular fitness? That seems so little to me. I'm not training to lose weight, but if I only did 20 minutes a day, I wouldn't feel supremely healthy.
As I understand it 20 min 3 times per week is where aerobic fitness effects are definitely evident relative to sedentary controls. I don't believe there is evidence that it is more than that,and there is evidence that 60 min 4Xper week is more advantagous. There is emerging evidence that intense exercise may be better for you than long/slow in terms of overall fitness.
