How fit is Fit?

[Wraithe]

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

...and it could be that I'm weird genetically, this way. I've also never been anywhere near able to run a marathon and I doubt I could train that high. I'm more of a sprinter than a jogger.

Well, then there are the people who simply HAVE Fit (I imagine Very Fit is possible, but REALLY rare) through genetics, quirk of nature, whatever.

This is the guy/gal who is leaning against the fence during PE, never seems to do any actual exercise, but has no problem matching everyone else when they actually play the game, run the drill, whatever.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Wraithe

Well, then there are the people who simply HAVE Fit (I imagine Very Fit is possible, but REALLY rare) through genetics, quirk of nature, whatever.

This is the guy/gal who is leaning against the fence during PE, never seems to do any actual exercise, but has no problem matching everyone else when they actually play the game, run the drill, whatever.

Just as a Gurps obs, both Fit and Very Fit are available in Biotech as Genetic/Racial Advantages rather than states of athletic training.

There are certainly animals who possess levels of aerobic fitness rare to impossible for humans without obvious training regimens.

[Cheathj]

Originally Posted by Michele

I don't know. I've finished three marathons and for each of them I trained specifically for three months. Granted, I was starting from a reasonable level, but during those three months I definitely did not run 14 hours a week, and maybe not even 7 hours a week on average. Of course I was no recordman but I did them running, not walking, and finished between 3 hours 50' and 4 hours.



I agree with others here. You lose the top edge performance quickier than that; even after just two weeks of complete rest your performance will show the first signs. On the contrary it takes longer to lose basic above-average fitness.

You're absolutely right, peak performance can drop fairly quick, but GURPS only gives a small number of levels to gauge, VF/F/normal/unfit, etc. So if I don't run for a month after a marathon, I can still go out and do 20 miles. Now my average may have dropped from 7:50 min-miles to 8:00 min-miles, but I could still pump out 20 miles. Is that still VF or am I already only fit? That gradual decline is just not quantifiable in GURPS...I think losing very fit in anywhere from 4-8 weeks is reasonable for game mechanics...and maybe double that to lose fit.

It comes down to how we want to quantify it...
If normal is anyway within one standard deviation of normal (the middle 68%), Fit is anyone between 1 and 2 standard deviations above the mean (and unfit is between 1 & 2 below the mean), and VF is anyone above 2 (the top ~2%)...that still leaves a lot of variation in performance at a given level.

[Cheathj]

Originally Posted by Wraithe

Well, then there are the people who simply HAVE Fit (I imagine Very Fit is possible, but REALLY rare) through genetics, quirk of nature, whatever.

This is the guy/gal who is leaning against the fence during PE, never seems to do any actual exercise, but has no problem matching everyone else when they actually play the game, run the drill, whatever.

Lance Armstrong with his resting HR of 32-34 and a VO2 max in the 80s! Probably got lucky in genetic bingo...and a lot of hard work (and doping).

[Figleaf23]

As a player, I do frequently take the Fit Advantage.

But as GM I find a bit of an inconsistency with it -- specifically, if you're a person with HT12 and 12 FP, why do you have to rest twice as long to recover FP than someone with HT10, 10 FP and Fit?

[RyanW]

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

Are we operating under the assumption that different individuals have different natural Fitness levels, and that either-Fit-nor-Unfit isn't the baseline, the average, for everyone?

I'm operating under the assumption that given your character's normal activity level, the fitness level you pay (or get) points for is where you will stay. I don't really care if that means you are (or are not) serious about staying in shape or if you are just naturally fit (or unfit). If it fits your character, you could put in your backstory that you used to be a marathon runner but have slacked off since your running days, or you used to be a couch potato that got in shape after a heart attack scare, but this has zero effect on play.

[Xilodel]

Originally Posted by Cheathj

I think losing very fit in anywhere from 4-8 weeks is reasonable for game mechanics...and maybe double that to lose fit.

Looking back on it, I admit I was probably too quick to gauge how fast one would lose fitness levels. One month does seem a bit absurd in hindsight. I, personally, tend to decondition pretty quick if I stop regular workout routines (in about a month), but a week of exercise and correct eating usually lets me regain any loss. So perhaps this isn't "losing" a fitness level so much as getting back in the swing of exercising. I'm sure unfavorable genetics play a role, too (no one in my immediate family is exactly a paragon of fitness).

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

Just as a Gurps obs, both Fit and Very Fit are available in Biotech as Genetic/Racial Advantages rather than states of athletic training.

There are certainly animals who possess levels of aerobic fitness rare to impossible for humans without obvious training regimens.

This is very true. Greyhounds and thoroughbred racehorses immediately come to mind, but I'm sure there's more. I also recall reading a paper a little while back (forget the link, unfortunately) suggesting that high performing athletes actually have preferable genetics - allowing for better O2 usage and reduced lactic acid production - than normal people. In addition to being well trained, of course.

[Crakkerjakk]

Originally Posted by Xilodel

This is very true. Greyhounds and thoroughbred racehorses immediately come to mind, but I'm sure there's more. I also recall reading a paper a little while back (forget the link, unfortunately) suggesting that high performing athletes actually have preferable genetics - allowing for better O2 usage and reduced lactic acid production - than normal people. In addition to being well trained, of course.

I don't think so. Racehorses and greyhounds are fast, but when it comes to endurance a human at the same level of activity is going to spank them silly. We are the worlds foremost pursuit predators.

[Gizensha]

Originally Posted by Crakkerjakk

I don't think so. Racehorses and greyhounds are fast, but when it comes to endurance a human at the same level of activity is going to spank them silly in terms of endurance. We are the worlds foremost pursuit predators.

Hence the fact there are man vs horse foot races where the humans sometimes/often (forget the specifics) win.

[Joseph Paul]

Originally Posted by Gizensha

Hence the fact there are man vs horse foot races where the humans sometimes/often (forget the specifics) win.

Those are almost always based on short straightaways with a rapid turn around at the end. The human can make the reversal and beat the horse back to the start line because the horse wastes time in the turn. It doesn't have anything to do with endurance.