A video still from the upcoming video release: the Arx Fit Omni World Unveiling
~~~
Joe A posted the following (link). I found it appropriate to share as a main post. In the words of James Steele, bravo!
Underscoring and bolding added by me.
“I’m not sure there can really be one universal definition of exercise”
The health/wellness industry’s lack of properly defining concepts is a big problem. Exercise must have a definition or it has no identity. In that case, everything is exercise and nothing is exercise. This ambiguity has led to much confusion on the part of, not only the exercisers, but more notably those attempting to prescribe it.
A definition does not constrain a concept, as you suggest. It distinguishes it, allowing appropriate variation without bastardizing its core purpose. Think about a chair; there is a universally accepted concept of what a chair is. That doesn’t mean all chairs are the same. Different chairs have different applications; some are not appropriate for some people; some are more appropriate (in terms of function, materials, style, aesthetics) than others depending on the specific needs and desired outcomes. But they are still chairs. And while I often sit on the hood of my car, it doesn’t make it a chair. Even if it is the most appropriate place to sit in a given situation (meeting the need and desired outcome), the hood of my car will never be a chair.
Likewise, regardless of what people are calling exercise or performing as exercise, it doesn’t mean it is actually exercise. Sports will never be exercise; neither will athletic training, rehabilitation nor recreation. Exercise exists as a subset of physical activity, with specific characteristics. It is by those characteristics that exercise can be appropriately applied to a variety of goals and then assessed for effectiveness, efficiency, safety, etc.
Now, many physical activities have physiological effects similar to exercise. Obviously, if persons are obtaining these benefits from non-exercise activities, then the need for actual exercise may be minimized or even negated. This is no different than the need for an actual chair being negated by the fact that I can sit on the hood of my car. However, at some point, needs may change. When they do, a chair (or in this case exercise) may be more appropriate, and one can select the specific activity(ies) that elicit the desired response(s).
So, two things really struck me reading this back:
1) Why did I type a comment that fucking long in response to a troll? WTF?
2) I made a long-winded case for the need to define “exercise”, and then never actually offered a definition
James Steele gave this definition a couple comments previous to mine:
“a deliberately directed activity which produces a beneficial chronic physiological adaptation to increase fitness and also health whilst presenting minimal risk to health in the process”
I do not entirely agree with James (I’ll explain below), but since Anthony opened the topic, I’m curious what others attribute to the core concept of “exercise”?
My disagreement with James’ definition are simply minor quibbles:
1) “which produces a beneficial chronic physiological adaptation to increase fitness and also health”
I’d agree that the above is the ideal, however, I think it may be more appropriately included in the definition of “effective exercise,” The accomplishment of such adaptations are reliant on more than the performance of exercise (nutrition, rest, absent pathology, dosing of the stimuli, etc) and therefore cannot be required. Further, at certain stages it is not possible (or not desirable) to increase health and fitness; one is simply attempting to maintain or slow the loss of it. Limiting “exercise” to actually producing adaptations that increase health/fitness is viewing it too narrowly.
In my opinion, two conditions must be present- performing activity with the intent to produce these adaptations AND (this is a big and) choosing activities that are actually capable of eliciting said effects. These distinctions still eliminate most of the things erroneously being called exercise.
2 )”presenting minimal risk to health in the process”
If we have previously established that exercise is activity, deliberately directed with an intent to increase health/fitness, to me it seems redundant, if not superfluous, to make this further distinction. It simply (should) go without saying that if one is attempting to improve their health that they are not diminishing it in the process. Right?
However, considering many of the current exercise trends, I understand fully the desire to make such a distinction. In my opinion, the ability to mitigate injuries (both acute and chronic/overuse) speaks to the exercise quality; determining what is most appropriate or most effective. Risk is relative; as a practitioner, I know what I’d be comfortable prescribing, but I do not think “exercise” necessarily needs to be limited to it. What I deem risky, may very well be suitable in some instances.
Shut up and train
I witnessed that monster of a reply to the troller. Very impressive. I read that and was in awe, very good definition . How does a troller not be instantly converted to a believer when the quality of responses he recieves is incredible? I will never understand.