foreverfitness.info

One of the major factors in being enthusiastic and alert is being the proper weight. It is difficult to believe that anyone would disagree with this. Overweight people are typically slowed down by the need to carry more weight than they are able. They are ponderous and slow, generally finding the least little effort to be onerous. People at the proper weight (per tables easily accessible fro the AMA) are far less likely to be like this.

Muscle tone is another factor. Not all experts agree on what this is. In fact, Grey's Anatomy even denies that there is such a thing. But most people would acknowledge that active people tend to have muscles which not only appear functional and pleasing to the eye, but also allow for vigorous ongoing movement. That typically suggests anything from mere walking for extended periods (of an hour or more) to more complex activities such as competing in an Iron Man contest. People who are able to do these activities are thought of as being anything from fit to very athletic.

What should be done to maintain these two states, namely fitness and muscle tone? Most would say that proper diet, adequate exercise, and intelligent supplementation  would be the best answers. This is true after eighty years of all three being pioneered and perfected by Jack Lalanne. Other people might say that having good genes is the primary cause. But how can this really be demonstrated? Surely it is more universally convincing to observe the results of diet, supplementation and exercise over at least a  ten year period. People who have been at it for this long can be found next to you at church or on the internet. 

Can anyone not think that staying at an effective athletic program would not result in far more fit state than that of a counterpart  who had always been sedentary, without vitamins and subject to  excessive grocery store food? Can it be absurd to suppose that those who had continued on at this for a number of years might in fact look chronologically younger than those who had not?

It is unlikely that anyone would disagree with this proposition at least in theory. But, many would say that systematic fitness activities are dangerous past a certain age. This is the position of a considerable number in the medical community. Therefore, it has come to be common sense for most aging adults. As a corollary then, there allegedly is such a thing as starting fitness too late. But is this really true? If not, then might it not be reasonable to suppose that two years of doing the right things starting now, regardless of age, could get one back on track, or get one there in the first place. Might that not  result in the development of the attributes commonly associated with youthfulness? Recent university studies have shown this to be the case even for those well over sixty-five.

Keeping at a fitness lifestyle, in a sensible, systematic manner is counter to the very popular state of "growing old gracefully," which suggests an acceptance of the alleged inevitable slowing down of the bodily processes in preparation for death. That may have ultimate validity for some; yet, thinking back, one may realize isolated slow downs even back in his teens. The same goes for the "tummy ache" which enabled staying home from school. Granted, there may be a forty year age difference between us then and us now, but  are these experiences today really so different as to be thought of as the harbingers for the imminent cessation of life?

What if they were not? What if they were no more than isolated slow downs and "tummy aches" to be met head on in the same as they were back then--by just continuing our effort in spite of them? In the words of a now prevalent TV commercial, "The body now in motion tends to stay on motion."  Can anything, along with diet and supplements, sound like a better plan to turn back the clock and keep it there for a relative forever? Or, is it better to simply let go, accept, and nurture the little slow-downs and minor physical complaints in the interests of growing old gracefully?

The standard answer is that "only your MD knows for sure." Perhaps that is true. Therefore, perhaps you should ask if you are healthy enough for fitness activities. However, one of the reasons that we slow down as we get older is that the MDs say this is the best way to live out our advancing years. Considering how they look and act as they age, should they the final authority on this point? Does not the life of Jack Lalanne serve as a better benchmark?

For further thought on fitness living order my book "Think and Grow Fit."