|
WOMEN: Swim Test |
13-19 |
20-29 |
30-39 |
|
excellent |
>700 yards |
>600 yards |
>550 yards |
|
good |
600-699 |
500-599 |
450-549 |
|
fair |
500-599 |
400-499 |
350-449 |
|
poor |
400-499 |
300-399 |
250-349 |
|
very poor |
<400 |
<300 |
<250 |
This is a random fitness test I pulled off the Internet. You swim as fast and far as you can for twelve minutes. I’m older than is taken into account for this chart, for the record.
So, “good” means one can swim at least a quarter of a mile in twelve minutes.
I’m not very in -shape, but my regular, not trying excessively hard, and certainly breaking it up with slower strokes than the crawl swimming pace is about 12 minutes on a quarter of a mile. An all-out effort using only the crawl? Yeah, I’d break that 550 yards, no problem.
Either I am in considerably better shape than I give myself credit for, or this test might be a bit inaccurate. I’d love to think I’m in good shape and all, but I have this nagging feeling that if I take this as accurate, I’m kinda fooling myself.
I’ve noticed that when I’m not feeling very much like exercising, one trick I play on myself is to set a *very* low bar: “Oh, come on, just do X. You can do that, at least, right?”
I was just wondering if maybe the authors of this list are trying the same thing? If the goal is to get people to exercise at all, maybe you’re better off not setting the bar too high. And I tend to agree with that, as I agree with your sentiment that “showing up” is the most important part, far more than progress or hitting specific performance metrics.
On third thought, given that you’ve been swimming every weekday for quite some time now (I take it), maybe it’s not so implausible that your swimming fitness is in the “good” range?