I can see it -- the latest craze: SurvivalFit!

-- Run away from ISIS for the best cardio ever! For a challenge, carry an elderly person on your back!
-- Fetch water from running stream with a bucket to strength your back!
-- Start a fire with a bow and drill to build forearm strength!
-- Hump heavy backpacks over miles to build enduranc

On a serious note, this discussion about fitness made me think of the difference between soldiers and athletes. Soldiers need to be able to do their job under the worst of circumstances. Athletes are given the ideal circumstances to give their best. It seems to me that survival is less about being the fittest person possible so you can run away from ISIS. It is about being able to get away from ISIS even when you have a broken leg. Athletes are graded 0-10. In a survival situation we're graded pass/fail.

With that said, it pays in general to be in good health and in good condition, physically and mentally. It's not a bad thing to be in shape even if it's only because you're motivated by the thought of having to run away from ISIS one day. But there is so much in life you can enjoy when you have good health, and let's not lose sight of that.

A more practical question -- what's a reasonable criterion of fitness for survival? Do we use the various military benchmarks? How do we adjust for age?