Fitness means many things to many people. Unfortunately, when most people say they are healthy, they really mean that at that particular moment they are free of any known illness, do not have symptoms, and have a feeling of well-being at rest. Absence of disease is a negative definition of health and fitness.

Adequate fitness allows the individual to perform his daily chores without interference by fatigue, to have sufficient physical reserve to meet unexpected emergencies safely, and to have enough extra energy to enjoy leisure time. It is positive in its implications and thus can be attained and maintained only by activity, not by rest.

While fitness is easily defined, it is difficult to measure, particularly after college years. If one strives toward being fit, it is only fair that one should be able to assess how far along the road to fitness he has travelled. He should be able to say, "I am fit" or "I am not fit" or "I am getting there."

However, the human economy, being in a constant state of internal and therefore fairly invisible flux, is not amenable to the measurements available to evaluate, for example, the federal economy. There is no convenient metric or decimal appraisal of fitness, no series of figures which can be fed into an adding machine with a slip of paper stating, "You are 86 percent in shape" or, worse, "You are 2 percent fit."

Many excellent tests have been devised to set up standards of fitness for specially designated groups. At the service academies, for example, officer candidates must perform an irreducible number of push-ups, pull-ups, sit-ups, dips, rope climbs or shuttle runs (these vary from year to year) if they are to pass the physical fitness requirements of these academies. Likewise, most school systems have adopted a variety of fitness measurement programs in an attempt to bring all students up to an at least acceptable lower limit.

Present formal testing methods are beset with problems which render them of only limited general applicability. First, the standards proposed apply to minimum degrees of fitness. If a cadet can "pass" his fitness test, he is safe. There is no urgency for him to do his best; merely to "pass" is sufficient. An isolated instance is the swimming requirement of a well-known university. Here undergraduate students are required to swim one hundred yards in the pool before receiving a degree. This admittedly is better than no swimming requirement at all. But it falls far short of insisting that students must continue to swim, say, once a week after they have "passed" swimming. Gradations of fitness improvement should be encouraged, not merely reaching a minimum goal and stopping.

The second stricture of rigid and inflexible testing systems is that they apply to selected and specific groups. What might be good shape in junior high school would bring tears of disappointment at West Point. And what might be the absolute nadir at West Point would bring tears o£ exultation at a hospital for chronic diseases. Various tests may have great validity in comparing members of selected groups. Perhaps the range of fitness norms can be established for retired English bus drivers, Swedish lumberjacks, Annapolis plebes, and Boy Scouts. This is satisfactory for groups. But you are not a group. Groups may be homogeneous; individuals are not. It is fair to say that many tests can be adapted to different purposes by merely raising or lowering the minimum standards.