I have to disagree with most of what poser has as conditioning standards. Deadlifting 135 or 225 to failure is way more conducive to hunting strength and endurance. As goes for all of these workouts. 1 rep max had almost zero real world benefits except for trying to prove you have bigger plums. (And I used to be that guy dl- 445 @190lbs) I wised up and now hit 8-15 reps as heavy as I can go to achieve those numbers. Endurance is the name of the game. That being said you gotta train in the mountains to execute in the mountains. Gym time definitely also has its place in my training regime. Just my 2 cents
I'm not arguing with you here, simply conversing ideas. I agree that endurance is the "name of the game." But, there is also the concept of "Strength for endurance" in which time to exhaustion is increased by one's ability to handle the task for a prolonged period. In other words, if athlete A can put out a certain amount of power for X amount of time and athlete B, who is stronger, can put out X amount of power for a longer period of time, does Athlete B not have better endurance?
The thing here is that it is not just strength and not just endurance. It is a combination of these two factors. A scrawny ultra distance runner may have great endurance for running, but would buckle under the load of a super heavy pack. A dedicated powerlifter may have the ability to toss a heavy pack around like a sheet of paper, but lack the endurance capabilities to hump it up a mountain.
The two factors certainly contribute to each other and, to be fair, the percents above, which are a pretty high standard (but why set the bar low?) are based on body weight % and not arbitrary numbers. Also, for pure strength training, this would presume heavy weight, low rep training which tends not to build mass like a body building program would, so its not necessary to be "big and jacked" to hit those types of strength ratios. An endurance athlete can benefit significantly from the ability to put out more power. Also, the fatigue of direct strength training done before direct endurance training, tends to make the endurance training more effective.
Maybe its a dead end road of thinking, but with all of these "how fit is fit enough", "What should I be doing" and "Is running beneficial" threads, I'm wondering if there is some way to formulate a "standard" for training. Maybe the numbers above are the high standard -something to aspire to. For example, I can't hit all of those strength percents, and the rowing comes up short, but I have run those times in races. I look at that and I see where my weaknesses are. So, if you can run a 5k in sub 22 minutes, but can't backsquat the equivalent of your bodyweight, you are fast, but relatively weak. Especially when training on your own, its easy to do the things you are good at. Big guys stay slow and strong, scrawny guys stay fast and weak. Maybe, if there was some kind of generally accepted relative standard for strength, power, endurance, speed etc there would be a way that a person who is training or intending to train for hunting could look to for guidance and comparison. A "combine" of sorts. Most of the guys here are looking at fitness as a ends to better hunting. While extreme weight loss etc are perhaps different issues entirely, losing a reasonable amount of weight or just being generally more fit are going to be results of efficient training.
Maybe it overcomplicates the subject severely. Also bare in mind that all artificial training is just that: artificial training. Obviously you don't row in the mountains, it is a measure of cardio power output. You usually don't pull a tire behind you, carry sand bags in your hands or do burpees either. Those are means of simulating certain tasks and/or general conditioning that potentially benefits performance. I'm just thinking out loud here.