Quote:
Originally Posted by ShaggyDirk
I think your definition of strength function is different from mine. Can't speak for the multitudes but, anyway... Muscle is a function of strength. The stronger a muscle, the better that muscle is at working the joint it's operating. (after all that is what a muscle does, right?). That applies to everything you do.
Durability is more beneficial than you give credit towards. You can think of muscle as a coat of armor that protects you from life's torments. I have a friend who was in a motor cycle accident. He's a very strong and muscular dude. The doctor said besides the helmet, his muscular stature saved him from a lot worse that could have happened.
It's one thing to be defensive about your beliefs of how being fit is defined which dictates your plan. It's another to not acknowledge the benefits of being strong.
|
Ok, but you're just confirming exactly what I said, which is that to the extent being strong promotes "durability," it promotes durability against mechanical ailments. We can add "car wreck," "plane crash," "gunfire," "street brawl," or whatever else you want as the mechanical forces we're protecting against. But the fundamental limitation remains the same.
I'm absolutely not refusing to acknowledge the benefits of being strong. Being strong is very useful in itself, which is exactly why he doesn't need to overreach and start claiming that strength training is vastly preferable to cardio because our goal should be to "make our bodies so they don't break." Please.
Like I said, that's the glaring flaw in the article. Strong is strong. Strong is a good thing. Now, Wells, tell us the most effective ways to improve our strength. But don't sit there and rationalize some barely sensible explanation as to why strength training is far and away the best kind of exercise for everyone. It's preposterous.
As for your last comment, sorry, but that's completely offbase. I strength train 3-4 times a week and do almost no cardio whatsoever, except as incidental to playing sports sometimes. I focus primarily on compound movements using large and multiple muscle groups, just like I'm sure he would recommend. This has nothing to do with me or wanting to defend how I workout. His article is full of faulty logic, which is not even remotely surprising given what he does and his biases.