[ShaggyDirk]

Originally Posted by LonghornDub

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 what you think are 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.

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. 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.

This makes a lot more sense than your previous post. I was trying to be as tactful as I could... I didn't even know where to go with that.. Anyway, I'll take a look at what you are saying and respond.