Weight Loss Thread!

[ShaggyDirk]

Originally Posted by LonghornDub

Some pretty wild and inaccurate assumptions run under that second argument.

Please elaborate and explain...

[LonghornDub]

Originally Posted by ShaggyDirk

Please elaborate and explain...

Equating strength with "durability," for one, is pretty suspect. To the extent it's true at all, it's probably true only as to durability against mechanical ailments (e.g., being strong could make you less likely to strain a muscle, tear a ligament, etc.).

I can't speak for you, but those things are pretty far down my list of ailments I'd like durability against.

[ShaggyDirk]

Originally Posted by LonghornDub

Equating strength with "durability," for one, is pretty suspect. To the extent it's true at all, it's probably true only as to durability against mechanical ailments (e.g., being strong could make you less likely to strain a muscle, tear a ligament, etc.).

I can't speak for you, but those things are pretty far down my list of ailments I'd like durability against.

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.

[LonghornDub]

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.

[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.

[LonghornDub]

Originally Posted by ShaggyDirk

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..

I'll be tactful in return and not explain why my first post makes perfect sense when read correctly.

[ShaggyDirk]

Originally Posted by LonghornDub

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.

The whole article is why strength training should be the approach everyone takes. Cardio is a subset of strength and conditioning. That's the point. There isn't any overreaching taking place.

[LonghornDub]

Originally Posted by ShaggyDirk

The whole article is why strength training should be the approach everyone takes. Cardio is a subset of strength and conditioning. That's the point. There isn't any overreaching taking place.

Yes, yes there is. It's right here:

In my experience, strength training is more useful for
humans over the long haul. The goal of training in general should be to develop a robust, injury resistant body that is harder to break. Strength training accomplishes this goal. As useful as it may be, cardiorespiratory training does not.

Overreaching. And frankly, I find it quite humorous how the guy cites "his experience"---which spans less than one lifetime---in reaching a conclusion about what's good for all humanity "over the long haul."

[ShaggyDirk]

Originally Posted by LonghornDub

Yes, yes there is. It's right here:



Overreaching. And frankly, I find it quite humorous how the guy cites "his experience"---which spans less than one lifetime---in reaching a conclusion about what's good for all humanity "over the long haul."

His argument is that a majority of the people who try and mimic the training goals of the magazines, infomercials, and even CrossFit is not beneficial to the overall health and fitness of the individual. Instead of trying to please the aethstetic needs of our psychy with trying to get washboard abs, bulging biceps, or an unhealthy bf% you need to build a foundational strength. He's obviously not talking to you. He's talking to the poor sap who is ignorant and misguided by bad information or lack of.