MB Madaera
Lost 31.7 lbs fat
Built 11.7 lbs muscle


Chris Madaera
Built 9 lbs muscle


Keelan Parham
Lost 30 lbs fat
Built 4 lbs muscle


Bob Marchesello
Lost 23.55 lbs fat
Built 8.55 lbs muscle


Jeff Turner
Lost 25.5 lbs fat


Jeanenne Darden
Lost 26 lbs fat
Built 3 lbs muscle


Ted Tucker
Lost 41 lbs fat
Built 4 lbs muscle

 
 

Determine the Length of Your Workouts

Evaluate Your Progress

Keep Warm-Up in Perspective


ARCHIVES >>

"Doing more exercise with less intensity,"
Arthur Jones believes, "has all but
destroyed the actual great value
of weight training. Something
must be done . . . and quickly."
The New Bodybuilding for
Old-School Results supplies
MUCH of that "something."

 

This is one of 93 photos of Andy McCutcheon that are used in The New High-Intensity Training to illustrate the recommended exercises.

To find out more about McCutcheon and his training, click here.

 

Mission Statement

H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy

Privacy Policy

Credits

LOG IN FORUM MAIN REGISTER SEARCH
Is Running Really all that Bad?
First | Prev | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | Next | Last
Author
Rating
Options

Landau

Florida, USA

Natty wrote:
Landau wrote:
What is PRE? - This is where it comes from. What is it? - Who is it? If you don't know, then WTF are you here?

David. Asking me a question and expecting an answer is rather "rich" wouldn't you say seeing as you refuse to answer several questions that I have posed to you.. So so we try this again.

1/ Would you accept medicine that been "researched" as you don't accept research.

2/ You've made the claim that Arthur Jones told you in private that the information I presented in his athletic journals was null and void. I ask you is it wort for anyone to read ANY of Jones published works if he "null and void" them in private?

Surely, if you expect me to answer your questions you must answer mine?


1. Be More Specific - Exercise Physiology HAS HUGE FLAWS when dealing with so called "CVE." - 50 % of Medical Research was deeemed specious in Lancet, so what do you think the water boys have over that? "EPR" cannot agree on their own definitions, so why bother even quoting such nonsense? The Originators of the said formulas now scoff at their own works - WELL DOCUMENTED - see Kolata. We have ways of investigating as simple as being an educated consumer, who doesn't accept garbage at face value. I did not need research studies to find out over 30 years ago, that taking supplements were making me a Richer Waste Product.

2.Again Non Specific there some things that have changed over deacades - Arthur's Investigation changed a few things 10 years later - there is value beyond belief in some of those works, but you have to be able to discriminate a broad # of topics that he discusses - you must know what he again dicovered in the mid 80s - I have the actual Video Seminars - but the Information is NOT for you to misinterpret and abuse in your own little way. Go Google - that is the best I will give you.

VERY SPECIFIC - what is pre and who originated it and why does it effect you - clue - keep googling.
Open User Options Menu

N@tural1

Landau wrote:
1. Be More Specific - Exercise Physiology HAS HUGE FLAWS when dealing with so called "CVE." - 50 % of Medical Research was deeemed specious in Lancet.


Can you provide the reference for this? I'd be curious to read it.

Landau wrote:
The Originators of the said formulas now scoff at their own works - WELL DOCUMENTED - see Kolata.


Again I would ask for references to this assertion. Re: Kolata, are you refereing to GINA KOLATA? if so, what is her opinion on exercise physiologist?

Landau wrote:
We have ways of investigating as simple as being an educated consumer, who doesn't accept garbage at face value.


What is "garbage" and what isn't is very open to personal interpretation Landau. Hence why I have produced references to back my position and request the same from you.

Landau wrote:
I did not need research studies to find out over 30 years ago, that taking supplements were making me a Richer Waste Product.


Ah I see, more opinion with no back up.

Landau wrote:
2.Again Non Specific there some things that have changed over deacades - Arthur's Investigation changed a few things 10 years later - there is value beyond belief in some of those works, but you have to be able to discriminate a broad # of topics that he discusses - you must know what he again dicovered in the mid 80s - I have the actual Video Seminars - but the Information is NOT for you to misinterpret and abuse in your own little way. Go Google - that is the best I will give you.


Why is Jones published works still available on the web if it gives a false and inaccurate impression of what Jones believed?

Regarding the athletic journal I posted, Jones wrote of a study where athletes actually improved their running performance from his form of cardio (moving from exercise to exercise swiftly etc..) Now even IF Jones took back certain things, that test result/study in itself proves there are biological improvements as a result of "huff and puff" exercise. That, or else Jones outright lied about his study results. What ever he said, he cannot withdraw that study.

Can you please verify are you refereing to GINA KOLATA?
Open User Options Menu

Landau

Florida, USA

Natty wrote:
Landau wrote:
1. Be More Specific - Exercise Physiology HAS HUGE FLAWS when dealing with so called "CVE." - 50 % of Medical Research was deeemed specious in Lancet.

Can you provide the reference for this? I'd be curious to read it.



Landau wrote:
The Originators of the said formulas now scoff at their own works - WELL DOCUMENTED - see Kolata.

Again I would ask for references to this assertion. Re: Kolata, are you refereing to GINA KOLATA? if so, what is her opinion on exercise physiologist?

Landau wrote:
We have ways of investigating as simple as being an educated consumer, who doesn't accept garbage at face value.

What is "garbage" and what isn't is very open to personal interpretation Landau. Hence why I have produced references to back my position and request the same from you.

Landau wrote:
I did not need research studies to find out over 30 years ago, that taking supplements were making me a Richer Waste Product.

Ah I see, more opinion with no back up.

Landau wrote:
2.Again Non Specific there some things that have changed over deacades - Arthur's Investigation changed a few things 10 years later - there is value beyond belief in some of those works, but you have to be able to discriminate a broad # of topics that he discusses - you must know what he again dicovered in the mid 80s - I have the actual Video Seminars - but the Information is NOT for you to misinterpret and abuse in your own little way. Go Google - that is the best I will give you.

Why is Jones published works still available on the web if it gives a false and inaccurate impression of what Jones believed?

Regarding the athletic journal I posted, Jones wrote of a study where athletes actually improved their running performance from his form of cardio (moving from exercise to exercise swiftly etc..) Now even IF Jones took back certain things, that test result/study in itself proves there are biological improvements as a result of "huff and puff" exercise. That, or else Jones outright lied about his study results. What ever he said, he cannot withdraw that study.

Can you please verify are you refereing to GINA KOLATA?


1.Medical Professional I train told me (He Is One of the Most Honest People I have Met) I will ask him again Tuesday.
2. Gina
3. You have to Interpret - by and large brilliant - helps to have lived in that era
4. He simply played their game better
Open User Options Menu

Tomislav

New York, USA

jeffpinter wrote:
Landau wrote:
Jeff: Just explain your Super Slow Venture
I've explained it ad nauseum David.

Explain yours.

Jeff



David,
This thread is tough to keep up with; last time I looked at it you were trading training article references with Natural but now have gone back to berserking.

From previous discussion (which I believe you participated in) I would say Jeff is referring to the peroid where he tried super slow as an already advanced athlete and slowly regressed - lost size and strength.

I had a similar experience with trying super slow as an already advanced athlete and would agree; here's a related aspect I would like to hear your opinion on - I think superslow can be dangerous for advanced athletes; think it defeats the natural strength curve inherent in many free-weight exercises and can potentially cause damage in the more compromised ROM positions where advanced athletes may be strong enough to hurt themselves without it's prophylactic effect.


Jeff,

I think David had a point at least regarding at least Jones perspective on the scientific process of peer review you mentioned somewhere earlier in the thread; Jones had some keen insight on the scientific review process, noting that new ideas in fields of science and engineering suffered delays from the peer review process or could be thwarted by it completely because the scientist with the new idea in fact has no peers in that regard and recieves negative feedback and resistance they should not; I think heavy resistance is great for building muscle, but irrational when unwarrented in peer review.
Open User Options Menu

N@tural1

Landau wrote:
1.Medical Professional I train told me (He Is One of the Most Honest People I have Met)


Interesting that you believe the words of a medical professional yet reject studies carried out by medical professionals. I'm sure your friend is a stand up guy but that doesn't make everyone else wrong.

Landau wrote:
You have to Interpret - by and large.


I agree we have to draw our own conclusions based on evidence presented.

Regarding Gina Kolata.

It may interest you to know that she's a science journalist for The New York Times and also a self-proclaimed exercise addict. I found one of her very recent articles in which she makes references to exercise physiologists and makes mention to "aerobic fitness" more than once:

http://www.nytimes.com/...3best.html?_r=2
Open User Options Menu

Landau

Florida, USA

Her book reveals that - have you read it?
Open User Options Menu

N@tural1

Landau wrote:
Her book reveals that - have you read it?


No I haven't, what does her book reveal specifically in regards to "huff and puff" exercise?

And also, no I'm not familiar with what you're referring to when you say "PRE" so I look forward to your explanation, you used it in context of purposely slowed reps didn't you?
Open User Options Menu

Benjamin Dover

Natty wrote:
JamesT wrote:
Well they are both fantasy, so why not?

So why do you have your clients perform your form of cardio? perhaps you should think before you rush into backing up your friend here. What you just posted negates your self admitted cardio sessions that you have your own clients perform.


Just to clear this up, YOU are an idiot. I believe this wholly.

My clients DO NOT perform "cardio". They do NOT PERFORM CARDIO. Cardio ISN'T performed. There is NO, zero CARDIO. Cardio??? No thanks.

Do you understand yet? There is NO link between highly conditioned individuals (mostly genetic) and HEALTH. The link doesn't exist. A different function, an "improved" function, a metabolic/physiological change - clutching at straws, these factors have no bearing on health, per se.

I employ the "rush factor" in order to create the highest degree of physiological stress during a given workout. I'm after cumulative inroad and systemic stimulus.

The cardio factor in our workouts will improve conditioning, but I'm very aware that you have very little room for maneuver. You're talking about very minor, very SPECIFIC improvements. Who mentioned HEALTH?

I'm struggling to find a contradiction Numpty, it's very, very clear.

But like I said, you're an idiot. Running is a particularly unhealthy activity...

http://orthopedics.about.com/...nninginjury.htm

http://www.time-to-run.com/...ebig5/index.htm

http://sportsmedicine.about.co...

I love the specialist sites. Look at the list of issues you can deal with...

http://www.runnersrescue.com/

http://www.runnersworld.co.uk/...cle.asp?UAN=199

http://www.sportsinjuryclinic....

Oh dear. All in the pursuit of health and fitness. I think I'll stick to the dogmatic HIT approach.

Open User Options Menu

N@tural1

JamesT wrote:
Just to clear this up, YOU are an idiot. I believe this wholly.


Ad Hominem ;)

JamesT wrote:
My clients DO NOT perform "cardio". They do NOT PERFORM CARDIO. Cardio ISN'T performed. There is NO, zero CARDIO. Cardio??? No thanks.


No cardio you say...

JamesT wrote:
Do you understand yet? There is NO link between highly conditioned individuals (mostly genetic) and HEALTH. The link doesn't exist. A different function, an "improved" function, a metabolic/physiological change - clutching at straws, these factors have no bearing on health, per se.


What are your references for this because all I'm reading is opinion stated as facts with no references. The numerous studies I've presented suggest that there are some fitness to health benefits.

JamesT wrote:
The cardio factor in our workouts will improve conditioning.


...cardio factor? But you JUST SAID your clients don't perform cardio? So they don't perform cardio yet there is a cardio factor... they either benefit from elevated heart/breathing rates or they don't....

JamesT wrote:
Who mentioned HEALTH?


Numerous studies from many researchers.

JamesT wrote:
But like I said, you're an idiot. Running is a particularly unhealthy activity...

Oh dear. All in the pursuit of health and fitness. I think I'll stick to the dogmatic HIT approach.


What a ridiculous argument here James. More logical fallacies.. running injuries CAN occur therefore running is of NO benefit whatsoever.. come now, that doesn't wash. People can get killed driving but that doesn't negate the benefits of having a car.

Granted running to excess like ANY OTHER activity poses injury risks from the actual mechanics involved but this deviates from the actual debate here as we're looking at internal adaptations and benefits (heart,lungs etc..) of running and all exercise that gets you "huffing"

Running offers these benefits but there are plenty of other ways to achieve the same end. Rowing, cycling, swimming, machines, muscular conditioning etc...
Open User Options Menu

Landau

Florida, USA

Training is the Low End of "Science"
Healthy People are More Likely to Exercise than Non Healthy (Cause or Effect?)
Exercise for "pleasure" - not health
Mild Exercise - Health (an opinion) whatever that is supposed to mean?
The Obsession caused by Poor "Studies" involving the "magical" target heart rate formulas which was a calamity

Tom Delorme PRE - you should know this - it is the direct descendent of The Progressive Resistance Exercise that you use
Open User Options Menu

N@tural1

Landau wrote:
Training is the Low End of "Science"


Doesn't make it "not science" and doesn't make our knowledge inaccurate. It's still more accurate than speculation.

Landau wrote:
Healthy People are More Likely to Exercise than Non Healthy (Cause or Effect?)


Where is the research that backs up that claim? Anyhow.. Plenty of studies have shown unhealthy people gaining health benefits from exercise. They've been presented here.

Landau wrote:
Mild Exercise - Health (an opinion) whatever that is supposed to mean?


I think the studies explain that.

Landau wrote:
The Obsession caused by Poor "Studies" involving the "magical" target heart rate formulas which was a calamity.


I don't think many of the studies I presented mention a "magic" heart rate as such.

Landau wrote:
Tom Delorme PRE - you should know this - it is the direct descendent of The Progressive Resistance Exercise that you use.


Please elaborate.. I'm all ears (eyes). Explain and I'll let you know my view on "PRE"
Open User Options Menu

southbeach

you should have been a surgeon natty because you are dissecting them lol :D
Open User Options Menu

N@tural1

southbeach wrote:
you should have been a surgeon natty because you are dissecting them lol :D


They are producing "hearsay" - "such and such" said this therefore it's true, sorry but with no actual study data to support their assertions they don't have a leg to stand on. Research and empiricism are THE two ways that knowledge is born, opinion and hearsay doesn't wash.
Open User Options Menu

Mr. Strong

Natty wrote:
southbeach wrote:
you should have been a surgeon natty because you are dissecting them lol :D

They are producing "hearsay" - "such and such" said this therefore it's true, sorry but with no actual study data to support their assertions they don't have a leg to stand on. Research and empiricism are THE two ways that knowledge is born, opinion and hearsay doesn't wash.




Lol, you don't get it do you? Knowledge isn't born from research its born from opinion, the purpose of research is to prove opinion. Research is not the first step.

A person has an opinion such as running is good for you, then they design a procedure to prove or disprove their hypothesis. All our knowledge began as one persons opinion.

Or do you think that studies and research papers grew on trees for the first people to read? Of course not, they had opinions and ideas about how things worked.

Do you only believe the research that suits your own opinions or do you believe everything that has been written under the guise of research? How do you know what is good or bad, right or wrong, if someone hasn't wrote a research paper on it?

Open User Options Menu

southbeach

Mr. Strong wrote:
Natty wrote:
southbeach wrote:
you should have been a surgeon natty because you are dissecting them lol :D

They are producing "hearsay" - "such and such" said this therefore it's true, sorry but with no actual study data to support their assertions they don't have a leg to stand on. Research and empiricism are THE two ways that knowledge is born, opinion and hearsay doesn't wash.



Lol, you don't get it do you? Knowledge isn't born from research its born from opinion, the purpose of research is to prove opinion. Research is not the first step.

A person has an opinion such as running is good for you, then they design a procedure to prove or disprove their hypothesis. All our knowledge began as one persons opinion.

Or do you think that studies and research papers grew on trees for the first people to read? Of course not, they had opinions and ideas about how things worked.

Do you only believe the research that suits your own opinions or do you believe everything that has been written under the guise of research? How do you know what is good or bad, right or wrong, if someone hasn't wrote a research paper on it?



reliable knowledge is born from opinion?

you should have been born in Dark Ages.. you'd be right up front burning 'witches' :\

get your GED.. take a course in science
Open User Options Menu

N@tural1

Mr. Strong wrote:
Lol, you don't get it do you? Knowledge isn't born from research its born from opinion, the purpose of research is to prove opinion. Research is not the first step.


I absolutely disagree. For centuries man thought that the earth was flat and that you'd sail of the end if you went too far. The sun rose from and set into the sea. Science came along and proved otherwise. Science changed opinion.

Mr. Strong wrote:
A person has an opinion such as running is good for you, then they design a procedure to prove or disprove their hypothesis. All our knowledge began as one persons opinion.


Are you seriously suggesting the the before and after test results in the huge amount of studies presented by myself and SB are all based on opinion? What you're saying then is all researchers, MD's PhD's are liars.. I hope you never need medical procedures based on science.

Mr. Strong wrote:
Or do you think that studies and research papers grew on trees for the first people to read? Of course not, they had opinions and ideas about how things worked.


Maybe so but to null and void science and study results necessitates labeling all researchers as liars. I don't really think that's the case do you?

Mr. Strong wrote:
Do you only believe the research that suits your own opinions or do you believe everything that has been written under the guise of research?


Not every study no, like I said, a little common sense is needed to ascertain the validity of a study. As I've said before to you, it's pretty much common sense that exercise improves the human body, so when studies say test results show "this and that" it shouldn't really be a huge shocker should it..

Mr. Strong wrote:
How do you know what is good or bad, right or wrong, if someone hasn't wrote a research paper on it?


Common sense plays a huge part. We don't need a study to prove that we'd injure ourselves if we jumped of a cliff do we. etc..
Open User Options Menu

Mr. Strong

Natty wrote:
Mr. Strong wrote:
Lol, you don't get it do you? Knowledge isn't born from research its born from opinion, the purpose of research is to prove opinion. Research is not the first step.

I absolutely disagree. For centuries man thought that the earth was flat and that you'd sail of the end if you went too far. The sun rose from and set into the sea. Science came along and proved otherwise. Science changed opinion.

Mr. Strong wrote:
A person has an opinion such as running is good for you, then they design a procedure to prove or disprove their hypothesis. All our knowledge began as one persons opinion.

Are you seriously suggesting the the before and after test results in the huge amount of studies presented by myself and SB are all based on opinion? What you're saying then is all researchers, MD's PhD's are liars.. I hope you never need medical procedures based on science.

Mr. Strong wrote:
Or do you think that studies and research papers grew on trees for the first people to read? Of course not, they had opinions and ideas about how things worked.

Maybe so but to null and void science and study results necessitates labeling all researchers as liars. I don't really think that's the case do you?

Mr. Strong wrote:
Do you only believe the research that suits your own opinions or do you believe everything that has been written under the guise of research?

Not every study no, like I said, a little common sense is needed to ascertain the validity of a study. As I've said before to you, it's pretty much common sense that exercise improves the human body, so when studies say test results show "this and that" it shouldn't really be a huge shocker should it..

Mr. Strong wrote:
How do you know what is good or bad, right or wrong, if someone hasn't wrote a research paper on it?

Common sense plays a huge part. We don't need a study to prove that we'd injure ourselves if we jumped of a cliff do we. etc..



Science was born from opinion, such as the earth was round rather than flat. They went on to prove it but it began as an opinion, just an idea in the beginning. This is the same with almost everything, it begins as just a small idea in someones mind which is gradually turned into something more substantial.

Do you understand what I am saying?

I do not disagree with you about the health benefits of exercise.

My post was wrote to you because of your comments on opinion whcih I felt were incorrect as you can hopefully see by my comments.
Open User Options Menu

Mr. Strong

southbeach wrote:
Mr. Strong wrote:
Natty wrote:
southbeach wrote:
you should have been a surgeon natty because you are dissecting them lol :D

They are producing "hearsay" - "such and such" said this therefore it's true, sorry but with no actual study data to support their assertions they don't have a leg to stand on. Research and empiricism are THE two ways that knowledge is born, opinion and hearsay doesn't wash.



Lol, you don't get it do you? Knowledge isn't born from research its born from opinion, the purpose of research is to prove opinion. Research is not the first step.

A person has an opinion such as running is good for you, then they design a procedure to prove or disprove their hypothesis. All our knowledge began as one persons opinion.

Or do you think that studies and research papers grew on trees for the first people to read? Of course not, they had opinions and ideas about how things worked.

Do you only believe the research that suits your own opinions or do you believe everything that has been written under the guise of research? How do you know what is good or bad, right or wrong, if someone hasn't wrote a research paper on it?



reliable knowledge is born from opinion?

you should have been born in Dark Ages.. you'd be right up front burning 'witches' :\

get your GED.. take a course in science




Please explain how it isn't? For example was it not a persons opinion that the earth was round rather than flat? And they went on to prove it. But it began as just an opinion in the beginning.
Open User Options Menu

N@tural1

Mr. Strong wrote:
Science was born from opinion, such as the earth was round rather than flat. They went on to prove it but it began as an opinion, just an idea in the beginning. This is the same with almost everything, it begins as just a small idea in someones mind which is gradually turned into something more substantial.


Ok fair enough I can see what you're saying here. I would venture to say that research is based on an idea and opinions based on the results.

Mr. Strong wrote:
Do you understand what I am saying?


Absolutely.

Mr. Strong wrote:
I do not disagree with you about the health benefits of exercise.


I think most level headed open minded people will acknowledge this.

Mr. Strong wrote:
My post was wrote to you because of your comments on opinion whcih I felt were incorrect as you can hopefully see by my comments.


I understand the point but I would say more based on an idea/opinion with opinions either changing or remaining based on the resulting data.
Open User Options Menu

Landau

Florida, USA

Natty wrote:
Landau wrote:
Training is the Low End of "Science"

Doesn't make it "not science" and doesn't make our knowledge inaccurate. It's still more accurate than speculation.

Landau wrote:
Healthy People are More Likely to Exercise than Non Healthy (Cause or Effect?)

Where is the research that backs up that claim? Anyhow.. Plenty of studies have shown unhealthy people gaining health benefits from exercise. They've been presented here.

Landau wrote:
Mild Exercise - Health (an opinion) whatever that is supposed to mean?

I think the studies explain that.

Landau wrote:
The Obsession caused by Poor "Studies" involving the "magical" target heart rate formulas which was a calamity.

I don't think many of the studies I presented mention a "magic" heart rate as such.

Landau wrote:
Tom Delorme PRE - you should know this - it is the direct descendent of The Progressive Resistance Exercise that you use.

Please elaborate.. I'm all ears (eyes). Explain and I'll let you know my view on "PRE"


These are a Summary you asked for from the book - sounds like you're still critiquing me - email Kolata.

PRE - Look it up, read the book.
Open User Options Menu

N@tural1

Landau wrote:
These are a Summary you asked for from the book - sounds like you're still critiquing me - email Kolata.

PRE - Look it up, read the book.


I asked you in what way the book negates ALL exercise physiology, is three letters the best you can do? "PRE"? Is that supposed to qualify as an "argument". If you have anything to add to this discussion then please kindly do so for the benefit of those reading this thread. Telling me to go read a book and email someone does not count as a rebuttal.

Besides, what makes this book 100% correct and all studies presented here 100% incorrect? Sounds like more opinion to me Landau. The book contains subjects based on the paranormal, how does this negate the health factor in exercise? What are it's references?

I've already presented a an article where Kolata refers to "aerobic" exercise and makes reference to several exercise physiologists. Strange if you're implying she has no regard for modern exercise science wouldn't you say?
Open User Options Menu

Landau

Florida, USA

Read the Book - It is a Good Reference Book for any Physical Culture Library and for the cost of a few dollars or so.
Open User Options Menu

AceHIT

Natty wrote:
Landau wrote:
These are a Summary you asked for from the book - sounds like you're still critiquing me - email Kolata.

PRE - Look it up, read the book.

I asked you in what way the book negates ALL exercise physiology, is three letters the best you can do? "PRE"? Is that supposed to qualify as an "argument". If you have anything to add to this discussion then please kindly do so for the benefit of those reading this thread. Telling me to go read a book and email someone does not count as a rebuttal.

Besides, what makes this book 100% correct and all studies presented here 100% incorrect? Sounds like more opinion to me Landau. The book contains subjects based on the paranormal, how does this negate the health factor in exercise? What are it's references?

I've already presented a an article where Kolata refers to "aerobic" exercise and makes reference to several exercise physiologists. Strange if you're implying she has no regard for modern exercise science wouldn't you say?


Natty

What is your point?

Running is good?

Good for what?

Why are you so obsessed with HITers?

Do you wish you were like them?

You sound so insecure. Why?
Open User Options Menu

N@tural1

Landau wrote:
Read the Book - It is a Good Reference Book for any Physical Culture Library and for the cost of a few dollars or so.


This is the issue I'm having here David. The only way that physiological changes can be monitored in the human body is through a carefully controlled study and research. There is no alternative, opinion doesn't count. Now, for you to be able to invalidate all research, there would have to be carefully controlled peer reviewed research/studies which arrive at alternate conclusions. However this in itself brings about it's own set of problems. You reject all physiological research, hence how do you know that the studies that countered the other studies were properly carried out? You see the problem.

While I agree with you that many studies are inaccurate, poorly conducted, bias etc.. There is no valid reason to assume that all studies are useless.
Open User Options Menu

N@tural1

AceHIT wrote:
What is your point?


If you read the thread it should be very clear.

AceHIT wrote:
Running is good?
Good for what?


If you read the studies I've presented here this also should become very clear.

AceHIT wrote:
Why are you so obsessed with HITers?


Is a willingness to discuss training matters an "obsession"? I would call it a keen eagerness to learn and help others.

AceHIT wrote:
Do you wish you were like them?


You'll have to be a little more specific here.. In what way?

AceHIT wrote:
You sound so insecure. Why?


Ad Hominem.
Open User Options Menu
First | Previous | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | Next | Last
Administrators Online: Mod Jump'n Jack
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy