Results 1 to 5 of 5
-
Light Heavyweight
Achievements:- Join Date
- Oct 2003
- Posts
- 3,531
- Points
- 14,992

Posted On:
4/08/2004 12:06am--
Could be worse, I guess. Pretty generic. Probably won't **** anyone up too badly.
Lots of the predictable ambiguities, contradictions and supersititions, i.e. explosive lifting for sports, "active recovery", "power" calculations, referenced frequency prescriptions.Last edited by Nid; 4/08/2004 12:09am at .
-
Fancy a milkshake?
Achievements:- Join Date
- Jul 2003
- Posts
- 1,322
- Points
- 7,591

Posted On:
4/08/2004 12:18am -
Light Heavyweight
Achievements:- Join Date
- Oct 2003
- Posts
- 3,531
- Points
- 14,992

Posted On:
4/08/2004 12:19am--
It's not BAD. Anatomy is anatomy anywhere. Many of the principles they mention are sound....it's just that some aren't. That, and there are more cohesive creeds floating around.
Anyone can make a website and fill it with a bunch o' fitness resources. The science is to make a rational, cohesive creed of it...not just let people pick through (and arbitrarily decide) what constitutes crap. Have a focus...have some boundaries...use reason and empiricism....minimize randomnesss....alienate morons. The opposite approach is the earmark of fitness bullshido.
The goal is not to find a consensus, but the truth.
</semi-rant>
Last edited by Nid; 4/08/2004 12:29am at .
-
Registered Member
- Join Date
- Mar 2004
- Location
- united kingdom
- Posts
- 49
Posted On:
4/13/2004 8:00am



Reply With Quote












Fancy a milkshake?
Posted On:
4/07/2004 11:58pm
Good site, lots of resources