[dwagman]

Oh Earl, of course what I wrote was in jest. Aren’t we gettin’ crotchity (sp?) in our old age. Or did Thor’s hammer fall on your head during your last training session and damage your frontal cortex?

But I suppose I’d be rather ticked off, too, if I had to admit in a public forum that I wasn’t a soldier. Regardless, I still love ya and I’d never even contemplate drop kicking you; that was a soldier’s reference to dropping for push-ups. But since you weren’t a soldier, I suppose I understand why you misunderstood.

And speaking of push-ups and boot camp (what soldiers call basic training)…

Our Drill took us to this little commissary that was near-by and we’re waiting in line to get something and this Drill from another company walks by, sees me and goes, “You look like a Marine, drop and give me 20!”

So I dropped, knocked out 20 push-ups, jumped up to attention and go something like: “Drill Sergeant, I don’t appreciate the insult of being called a Marine, so I’m gonna give you 20 more.” I dropped again and knocked out 20 more push-ups while the guys from my company were doing all they could to not laugh their assess off at that Drill. Strangely, and unexpectedly, that Drill didn’t know what to say or do and just walked off while I was the hero of the day.

Till we meet again, with love,

Sir Wags

P.S. We had that same saying about Sir and working for a living. I never understood that one, why it was a negative to have a higher education and knowing more.

—
Dan

For Body Intellect Brochure click here: https://www.icloud.com/keynote/0fcsokZWooW_1B1uZmL1AI5fA#BI-DW

Those who are enamored of practice without science
are like a pilot who goes onto a ship without rudder or
compass and never has any certainty to where he is going.
Leonardo Da Vinci; 1452-1519

[dwagman]

Thom, I heard through the crape vine that you had inquired about me. Although I am touched that you care, I’m rather incensed about you referring to me as “Wags.”

I suppose you slept through the portion of Marine Corp indoctrination in which you would’ve learned that a Marine—of any rank—is to refer to an Army paratrooper—of any rank—as Sir. But do not worry, the next time I see you I shall drop you and as you knock out push-ups I’ll provide you with remedial training regarding how to respectfully address a superior soldier. Then again, I probably can’t cover that in the time it’ll take you to perform the two push-ups you have the stamina for, so I’ll have to think of something else…

—
Dan

For Body Intellect Brochure click here: https://www.icloud.com/keynote/0fcsokZWooW_1B1uZmL1AI5fA#BI-DW

Those who are enamored of practice without science
are like a pilot who goes onto a ship without rudder or
compass and never has any certainty to where he is going.
Leonardo Da Vinci; 1452-1519

[dwagman]

Well, Thom, I went Postal four times in 2013…does that count? And every time I go to Al’s I bring a rifle, just in case you show up. What about that?

Thanks for clarifying that MD did make it into the DSM-5.

You’re absolutely right in your assessment about calling a lifter mentally ill. There’s a fine line between someone who’s 100% committed to his sport and does everything to attain peak performance and excellence and someone who cannot function in other aspects of life due to this degree of dedication. And part of the problem is that in our society we actually look up to people with complete dedication, even if…and sometimes especially because it interfere with other aspects of life. Of course exercise science research, both in the areas of exercise physiology and sport psychology have found such levels of dedication to actually be a hindrance toward peak performance, but myths die hard…just look at all the people who still believe that to gain strength through the sticking point you need to train your lift(s) at the sticking point in a power rack.

-d

—
Dan

For Body Intellect Brochure click here: https://www.icloud.com/keynote/0fcsokZWooW_1B1uZmL1AI5fA#BI-DW

Those who are enamored of practice without science
are like a pilot who goes onto a ship without rudder or
compass and never has any certainty to where he is going.
Leonardo Da Vinci; 1452-1519

[dwagman]

ET, that’s friggin’ AWESOME!

Congrats and keep those grey cells working as much as the red ones.

-d

—
Dan

For Body Intellect Brochure click here: https://www.icloud.com/keynote/0fcsokZWooW_1B1uZmL1AI5fA#BI-DW

Those who are enamored of practice without science
are like a pilot who goes onto a ship without rudder or
compass and never has any certainty to where he is going.
Leonardo Da Vinci; 1452-1519

[dwagman]

[b]Quote from 61pwcc on February 13, 2014, 14:20[/b]
Fair amount of weight you pressed there….great job!!

Thanks Jim, appreciate that. There’s actually a story that goes along with this.

Bryan let Al know that the record book didn’t accurately reflect his 1990 Open record. This was last year. I had assumed that the most current USAWA and IAWA record books had updated his Open record and that the listed 363 was correct. So I went 365 first to break his record and then for shits and giggles went 375. Not until Al’s write-up did I notice a problem. Like Al mentioned to me, “good thing you didn’t go 370.” Man, that would’ve really sucked. As it stands, had I known that the record was 374 I would’ve just taken 350 as my last warmup and then hit 380 before moving on to the reverse grip bench. I don’t like breaking a record by a pound or a fractional plate in a record breaker’s meet. So now I have to decide whether to go ahead and bump it up some more or not…

-d

—
Dan

For Body Intellect Brochure click here: https://www.icloud.com/keynote/0fcsokZWooW_1B1uZmL1AI5fA#BI-DW

Those who are enamored of practice without science
are like a pilot who goes onto a ship without rudder or
compass and never has any certainty to where he is going.
Leonardo Da Vinci; 1452-1519

[dwagman]

Yeah, Logan was impressive, for sure.

Mike, never got any e-mails from you. Just left you a message on your phone.

Al, I have a VERY serious complaint to lodge against you.

Since there seems to be doubt that my strength is a product of science-based training, I’ve come to believe that it must instead be due to genetics, in particular the growth of my handlebar mustache. However, you can’t see it in the bench press photo you published. Are you trying to undermine my genetics?

-d

—
Dan

For Body Intellect Brochure click here: https://www.icloud.com/keynote/0fcsokZWooW_1B1uZmL1AI5fA#BI-DW

Those who are enamored of practice without science
are like a pilot who goes onto a ship without rudder or
compass and never has any certainty to where he is going.
Leonardo Da Vinci; 1452-1519

[dwagman]

Al, I just love the “Dino Weekends.” Thanks for hosting a great meet and thanks for all of your lift-offs and judging for the Record Breakers. Oh, and let’s not forget the ergogenic effects of your good German Bier. 🙂

-d

—
Dan

For Body Intellect Brochure click here: https://www.icloud.com/keynote/0fcsokZWooW_1B1uZmL1AI5fA#BI-DW

Those who are enamored of practice without science
are like a pilot who goes onto a ship without rudder or
compass and never has any certainty to where he is going.
Leonardo Da Vinci; 1452-1519

[dwagman]

Science is a religion. You choose to believe it or not.

Thom, I’m sorry, but that’s hogwash. Religious beliefs are based on faith. Science is based on measurable and repeatable facts. And although you could choose not to believe in gravity, or that box squats increase squat power, that wouldn’t change the fact that gravity exists and that box squat’s don’t increase squat power.

And how can you possibly compare what we’ve recently learned about gravity some galaxies away and in black holes to the laws of gravity on earth? C’mon! But wait, that science you are willing to accept? I’m confused…or is that just Marine logic I’m not privy to? 🙂

I was going to let this rest, but you’ve just got my blood pressure up to dangerous levels…well, dangerous for a Marine, not a high-speed, low-drag Army paratrooper. This, in part, because you referred to this thread as a “pissing contest.” And why is there an agenda? I suppose you could call my passion for educating others via science an agenda. But you make it sound like something negative. I guess I don’t understand how it’s a bad thing to live one’s life thinking one thing about training to only later on find out that it’s wrong.

And let me stress this again…when we’re talking about strength training, we’re talking about it’s effects on human physiology. What we learn is no different than what we learn about physiology in the realm of medicine. So let me challenge all of you who don’t hold science in that high a regard to disregard the latest medical findings regarding a future illness and instead go by the knowledge derived 50 years ago. I’d be willing to bet my next 3 white lights that when it comes right down to it none of you’d even settle for 1-year old knowledge. So why is it OK to hold on to myths and conjecture when it comes to lifting weights?

And by the way, anatomists have known for a couple hundred years that there are some people with extra muscles or missing muscles. And in the event that there’s anybody who subscribes to the notion that so-and-so is stronger than most because he must have an extra muscle, even if that were true it doesn’t automatically mean that the extra muscle will be functional to the extent of allowing a joint to produce more torque. There are many reasons for this that I won’t get in to unless requested.

Well, no worries Thom, I’ll go Army all over your ass at Al’s this weekend…HUAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!

Oh, and just in case, I’m bringing my new Henry. I’ve only shot it once so you might actually have half a chance…unless your dog ends up eating your rifle and you can’t bring it. LOL

-d

—
Dan

For Body Intellect Brochure click here: https://www.icloud.com/keynote/0fcsokZWooW_1B1uZmL1AI5fA#BI-DW

Those who are enamored of practice without science
are like a pilot who goes onto a ship without rudder or
compass and never has any certainty to where he is going.
Leonardo Da Vinci; 1452-1519

[dwagman]

BIG AL…it’s all about beating YOU, isn’t it. You sure you shouldn’t take your narcissistic self into the sport of bodybuilding? LOL(squared!) If you want, I could bring you some Colorado baby oil made with mountain-grown plant oil extract…

Now Al, do you not recall our conversation regarding 2012 Nationals? You didn’t offer an Open class, so I stayed home. And whenever I make it clear on my entry that I want to only compete in Open, it never happens. But I’m over it. What needed to be said has been said, the info is out there, and now the ball is in USAWA’s court…

On that note, ET, I actually appreciate the digression you offer. A lot of people share your opinion about science, but I’d like to offer some more info.

Now, a lot of times people will say “gravity is only a theory.” But what does that mean? It means that first, there was a hypothesis that there is such a thing as gravity. Then this hypothesis, and many related ones, were tested leading to the conclusion that gravity does indeed exist. At that point it got raised from hypothesis to theory and it’s a solid part of our understanding regarding physics.

As it relates to other science, let’s take it into the realm of lifting and let’s just go with what Tom offered regarding that early study on squatting effects on the knee. What that study found is true whether or not you believe in it. That study, however, offered various limitations. What layperson’s tend to do is not consider the limitations of research, rather they just take one aspect&#8212squatting is bad for the knees&#8212and run with it. But what exercise scientists do is ask additional questions and build upon the initial findings. And so you will find that subsequent research has looked at the effect of bar height on the back, degree of forward lean, knee position, foot position, stance width, hip movement, knee movement, ankle movement, depth, degree of squatting experience, strength levels, muscle recruitment patterns, gender, age, and probably several more aspects and their effects on the knee and other structures. With every additional detail, our scientific understanding of the squat and its effects on the knee advances. But along the way, unless the scientists screwed up badly and a shit study got published, their findings are true whether or not you believe in it. And this even holds true when one study found the opposite of another study…there are likely specific reasons for this that laypersons and especially the media miss. That is one of the main reasons why many people don’t trust science and scientists and think that what might be true today might not be true tomorrow.

Here’s another example, this one related to overall health. You guys have probably heard of the beneficial effects of taking an aspirin a day. In fact, medical science has suggested that if everybody does this, the risk of heart attack is significantly reduced. But then a study came out that found taking an aspirin a day not to make a damn difference.

FRIGGIN’ SCIENTISTS!!!…

The thing is, in the first conclusion the subjects were people who had heart issues. The study’s findings were improperly generalized to the population as a whole. The subsequent findings looked at a representative sample of all sorts of people who live in our society, meaning men, women, blacks, whites, heart disease, no heart disease, etc. In looking at EVERYBODY, an aspirin a day makes no difference in terms of heart attacks or heart disease. So obviously, the first study was not wrong, it was just misrepresented. I also talked about this some time ago as it relates to HMB in training studies.

I see what you’re saying about the kids that ask you about your strongman training. They’re lucky to have a guy like you…but I bet the pinhead coaches hate you. LOL At any rate, I think it’s important to consider that when we’re talking about weight training, we’re talking about the effect on human physiology. This is not that much different than talking about the effects of a disease, the response to an injury, a surgical intervention, etc. All humans respond in nearly identical ways, which is why, as an example, the guy who reattached Al’s biceps would likely use the same approach with you, with perhaps some minor differences. But those minor differences don’t amount to all that much, they might be akin to you benching every 3rd day and Al every 4th…big deal. So when it comes to these kids, the advances we’ve made in training science specifically for children should be followed and most kids will benefit greatly from it. A great resource in that regard would be the Position Statements from the American College of Sports Medicine and the National Strength and Conditioning Association.

OK, I gotta go and CRANK on my grip work for Saturday…

-d

—
Dan

For Body Intellect Brochure click here: https://www.icloud.com/keynote/0fcsokZWooW_1B1uZmL1AI5fA#BI-DW

Those who are enamored of practice without science
are like a pilot who goes onto a ship without rudder or
compass and never has any certainty to where he is going.
Leonardo Da Vinci; 1452-1519

[dwagman]

Denny, I’m sorry that I forgot to address your post in more detail. Please note that there isn’t a specific training method that will increase your strength by 300%. To get you on the right track would entail assessing what you’ve been doing, what your personal challenge areas are, etc., and then devising a program based on science that manipulates over time the requisite training variables to maximize your strength and power.

You mention a loss in flexibility, but that, too, is not due to age. You can always increase your flexibility with a properly designed flexibility program. But the design thereof follows the same approach as that for a strength training program. Now, the loss of quickness you’ve experienced is a different issue as there are age-dependent effects that take their toll on power production. But since strength and power are related, you might be able to make up some of those deficits via increased strength. But you are currently of a more advanced age where this becomes more challenging, but science can nevertheless provide advancement.

A properly designed training approach can indeed positively impact joint health. Of note, training in and of itself doesn’t cause arthritis, nor does chronological age. Improperly designed training programs can, however, cause joint damage and perhaps hasten the onset of arthritis, regardless of chronological age. Without knowing more about your situation, I can’t say any more with any degree of confidence. Suffice to say, in the event that your joints are reflecting decades worth of abuse via training approaches that didn’t properly balance stress and recovery, it might be impossible to reverse these effects. Although I would be fairly confident that you could experience improvement. But that also depends on what type of arthritis you have (if you have it), how advanced it is, etc.

At any rate, it might be worth you calling me at the office. Alternatively we can chat this weekend at Al’s if you’re heading that way. I am planning on going, but it looks like there’s a snow storm coming all the way from CO through KS and on east. I’ll know more Friday…

-d

—
Dan

For Body Intellect Brochure click here: https://www.icloud.com/keynote/0fcsokZWooW_1B1uZmL1AI5fA#BI-DW

Those who are enamored of practice without science
are like a pilot who goes onto a ship without rudder or
compass and never has any certainty to where he is going.
Leonardo Da Vinci; 1452-1519

[dwagman]

Tom, I have to admit that I’m relatively shocked at how quickly you’re willing to dismiss research and replace it with anecdote and opinions of people who wouldn’t know the difference between a motor unit and a motor mount. Are you really willing to substitute Kaz’s opinion over that of a biomechanist who uses force plates, 3-D video analysis, computer interfaced barbells, software, anthropometrics, etc., etc., to ascertain in a quantifiable and repeatable way to what extent body dimensions impact strength?

You’re also denigrating new research at the time regarding the impact of squatting on the knees, yet in this instance you’re seemingly willing to accept the advancement of science that has shown us that the impact of squatting on the knees is dependent on a myriad of factors allowing for the conclusion that squatting can be bad for the knees…or the best thing you can imagine…depending on how you squat. Tom, I don’t think it’s appropriate to pick and choose from exercise science that which happens to support your personal opinion and reject that which doesn’t.

You’re absolutely right, though, I don’t know that the injury examples you provided are caused by overuse. It’s just the most likely conclusion based on an abundance of sports medicine research on the long-term effects of poor training practices. And Tom, I know already what you’re thinking…LOL…“Dan, how do you know they were training poorly?” Well, I don’t know that, either, but I do know that proper training practices don’t result in injury or any long-term ill effects on any portion of human physiology. So what’s left?

Of course I can’t change your mind about any of this, I can only provide you with scientific evidence. But considering how young you were when you reached your peak, it might be worthwhile to re-evaluate your approach. You’re obviously still very passionate about lifting and it would be wonderful to see you break PR’s. But it obviously ain’t gonna happen if you keep doin’ what you’ve been doin’ because those training decisions have been made by a brain with a blown fuse from training. LOL

Science is true whether or not you believe in it.
Neil DeGrasse Tyson, PhD, MPhil
Dir. Hayden Planetarium, American Museum of Natural History

-d

—
Dan

For Body Intellect Brochure click here: https://www.icloud.com/keynote/0fcsokZWooW_1B1uZmL1AI5fA#BI-DW

Those who are enamored of practice without science
are like a pilot who goes onto a ship without rudder or
compass and never has any certainty to where he is going.
Leonardo Da Vinci; 1452-1519

[dwagman]

I think you guys misunderstood what I said regarding 300% gains in strength. I stated is that several studies have demonstrated that 90+ year old people can make 300% gains in strength. I used this to illustrate that with age the human body does not lose it’s ability to adapt to science-based strength training. Also note that I said that if Art doesn’t train in a scientific manner, then I could probably get him to lift 100% more than what he can currently lift, not 300% more. The same would go for Denny or any other lifter, regardless of age—if he/she doesn’t train based on current scientific knowledge. How much you can gain depends on many factors. I also stated that not until some point into one’s 60’s is there something going on that might lead to chronological age increasing in importance as a potential variable impacting strength performance. But in USAWA/IAWA it’s believed that ageing reduces strength starting at 40, a belief that does not enjoy any scientific support.

Tom, your examples relate to overuse injuries, not age, and, I’m sorry, but there’s absolutely no evidence to support the concept that weight training will cause injury or reductions in health. The exact opposite, however, is what research has found over and over again. Consider, therefore, that by definition overuse cannot occur unless you…well…overuse your body. And this can only occur if your training exceeds your recuperative abilities. Something you had mentioned before, but this, too, has little to do with age. In fact, research has shown that far too many youth athletes are suffering from back injuries. Nearly all of these back injuries have been tied to overuse, which is solely a function of poor training practices, and as you can see, the injurious consequences of overuse aren’t limited to a given chronological age. Also, a brand-new study published in January of this year investigated injuries in strongman competitors. The authors conclude that to reduce risk of injury these athletes must pay attention to proper technique and training progressions before anything else. (Details of this study may appear in the April issue of JOPP.)

You also talk about the height of lifters. Though your assessment in the strictest interpretation and application of math is correct, it doesn’t consider human physiology. We’ve seen before where using engineering examples fall short in accurately explaining mechanics related to human physiology. I hope you find it interesting and enlightening that research on anthropometrics (basically the study of body dimensions) has not been able to link body height, or even segment lengths (referring to, as an example, the relationship of the length of your upper arm to that of your forearm) to an athlete’s strength performance. This is because a human’s strength is dependent on the interaction of many factors such as the overall dimensions of all parts of the body, lean body mass, fat mass, muscle fiber type, motor units, muscle cross sectional area, hormonal milieu, etc., etc. In fact, researchers have found that an athlete’s body height or length of arms and legs and torso are least related to overall strength performance. Researchers looking into this actually had to conclude that the more body parts are involved in a lift, the less[/i] important body height and similar factors become in predicting strength. If you look at how in the Olympic lifts all segments of the body are involved, you can see that the role of body height isn’t a variable that would reliably predict strength. In short, strength is poorly related to overall segmental body dimensions and so another myth dies!

Al, I have to agree with you regarding your observation of what most USAWA members want and believe. That, however, is besides the point. I observed something that’s nonsensical, not supported by research, that’s unfair to competitors, and provided evidence thereto. USAWA now has science-based information rather than just personal opinion and conjecture. The organization is now in a better position to make a determination on what to do. But you should really not refer to the numbers you crunched regarding age anymore, as they really don’t indicate anything other than a non-causal relationship between age and a few lifts performed by a few people without controlling for any[/i] of the many variables that actually do impact strength.

RJ, I think you raise an interesting point regarding choices. ET mentioned NASA before and all of the divisions they offer. Certainly, it ends up being ridiculous, but at least the lifter has a choice and their organization offers many different ways to earn money. In USAWA/IAWA you don’t have any choices and besides all of the age stuff we’ve been talking about, the current approach makes little business sense as it ignores additional revenue streams that a few more choices could provide.

I think that the bottom line in all of this is that if we take on the approach of our country’s Founding Fathers, which Al had mentioned in a related topic, then progressiveness guided by enlightenment will improve our organization. If we stick to the status quo and allow myths and conjecture to guide our decisions, then we’re doomed to die out. And that, I think we can all agree on, is unacceptable.

-d

—
Dan

For Body Intellect Brochure click here: https://www.icloud.com/keynote/0fcsokZWooW_1B1uZmL1AI5fA#BI-DW

Those who are enamored of practice without science
are like a pilot who goes onto a ship without rudder or
compass and never has any certainty to where he is going.
Leonardo Da Vinci; 1452-1519

[dwagman]

Hey Mike, you think you’re being a smart-ass, eh? But it should come as no surprise to you that I actually have a scientific answer to your comment. Exercise scientists refer to your point as Time in Sport[/i]. This is actually a much more significant predictor of performance than chronological age.

But Mike, really, isn’t it time by now for grasshopper to kick master’s ass?!
(For those who don’t know, Mike and I used to train together when I was working on my doctorate at KU. Although Mike didn’t kick my ass, he kicked everybody else’s ass in the nation at the high school national powerlifting championships…two years in a row! Then, sadly, he got into bodybuilding…but now he’s back on track in having found all-round. Wew…)

ET, I totally see your point. And I find all of the divisions exacerbating, if not downright silly. It’s like you couldn’t NOT win even if you tried. Don’t EVEN get me started. From a business perspective, NASA certainly has the right idea. From a sporting perspective I question this approach. But let’s get back to all-round and USAWA…

So what you’re really saying is that one of the problems with USAWA is that we just don’t have enough competitors at meets while at the same time we have too many divisions. So if you want to have more competition, there’s only that left to do, which you’ve already done…reduced divisions.

I can see it now, the bitching and moaning because lifter X would have to compete against lifter Y who weighs 20 pounds more, or is 8 years older, or…And I’m sorry if I’m going to offend anybody, but what the heck…are we athletes or crybabies?!

So I’m totally in your corner…LW, MW, HW, Open, Junior (up to 18), Masters where the “old guys” division would start at 60 and have 10-year increments. Then the same thing for women…Lynch…done.

But aren’t we jumping the gun a bit? Wouldn’t as a first step repealing the 1% age factor be the most sensible thing to do before anything else?

-d

—
Dan

For Body Intellect Brochure click here: https://www.icloud.com/keynote/0fcsokZWooW_1B1uZmL1AI5fA#BI-DW

Those who are enamored of practice without science
are like a pilot who goes onto a ship without rudder or
compass and never has any certainty to where he is going.
Leonardo Da Vinci; 1452-1519

[dwagman]

So we have to have a way to compare the lifts accross the divisions.

Why?

And is doing this so important that we’ll go ahead and employ false reasoning and poor math that results in anything but a fair comparison?

Wasn’t it you, ET, who complained before about how ridiculous it is that you get beat by some 60-year old who lifts half as much as you?

And let’s not forget Al’s vein in his forehead throbbing about Ruth coming in 3rd overall in the 2012 Worlds.

I think it’s time to move past the idiocy of it and toward a solution.

-d

—
Dan

For Body Intellect Brochure click here: https://www.icloud.com/keynote/0fcsokZWooW_1B1uZmL1AI5fA#BI-DW

Those who are enamored of practice without science
are like a pilot who goes onto a ship without rudder or
compass and never has any certainty to where he is going.
Leonardo Da Vinci; 1452-1519

[dwagman]

ET, I really hate to see a beast like you all torn up and have that negatively impact your training. I know you’re doing the best you can and I also know that you’re trying to be as smart about your training as possible. Obviously, your wrestling injuries don’t fall into the category of “stupid training,” nor would a car accident or other negative life events. But for any lifter who has encountered such trauma, it becomes even more important to train with the latest scientific developments as a guide because we’re no longer just talking about pulling more in the Jefferson, we’re talking about being able to go about life’s chores without pain and other impediments.

Tom, you’re really going to use 50-year old Russian “research” to guide your training and opinion? There are two things to consider:

1. When it comes to weight training, we’re talking about creating a physiological stimulus upon the entire body, not just muscle, that we want our body to primarily respond to by getting stronger, more powerful, and bigger. And since we’re talking about physiology, it’s no different than that seen in medical research. So unless you’re content with a physician who operates under 50-year old knowledge to treat you for whatever ails you, you need to completely reject 50-year old training “wisdom.”

2. That Russian stuff is by and large the biggest crap known to man. As part of my graduate work and dissertation I had to obtain many Russian “studies” regarding strength training. Their stuff was utterly unintelligible, graphs didn’t match the text, graphs didn’t ID what you’re looking at, they used the wrong stats to analyze their data, their math didn’t add up (e.g., 2+2=5…LITERALLY!), etc., etc. At that time I didn’t see a single study that met the methods required for scientific investigation. In fact, since I actually did want to graduate and earn a doctorate, I thought it best to remove any and all Russian “science” from my dissertation…that stuff would’ve gotten me crucified. Luckily western scientists looked at what they had and were able to find out how the human body actually responds to training and how to most effectively manipulate all of the requisite training variables in order to reach peak performance. Of course these efforts are on-going—just like medical science advances—and we’re learning more day by day. My advice would be to categorically disregard all of that old Russian stuff and everybody will be a lot better off.

But we’re getting off topic here. How do we best get rid of the unfair age formula in USAWA? Alternatively, if it really is that important for people to have their chronological age recognized in some way, how do we change it from what it is to simply putting people into masters categories such as 50-59, 60-69, 70-79, etc.?

-d

—
Dan

For Body Intellect Brochure click here: https://www.icloud.com/keynote/0fcsokZWooW_1B1uZmL1AI5fA#BI-DW

Those who are enamored of practice without science
are like a pilot who goes onto a ship without rudder or
compass and never has any certainty to where he is going.
Leonardo Da Vinci; 1452-1519

[Author]

Posts