Training and exercise as a spectrum

[Brodie Butland]

Horse socks?

Actually, that one puzzled me too.

It's from the movie Billy Madison. Which also contains this quote, which I think you should consider using more often:

Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

[Jordan Feigenbaum]

If you can measure CSA readily, with great accuracy (relatively), and at low cost (relatively)- how is it hard to figure out? It's really not hard or icky. Literally we could do it for a muscle on you in under an hour. Is that graduate level analysis and does that make it less useful? I suppose that's context specific, right?

I'm sorry you think I'm brushing your argument off due to an educational gap- that's not the case at all. It was just not as complete or as airtight as you might perceive based on certain fundamentals. I've presented them for your consideration and you question my character vs. modifying your argument. That's fine too.

Look, if you want to present a counter argument to the "zumba is not training" opinion that's given here...do it. Biology vs function just isn't the way to go about it and if you did, it'd be prudent to stay away from concepts in ex phys that are well supported and are starkly opposed to your point. I'd be open to other explanations of why strength is purely a functional manifestation of biology and that this somehow supports zumba being training by any standard definition. If you feel I've overlooked a very well thought out response you've already given, please let me know. I think you'll find that your holes have been exploited and the inherent weakness in your original argument has been exposed. Sorry if that comes off like "I know more than you", but I didn't say that.

[dmworking]

I think there was some confusion along the way-- we solved the Zumba problem a while ago. None of this last few pages of discussion has anything to do with Zumba. Zumba could be a piece of an inefficient training program, if it was measured and structured. It is unlikely that there's anybody in the world currently using Zumba for training purposes. I hope I never type the word "Zumba" ever again.

Look, I'm not saying you're a bad guy. Far from it-- you have devoted thousands of hours, for free, to help strangers with your knowledge. That's a pretty nice thing to do. I think that gives you a pretty unique vantage point, given the thousands of people you've been able to converse with, and you're probably pretty used to being right. I don't blame you, I imagine you're right an awful lot.

I guess will just never understand, using your words, why strength is anything other than "purely a functional manifestation of biology." In my mind, the separation between "physical things" and "actions" is pretty clear. Sounds like that concept isn't shared by anyone else, though. That's fine. It probably doesn't matter, since like Mark said, it's purely an academic quibble over semantics, and it's certainly not going to change anything in my (or anyone else's) training process.

"What is a horseshoe? What does a horseshoe do? Are there any horse socks? Is anybody listening to me?"

I'm going to start playing that for clients when they ignore our advice. Excellent.

[tertius]

I think there was some confusion along the way-- we solved the Zumba problem a while ago. None of this last few pages of discussion has anything to do with Zumba. Zumba could be a piece of an inefficient training program, if it was measured and structured. It is unlikely that there's anybody in the world currently using Zumba for training purposes. I hope I never type the word "Zumba" ever again.

I use Zumba to train my MILF hunting skills.

[John Hanley]

I'm usually not proud of my ignorance...but I feel pretty good about having to google "zumba".

Dmworking: In the context of discussing maximal strength, your distinctions do seem a bit pedantic...but I think your fussiness is absolutely warranted in the context of discussing the force/load-velocity curve & training.

Strength, strength-speed, speed-strength, speed: these concepts are the darlings of athletic-performance gurus (self-styled dilettante neuroscientists who play with barbells) & I think they are some of the more sophisticated incarnations of silly-bullshit. Obsessing over kinematics without fully considering the physiology can lead to some really stupid conclusions (why not bench medballs?, etc).

In this context, I really appreciate your point (& I don't think it's at all semantic).