|
|
|
|
|
|
Andrew:
I asked Josh at the time how is "feel" scientific, now I ask you how is "feel" scientific. Josh ranted and raved about how only science and fact were relevant for over a year on this forum but ignores it when it suits his needs.
The use of the word "feel" by anyone in an academic setting should make one wonder. "Feel" is not a measurement, not a test, and has no place in science. Regardless of CONTEXT, as Josh pointed out in the article, "feel" is subjective and not a useful measurement.
An example, sometimes I feel you're too dense but that is subjective and unmeasurable.
If you don't understand that then it is you who has a lack of understanding. Perhaps the words smooth, low friction, or fluid should have been used in describing the RenEx machines.
As I told Josh he will use this rheumatology study like Hutchins used AJ's osteoporosis study, to promote a form of rehab that is less than ideal for health people weight training. By the way 10/10 lifting is unscientific and based on how they "feel" is should be executed. No studies have ever supported that rep speed.
Josh can always count on you....even when he is not present.
d
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
db144 wrote:
Andrew:
I asked Josh at the time how is "feel" scientific, now I ask you how is "feel" scientific. Josh ranted and raved about how only science and fact were relevant for over a year on this forum but ignores it when it suits his needs.
The use of the word "feel" by anyone in an academic setting should make one wonder. "Feel" is not a measurement, not a test, and has no place in science. Regardless of CONTEXT, as Josh pointed out in the article, "feel" is subjective and not a useful measurement.
An example, sometimes I feel you're too dense but that is subjective and unmeasurable.
If you don't understand that then it is use who has a lack of understanding. Perhaps the words smooth, low friction, or fluid should have been used in describing the RenEx machines.
As I told Josh he will use this rheumatology study like Hutchins used AJ's osteoporosis study, to promote a form of rehab that is less than ideal for health people weight training. By the way 10/10 lifting is unscientific and based on how they "feel" is should be executed. No studies have ever supported that rep speed.
Josh can always count on you....even when he is not present.
d
"FEEL" is in fact a great measurement...
Know thy body....when you "feel" recovered you are..when you "feel" you have stimulated the growth response you have.
If you know your body well through experience, its very accurate.
Now the new trainee is another matter...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gerry:
Many assumptions there and most are wrong. On another thread you stated you felt good after 7 days rest but wanted to wait another 3 before lifting again. Why? Don't you feel good enough to lift? Don't you know your body as an "advanced" trainee?
d
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
gerry-hitman wrote:
"FEEL" is in fact a great measurement...
Know thy body....when you "feel" recovered you are..when you "feel" you have stimulated the growth response you have.
If you know your body well through experience, its very accurate.
I actually very much agree with this. Weight training is not just science but physiology and biology and "feel" is a superb way of measuring effort/intensity etc..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
db144 wrote:
Gerry:
Many assumptions there and most are wrong.
d
OH really?
what exactly is wrong?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nat1 and Gerry:
I never said it wasn't valid just not scientific, that was my point. You can't say if must be scientific fact and then use "feel". That was my point with Andrew and Josh.
I must start work now, so if you want to continue this I'll be back later tonight.
d
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gerry:
I added to my original post and that will answer your post.
d
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
db144 wrote:
Andrew:
I asked Josh at the time how is "feel" scientific, now I ask you how is "feel" scientific. Josh ranted and raved about how only science and fact were relevant for over a year on this forum but ignores it when it suits his needs.
The use of the word "feel" by anyone in an academic setting should make one wonder. "Feel" is not a measurement, not a test, and has no place in science. Regardless of CONTEXT, as Josh pointed out in the article, "feel" is subjective and not a useful measurement.
An example, sometimes I feel you're too dense but that is subjective and unmeasurable.
If you don't understand that then it is you who has a lack of understanding. Perhaps the words smooth, low friction, or fluid should have been used in describing the RenEx machines.
As I told Josh he will use this rheumatology study like Hutchins used AJ's osteoporosis study, to promote a form of rehab that is less than ideal for health people weight training. By the way 10/10 lifting is unscientific and based on how they "feel" is should be executed. No studies have ever supported that rep speed.
Josh can always count on you....even when he is not present.
d
If you read my other posts like:
http://drdarden.com/...ic.do?id=622022
it is clear I have many reservations about the RenX system...it sure looks like I am a fair bit more objective than you. In your rushed and poorly researched attempt to troll RenX threads you are completely missing the point.
What was written was: "Ren-Ex has a feel that is unmatched"
No need in a brief comment to describe the details of a comparison. And BTW a comparison is part of science.
It was positive promotion for sure but rather than saying "2 thumbs up" he said "unmatched feel" to suggest what Josh has said all along - the equpiment needs to be tried to be properly appreciated.
For the record I don't think you are dense, I think you are disingenuous.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
db144 wrote:
Nat1 and Gerry:
I never said it wasn't valid just not scientific, that was my point. You can't say if must be scientific fact and then use "feel". That was my point with Andrew and Josh.
I must start work now, so if you want to continue this I'll be back later tonight.
d
Again you are ripping the word feel from the context in which Josh used it. This is an all too common error and you wonder why folks have to clear up basic definitions. Words are for communicastion not b.s.ing. Josh was relating how 'feel' was being used NOT condeming the word or the use of feel in general.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
db144 wrote:
Nat1 and Gerry:
I never said it wasn't valid just not scientific, that was my point. You can't say if must be scientific fact and then use "feel". That was my point with Andrew and Josh.
I must start work now, so if you want to continue this I'll be back later tonight.
d
Your correct is isn't scientific, its MUCH better.
Through experience you learn your body as an individual, since everyone recovers differently, "feeling" is an accurate and reliable feedback.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You guys are all here still arguing over the same old trivial bullshit ? Go get some exercise instead for a change.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AShortt wrote:
Again you are ripping the word feel from the context in which Josh used it. This is an all too common error and you wonder why folks have to clear up basic definitions. Words are for communicastion not b.s.ing. Josh was relating how 'feel' was being used NOT condeming the word or the use of feel in general.
Is that the feedback mechanism that Josh was using when he worked out your buccinator muscle in a 10/10 candence?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acerimmer1 wrote:
AShortt wrote:
Again you are ripping the word feel from the context in which Josh used it. This is an all too common error and you wonder why folks have to clear up basic definitions. Words are for communicastion not b.s.ing. Josh was relating how 'feel' was being used NOT condeming the word or the use of feel in general.
Is that the feedback mechanism that Josh was using when he worked out your buccinator muscle in a 10/10 candence?
==Scott==
The what muscle?? Yes, Bill, it's the same BS, different day!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
entsminger wrote:
Acerimmer1 wrote:
AShortt wrote:
Again you are ripping the word feel from the context in which Josh used it. This is an all too common error and you wonder why folks have to clear up basic definitions. Words are for communicastion not b.s.ing. Josh was relating how 'feel' was being used NOT condeming the word or the use of feel in general.
Is that the feedback mechanism that Josh was using when he worked out your buccinator muscle in a 10/10 candence?
==Scott==
The what muscle?? Yes, Bill, it's the same BS, different day!
It was intentional that not everybody would get the joke.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You can say what you like Scott but answer me this. Is this or is it not the first peiece of factual information you have learned in this thread?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acerimmer1 wrote:
You can say what you like Scott but answer me this. Is this or is it not the first peiece of factual information you have learned in this thread?
==Scott==
To be perfectly honest I can count the number of things I have actually learned that were useful on this forum on the fingers of Mickey Mouse's hand, ha ha..
Let me list them
1. Use lemon oil to lubricate Nautilus machines.
2.Learned of Bill DeSimon
3.Hmmmmm, boy, it's getting hard to remember after this??ha ha..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acerimmer1 wrote:
AShortt wrote:
Again you are ripping the word feel from the context in which Josh used it. This is an all too common error and you wonder why folks have to clear up basic definitions. Words are for communicastion not b.s.ing. Josh was relating how 'feel' was being used NOT condeming the word or the use of feel in general.
Is that the feedback mechanism that Josh was using when he worked out your buccinator muscle in a 10/10 candence?
Perhaps if there weren't so many children here playing words games some ideas could be shared.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
entsminger wrote:
Acerimmer1 wrote:
You can say what you like Scott but answer me this. Is this or is it not the first peiece of factual information you have learned in this thread?
==Scott==
To be perfectly honest I can count the number of things I have actually learned that were useful on this forum on the fingers of Mickey Mouse's hand, ha ha..
Let me list them
1. Use lemon oil to lubricate Nautilus machines.
2.Learned of Bill DeSimon
3.Hmmmmm, boy, it's getting hard to remember after this??ha ha..
Why do you come here then?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
gerry-hitman wrote:
entsminger wrote:
Acerimmer1 wrote:
You can say what you like Scott but answer me this. Is this or is it not the first peiece of factual information you have learned in this thread?
==Scott==
To be perfectly honest I can count the number of things I have actually learned that were useful on this forum on the fingers of Mickey Mouse's hand, ha ha..
Let me list them
1. Use lemon oil to lubricate Nautilus machines.
2.Learned of Bill DeSimon
3.Hmmmmm, boy, it's getting hard to remember after this??ha ha..
Why do you come here then?
==Scott==
I do like to talk about building muscle and machines regardless if I actually learn something or not.As of late it's more of an entertainment factor. There's some really stupid stuff being posted on here and I get a kick out of making fun of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
entsminger wrote:
gerry-hitman wrote:
entsminger wrote:
Acerimmer1 wrote:
You can say what you like Scott but answer me this. Is this or is it not the first peiece of factual information you have learned in this thread?
==Scott==
To be perfectly honest I can count the number of things I have actually learned that were useful on this forum on the fingers of Mickey Mouse's hand, ha ha..
Let me list them
1. Use lemon oil to lubricate Nautilus machines.
2.Learned of Bill DeSimon
3.Hmmmmm, boy, it's getting hard to remember after this??ha ha..
Why do you come here then?
==Scott==
I do like to talk about building muscle and machines regardless if I actually learn something or not.As of late it's more of an entertainment factor. There's some really stupid stuff being posted on here and I get a kick out of making fun of it.
Your love/hate nut hugging escapades with Joshua have been quite entertaining ... thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
entsminger wrote:
Acerimmer1 wrote:
You can say what you like Scott but answer me this. Is this or is it not the first peiece of factual information you have learned in this thread?
==Scott==
To be perfectly honest I can count the number of things I have actually learned that were useful on this forum on the fingers of Mickey Mouse's hand, ha ha..
Let me list them
1. Use lemon oil to lubricate Nautilus machines.
2.Learned of Bill DeSimon
3.Hmmmmm, boy, it's getting hard to remember after this??ha ha..
At risk of sounding like Landua and directing you to read an entire library. If the answers are not here for you why are you still investing time in this if your end goal is a learning outcome?
Bottom line, I don't believe you come here to learn you come here because of some addiction or for entertainment. So stop complaining you could easily go somewhere else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IMO most people here would benefit most from a discusiion on Sports Psychology and that subject is rarely up for discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Scott==
If you guys really want a laugh go to the REN-EX web site and read the latest installment on the definition of exercise! Pretty much REN-EX wants to change the definition of exercise to be what they do so they're system will be the best since that's what the new definition of exercise will be! In Websters under the term exercise it would state...REN-EX protocol....I mean seriously, this is just to funny for words. I showed this latest article to several people not associated with this forum or exercise at all and they pretty much said it sounds like a lunatics diatribe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acerimmer1 wrote:
entsminger wrote:
Acerimmer1 wrote:
You can say what you like Scott but answer me this. Is this or is it not the first peiece of factual information you have learned in this thread?
==Scott==
To be perfectly honest I can count the number of things I have actually learned that were useful on this forum on the fingers of Mickey Mouse's hand, ha ha..
Let me list them
1. Use lemon oil to lubricate Nautilus machines.
2.Learned of Bill DeSimon
3.Hmmmmm, boy, it's getting hard to remember after this??ha ha..
At risk of sounding like Landua and directing you to read an entire library. If the answers are not here for you why are you still investing time in this if your end goal is a learning outcome?
Bottom line, I don't believe you come here to learn you come here because of some addiction or for entertainment. So stop complaining you could easily go somewhere else.
==Scott==
Maybe you missed it or can't read well but I just got through answering why I come here above. I come here in hopes of learning something useful, I like to talk/argue over muscle building and it is very entertaining at times. My question for you is why do you come here? You are built like a tank, one of the biggest on here yet you never really give anything useful about what you do or post any pictures of your development. You want to talk politics and slop. You could be of immense help if you opened up but in the end you are a total waste of time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
entsminger wrote:
==Scott==
If you guys really want a laugh go to the REN-EX web site and read the latest installment on the definition of exercise! Pretty much REN-EX wants to change the definition of exercise to be what they do so they're system will be the best since that's what the new definition of exercise will be! In Websters under the term exercise it would state...REN-EX protocol....I mean seriously, this is just to funny for words. I showed this latest article to several people not associated with this forum or exercise at all and they pretty much said it sounds like a lunatics diatribe.
Mr.Entsminger,
I thought this was a very well written piece.
Saying something is a "lunatics diatribe" tells us of no specific criticism but it does tell us that it provoked a strong emotional response.(which may have been intended, does anyone ever ask why RenEx stirs such emotion???)
Now that your past that intellectually what do you take issue with.
Edward
|
|
|
|
|
