Lifting heavy weights increases your bone density. They did a study with a bunch of senior women, and the ones who lifted the heaviest weights increased their bone density more than compared to the ones who lifted lighter.
[quote]beefcakemdphd wrote:
Pointing out that Jack Lalane (sp?) is still in great health is NOT valid reasoning to argue that weightlifting is healthy. I can always point out that my ‘Uncle Marty’ smoked 2 packs of cigs/day and didn’t die until he was 90. Does this mean that smoking is healthy? A single ocurrence of a phenomenon may be an outlier. That is why scientific studies are conducted with populations.
beef[/quote]
beef, beef, beef (shaking head)
Yes, but then I would point out the many scientific studies that demonstrate that smoking is in fact bad for you and that your uncle did not live a long life because he smoked.
Then again, I could have just as easily looked around and noticed that many who smoke cough a lot, seem to get sick more oftern and die at a younger age.
BUT…that wouldn’t be scientific huh?
Or would it?
The observations that you seem to have no respect for have helped many succeed in various fields prior to science claiming the be all and end all.
How many “scientific studies” were done before John Grimk picked up a Barbell? BUT…he did observe others and read of their success in various set and rep schemes.
Now how do you suppose anyone succeeded prior to science (scratching my head and looking up at the ceiling).
I’ve got it!
Accurate observation and study of those who succeeded in similar activities prior to them!
Hey…sounds like science huh?
By the way Grimik lived into his 90’s
[quote]beefcakemdphd wrote:
ZEB wrote:
I don’t think we need a scientific study to assure us that lifting weights is a healthy activity. We only need to look at our ancestors.
They did all sorts of lifting: Logs, rocks, etc. They climbed up mountains, large bolders and trees. They spent many hours working and hunting.
It’s sort of a natural thing. No?
Our ancestors also did a lot of eating infrequently and not concerning about macronutrient ratios.
Bad reasoning.
beef
[/quote]
wrong again beefster!
The point of my brief post was to show that our ancestors did plenty of physical activities that are roughly comparable to lifting weights and other forms of training.
You didn’t get that huh?
I never stated anything about being concerned about “macronutrient ratios.” That is a false assumption on your part.
You are now 0 for 2. Want to try again?
Zeb
You would think that with his handle, he would be avidly interested in and well suited to debunk this crap instead of attacking others’ arguments.
i cant believe this is a discussion. whoever worked on the team that wrote that article must have no idea how stupid they have just become. guys im throwing in the towel. no more lifting for me, i dont want to risk any heart problems. im gonna go home watch some tv with my frito lay chips and chug 8 beers tonight. boy if someone only told me this sooner.
[quote]DON D1ESEL wrote:
You would think that with his handle, he would be avidly interested in and well suited to debunk this crap instead of attacking others’ arguments.[/quote]
You’d think that, but then again this is the Internet…
[quote]ZEB wrote:
beefcakemdphd wrote:
Pointing out that Jack Lalane (sp?) is still in great health is NOT valid reasoning to argue that weightlifting is healthy. I can always point out that my ‘Uncle Marty’ smoked 2 packs of cigs/day and didn’t die until he was 90. Does this mean that smoking is healthy? A single ocurrence of a phenomenon may be an outlier. That is why scientific studies are conducted with populations.
beef
beef, beef, beef (shaking head)
Yes, but then I would point out the many scientific studies that demonstrate that smoking is in fact bad for you and that your uncle did not live a long life because he smoked.
Then again, I could have just as easily looked around and noticed that many who smoke cough a lot, seem to get sick more oftern and die at a younger age.
BUT…that wouldn’t be scientific huh?
Or would it?
The observations that you seem to have no respect for have helped many succeed in various fields prior to science claiming the be all and end all.
How many “scientific studies” were done before John Grimk picked up a Barbell? BUT…he did observe others and read of their success in various set and rep schemes.
Now how do you suppose anyone succeeded prior to science (scratching my head and looking up at the ceiling).
I’ve got it!
Accurate observation and study of those who succeeded in similar activities prior to them!
Hey…sounds like science huh?
By the way Grimik lived into his 90’s
[/quote]
Very good post (did I just write that?). Scientific studies are not the conclusion of knowledge or where it begins. I can make very valid personal observations in the gym. I can make personal conclusions about those observations without waiting on someone to finally test out the theory in a lab. For instance, for several years, science was stating that steroids did not aid in muscle mass gains. Meanwhile, they were being used at the Olympics and by other athletes who knew better. They knew better because of PERSONAL OBSERVATION and it did not require a study for proof.
The other factor is that many of these studies are biased to begin with. The scientist obtains a grant for research and already knows what conclusion he is looking to get. You can not ignore that this can affect the stated outcomes of some studies. Human error is a factor that some seem to conveniently ignore.
I do agree that someone with that particular handle should already be aware of this.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
ZEB wrote:
beefcakemdphd wrote:
Pointing out that Jack Lalane (sp?) is still in great health is NOT valid reasoning to argue that weightlifting is healthy. I can always point out that my ‘Uncle Marty’ smoked 2 packs of cigs/day and didn’t die until he was 90. Does this mean that smoking is healthy? A single ocurrence of a phenomenon may be an outlier. That is why scientific studies are conducted with populations.
beef
beef, beef, beef (shaking head)
Yes, but then I would point out the many scientific studies that demonstrate that smoking is in fact bad for you and that your uncle did not live a long life because he smoked.
Then again, I could have just as easily looked around and noticed that many who smoke cough a lot, seem to get sick more oftern and die at a younger age.
BUT…that wouldn’t be scientific huh?
Or would it?
The observations that you seem to have no respect for have helped many succeed in various fields prior to science claiming the be all and end all.
How many “scientific studies” were done before John Grimk picked up a Barbell? BUT…he did observe others and read of their success in various set and rep schemes.
Now how do you suppose anyone succeeded prior to science (scratching my head and looking up at the ceiling).
I’ve got it!
Accurate observation and study of those who succeeded in similar activities prior to them!
Hey…sounds like science huh?
By the way Grimik lived into his 90’s
Very good post (did I just write that?). Scientific studies are not the conclusion of knowledge or where it begins. I can make very valid personal observations in the gym. I can make personal conclusions about those observations without waiting on someone to finally test out the theory in a lab. For instance, for several years, science was stating that steroids did not aid in muscle mass gains. Meanwhile, they were being used at the Olympics and by other athletes who knew better. They knew better because of PERSONAL OBSERVATION and it did not require a study for proof.
The other factor is that many of these studies are biased to begin with. The scientist obtains a grant for research and already knows what conclusion he is looking to get. You can not ignore that this can affect the stated outcomes of some studies. Human error is a factor that some seem to conveniently ignore.
I do agree that someone with that particular handle should already be aware of this.[/quote]
Is that you Professor X?
I knew we would eventually see eye to eye on something.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Is that you Professor X?
I knew we would eventually see eye to eye on something.[/quote]
Yes, the Apocalypse is near.
You missed my point. Our early ancestors also had shorter life expectancies. Because our ancestors did something does not justify its benefit. Pointing out about the ‘macronutrient ratios’ was showing you that we should not justify behaviors based on ‘our ancestors did it’.
You missed the point.
beef
[quote]ZEB wrote:
beefcakemdphd wrote:
ZEB wrote:
I don’t think we need a scientific study to assure us that lifting weights is a healthy activity. We only need to look at our ancestors.
They did all sorts of lifting: Logs, rocks, etc. They climbed up mountains, large bolders and trees. They spent many hours working and hunting.
It’s sort of a natural thing. No?
Our ancestors also did a lot of eating infrequently and not concerning about macronutrient ratios.
Bad reasoning.
beef
wrong again beefster!
The point of my brief post was to show that our ancestors did plenty of physical activities that are roughly comparable to lifting weights and other forms of training.
You didn’t get that huh?
I never stated anything about being concerned about “macronutrient ratios.” That is a false assumption on your part.
You are now 0 for 2. Want to try again?
Zeb
[/quote]
Here’s the deal:
I have already stated, that these studies should not deter one from lifting weights.
However, I don’t agree with the line of reasoning others use to justify the identical conclusion.
That is very true that many studies are flawed.
Certainly personal observations has its place. However, MULTIPLE observations versus solitary observations (n=1) show much more convincing evidence.
I am just asking that people show thought and reasoning when drawing a conclusion, regardless if the conclusion is right or wrong.
beef
[quote]DON D1ESEL wrote:
You would think that with his handle, he would be avidly interested in and well suited to debunk this crap instead of attacking others’ arguments.[/quote]
Professor X,
but after those ‘observations’ about steroids, studies were repeated that described the pharmacology of those agents.
Were there initial studies about anabolics, or were scientists claiming their inefficacies without evidence? I don’t think that actual studies were done, rather scientists didn’t believed they worked and drew inappropriate conclusions without evidence.
beef
[quote]Professor X wrote:
ZEB wrote:
beefcakemdphd wrote:
Pointing out that Jack Lalane (sp?) is still in great health is NOT valid reasoning to argue that weightlifting is healthy. I can always point out that my ‘Uncle Marty’ smoked 2 packs of cigs/day and didn’t die until he was 90. Does this mean that smoking is healthy? A single ocurrence of a phenomenon may be an outlier. That is why scientific studies are conducted with populations.
beef
beef, beef, beef (shaking head)
Yes, but then I would point out the many scientific studies that demonstrate that smoking is in fact bad for you and that your uncle did not live a long life because he smoked.
Then again, I could have just as easily looked around and noticed that many who smoke cough a lot, seem to get sick more oftern and die at a younger age.
BUT…that wouldn’t be scientific huh?
Or would it?
The observations that you seem to have no respect for have helped many succeed in various fields prior to science claiming the be all and end all.
How many “scientific studies” were done before John Grimk picked up a Barbell? BUT…he did observe others and read of their success in various set and rep schemes.
Now how do you suppose anyone succeeded prior to science (scratching my head and looking up at the ceiling).
I’ve got it!
Accurate observation and study of those who succeeded in similar activities prior to them!
Hey…sounds like science huh?
By the way Grimik lived into his 90’s
Very good post (did I just write that?). Scientific studies are not the conclusion of knowledge or where it begins. I can make very valid personal observations in the gym. I can make personal conclusions about those observations without waiting on someone to finally test out the theory in a lab. For instance, for several years, science was stating that steroids did not aid in muscle mass gains. Meanwhile, they were being used at the Olympics and by other athletes who knew better. They knew better because of PERSONAL OBSERVATION and it did not require a study for proof.
The other factor is that many of these studies are biased to begin with. The scientist obtains a grant for research and already knows what conclusion he is looking to get. You can not ignore that this can affect the stated outcomes of some studies. Human error is a factor that some seem to conveniently ignore.
I do agree that someone with that particular handle should already be aware of this.[/quote]
[quote]beefcakemdphd wrote:
Professor X,
but after those ‘observations’ about steroids, studies were repeated that described the pharmacology of those agents.
Were there initial studies about anabolics, or were scientists claiming their inefficacies without evidence? I don’t think that actual studies were done, rather scientists didn’t believed they worked and drew inappropriate conclusions without evidence.
beef
[/quote]
No, studies were indeed done. Problems included dosages too low to see an effect or higher dosages but NOT including weight lifting at all. As you can see, their own biases led them to testing theories that were influenced by those biases. Why would a scientist think that weight lifting is not a factor for muscle growth? The same biases can influence studies like this thread is based on. Arteries becoming stronger does not mean “heart disease”. They are relating two different facts that are completely independant.
EXACTLY WHAT I HAD SAID: HERE AGAIN IS POINT 3. Here I point out that the use of this outcome measure may not mean the same idea (physiologic vs. pathologic change).
3.) Even if those outcome measures (i.e arterial compliance) do change with weight training, does this lead to pathological changes? For instance a distance runner may have a resting heart rate in the 30’s due to physiologic compensation, while a person with 2nd degree Mobitz type II may have a heart rate in the 30’s due to pathologic heart block. The outcome measure (heart rate) is the same; however, in one you have a healthy physiologic compensation, while in the other you have a pathologic (unhealthy) cardiac phenomenon.
beef
[quote]Professor X wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Is that you Professor X?
I knew we would eventually see eye to eye on something.
Yes, the Apocalypse is near.[/quote]
LMAO!
Thanks I needed that…
[quote]beefcakemdphd wrote:
You missed my point. Our early ancestors also had shorter life expectancies. Because our ancestors did something does not justify its benefit. Pointing out about the ‘macronutrient ratios’ was showing you that we should not justify behaviors based on ‘our ancestors did it’.
You missed the point.
beef[/quote]
I think I understand.
My point is that you don’t need a scientific experiment to justify what works.
Empiracle evidence has ineed worked for thousands of years. And it still does!
“Science is observing the world around you” - Galileo