All adaptations are the body’s best attempt at dealing with the demands you place it under. I argue that most instances of “negative adaptation” are actually instances of imposed demands exceeding the preparation of the body.
What’s “bad posture” and why is it bad?
This is a misrepresentation. Competitive distance runners have a higher rate of knee OA than the general population, but recreational runners have less OA than regular people. Both groups (competitive and recreational runners) have a higher life expectancy than sedentary people.
Running actually improves cartilage and intervertabral disc thickness in appropriats doses. In extreme doses, the stress exceeds the body’s ability to recover and tissue degeneration occurs.
Again, risk-reward ratios cannot exist independent of dosage, and the body is able to positively adapt to anything if the dosage is controlled
The crux of my argument is that you cannot separate the body from outside interference. Everything is outside interference. Factors such as sleep, nutrition, mood, stress, anxiety and time on feet are all externally mediated, and can all play into injuries regardless of load or technique. Therefore, experiencing an injury and asigning it purely to technique (especially if the technique has been present for a long time without issues) is reductionist and likely fallacious.
Are you aware McGill performed his study on dead pig spines rather than testing living, human spines? Are you also aware that McGill is not a practitioner, but a researcher, and his methods run counter to accepted and recommended practice in physio/physical therapy?
MRI studies on living humans generally find athletes who regularly load their back have thicker, stronger intervertebral discs. This has been shown in weightlifters, runners and rowers. Rowers in particular go through literally thousands of flexion/extension cycles every week as part of their sport, yet positively adapt to this load and end up with more robust bodies.
If one ends up in the “bad” position because they lacked the strength to avoid the position, why would you not directly strengthen that position?
If I get panic attacks when I’m underwater, why would I not safely grade my exposure to water immersion (ankle deep, then knee, then waist etc.) to improve my tolerance of that environment?
With strength Its definitely better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.
Literally everything I’ve ever done is better and easier when you’re stronger. Tree cutting, concrete work, heavy fabrication- all things where strength isn’t just a benefit, but a necessity.
I know. I was just reversing the direction of the fallacies that were presented.
I can’t get past that lack of symetry.
And since you can’t actually prove that its wrong, I’m sticking with it. Ugg and Tantor would have had longer and better quality of life if they had been stronger.
They could have killed animals better, fought off other tribes more successfully, and made zug-zug more frequently.
Modern day hunter gatherers are built more like Kenyan distance runners than strength athletes…so there is some strong proof there…despite the onus of proof being on you, as you made the initial claim…
Or you could avoid the water altogether…
Many people on our planet have never been near the sea or an expanse of water…and are doing okay.
No medical training…but a sports related degree.
Yes I’m aware of the specifics of McGills studies and his status.
I’m also aware of the statistics of lower back issues and the implications of how poor form and incorrect lifting are probable causes in many cases.
Look at YouTube. There are a myriad of different videos of people commenting on p*ss poor deadlifts done with too much weight and coming to the realisation that they are witnessing a back injury waiting to happen.
There are already predictive models out there which show how we might look as a species in a couple of centuries time, due to our use of phones and other technology. The forward head tilt brings with it a number of issues. Who knows…we may have adapted to it by then so it is no longer a problem…
Not a misinterpretation at all. You are actually proving my point. Doseages are linked to limits. If I was aspiring to deadlift 500lbs, then my training would be reflective of that, regardless of if I was capable of 500lbs or not.
Similarly if I was happy deadlifting 100lbs as part of a warm up…then my training would not be anywhere as extensive.
This ties in exactly with my point. The dose is linked to the goal. Thanks for the assist.
If a runner was hoping to break 2 hours fifteen for the marathon, then their training would involve many miles done at faster paces.
If you were jogging for health, then maybe three or four thirty minute slow jogs a week would be enough. Guess which one has the least injury risk.
I’m honestly enjoying reading some of the comments here; a lot of really smart folks in here.
I guess the major part of this is for me what’s the difference in not doing something anymore because I can’t vs not doing something anymore because I won’t? At least in the former, I got to earn it.
Nice modus operandi too. You start out with no clear or definitive statements, then when somebody makes a counter point to one of your basic gists, you say “Thanks for proving my point.”. You dont even have a point.
You haven’t made any clear points. Nor have you defined any terms, yet you want to refer to rules of debate for others, like stating that the burden of proof is on me (for a completely and obviously ridiculous claim).
Would your opinion be the same if you were in daily agony?
I suppose we’d all like to think that we’d have attitudes like Ronnie Coleman in the face of adversity. But would we be? At least he’s financially stable due to his efforts.
Injury or disease aside, that’s bullshit. Human’s natural position of rest is a full squat. It’s how we shit (prior to toilets).
I think we’re saying the same thing with a lot of this stuff. Train specific to your goals and train smart. There isn’t some misplaced bravado driving everyone in the gym. But in the same regard, people don’t need anymore excuses.
When I first broke my back, it hurt a lot all the time. I obviously went back to doing what I wanted when I could. I certainly mitigate risk, and am actually a fan of all things the aforementioned John Meadows for that reason.
I also think your scenarios are far-fetched. You jump from “I got stronger” to “I’m in a lifetime of daily agony” pretty quickly. Real life typically has some stops along the way.
Is there no room for nuance here? Can we have goals different than just general health (which, again, is a fine goal) but not also do the weight room equivalent of playing in traffic? Maybe we could even get a little banged up, but not be crippled? These seem like genuine possibilities.
I’d also posit that “health” has broader than whether your hips hurt from squatting. What if chasing a barbell goal is legitimate treatment for my depression or addiction? In that case, let me choose that risk.
Additionally, the constant appeal to “centenarians aren’t jacked” doesn’t completely with me for a number of reasons; although I will certainly agree success leaves clues. I just don’t think any of us are entitled to 100 years except for whatever this one risk we took was.
Finally, I don’t think any of this has to impact you. You have your goals and your plan and I think they sound perfectly aligned. I get the feeling you need others to come along with you to be validated, but you really don’t: your desires and your behaviors match and that’s the perfect place to be.
