demonstrate that the premise results in a conclusion that is not true.
[/quote]
The problem with this generalization is that it states that athletic performance is only dependant on strength.
If that were the case, then powerlifters would be the better than athletes of all other sports.
It IS a blatantly incorrect assumption.
Arthur jones stated that:
“increases in strength will always lead to increase in muscle mass, and increases in muscle mass will always lead to increases in strength.”
This statement can be taken out of context, but all else being kept equal, it is 100% true in the long term. This one statement alone shoots a hole in NP’s generalizations.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
The difference between the above arguments and the arguments offered by NP is that you begin with blatantly incorrect premises.
[/quote]
demonstrate that the premise results in a conclusion that is not true.
The problem with this generalization is that it states that athletic performance is only dependant on strength.
If that were the case, then powerlifters would be the better than athletes of all other sports.
It IS a blatantly incorrect assumption.
Arthur jones stated that:
“increases in strength will always lead to increase in muscle mass, and increases in muscle mass will always lead to increases in strength.”
This statement can be taken out of context, but all else being kept equal, it is 100% true in the long term. This one statement alone shoots a hole in NP’s generalizations.
[/quote]
Agreed. If athletic performance is dependent on strength, then strength athletes would be able to dominate in multiple sports.
Skill development will always be the most important concern for performance athletes. The only time that strength will become the primary concern is if you have two athletes of equal skill.
The stronger of the two will win if everything else is equal. NP’s generalization makes no provision for this, so it is far from being logically sound.
[quote]alit4 wrote:
wow! just took an hour out of my life and read this whole thread start to finish.
why did i do that?[/quote]
There are two major types of people who read this thread:
Group 1: The Argument Oriented Crowd
Includes professional trolls, aspiring debaters, or dedicated recreational forumites
How to make them read this thread in a nutshell:
“Just get em’ to click on it”
Group 2: The Health/Aesthetics/No-clue-what-they-want crowd (i.e. everyone who doesn’t fall into group 1)
Includes housewives, couch potatoes, the terminally obese, weekend warriors, 99.8% of women, seniors, and all the types of people who usually surf the internet.
How to make them read this thread in a nutshell:
“Just link em’ to it, convince them it’s not a RickRoll and have them read each page isolated in a circuit fashion with short rest periods”
[quote]michael2507 wrote:
alit4 wrote:
wow! just took an hour out of my life and read this whole thread start to finish.
why did i do that?
There are two major types of people who read this thread:
Group 1: The Argument Oriented Crowd
Includes professional trolls, aspiring debaters, or dedicated recreational forumites
How to make them read this thread in a nutshell:
“Just get em’ to click on it”
Group 2: The Health/Aesthetics/No-clue-what-they-want crowd (i.e. everyone who doesn’t fall into group 1)
Includes housewives, coach potatoes, the terminally obese, weekend warriors, 99.8% of women, seniors, and all the types of people who usually surf the internet.
How to make them read this thread in a nutshell:
“Just link em’ to it, convince them it’s not a RickRoll and have them read each page isolated in a circuit fashion with short rest periods”
[/quote]
very good.
i’m going out now to do something worthwhile and ponder which group i fall into.
[quote]alit4 wrote:
michael2507 wrote:
alit4 wrote:
wow! just took an hour out of my life and read this whole thread start to finish.
why did i do that?
There are two major types of people who read this thread:
Group 1: The Argument Oriented Crowd
Includes professional trolls, aspiring debaters, or dedicated recreational forumites
How to make them read this thread in a nutshell:
“Just get em’ to click on it”
Group 2: The Health/Aesthetics/No-clue-what-they-want crowd (i.e. everyone who doesn’t fall into group 1)
Includes housewives, coach potatoes, the terminally obese, weekend warriors, 99.8% of women, seniors, and all the types of people who usually surf the internet.
How to make them read this thread in a nutshell:
“Just link em’ to it, convince them it’s not a RickRoll and have them read each page isolated in a circuit fashion with short rest periods”
very good.
i’m going out now to do something worthwhile and ponder which group i fall into.
edit: no… i’m just going outside![/quote]
Wait, you can’t go yet! You have to try to refute his claim before you can go anywhere…
no, i am going out now! before my brain turns completely to mush.
(anyone can see these claims are, as we say in england, total bollocks! i have a theory that the strength of an argument is considerably weakened by the amount of waffle spoken)
[quote]alit4 wrote:
no, i am going out now! before my brain turns completely to mush.
(anyone can see these claims are, as we say in england, total bollocks! i have a theory that the strength of an argument is considerably weakened by the amount of waffle spoken)[/quote]
Don’t you want to ponder your reasons for going outside before you do?
Your motivations for going out should be carefully weighed, measured, deduced, dissected, put back together, then meticulously deconstructed again in a logical manner.
It doesn’t have to be done in that order, but the process must be conducted under laboratory conditions. You will also need to gather as many people as possible to watch you so they can marvel at your genius. You in turn will be able to wallow in their adoration.
Don’t make hasty decisions that you’ll regret later on. You should take a few years to study the actual theory behind being out in the open air before you rush headlong into doing it. We should start a thread and thoroughly debate the existential implications of you going outdoors.
Naturally, I’ll expect some form of scientific proof to back up your claims when you return, otherwise I’ll have no reason to believe that you ever went out at all.
A thesis documenting your time away from home would be a good starting point for a mentally stimulating debate.
I’ll look forward to the opportunity to refute your findings in as patronizing a manner as possible.
I’ll do all this, of course, purely for the sake of being a pompous, opinionated prick.
The person cooking up the premise is an attention seeking dumbass. This automatically reduces any premise he makes to a big old pile of wank.
Logic robots like NP forget one fundamental rule:
A premise is only as sound as the person making it.
If that person (in this case, NP) makes a habit of being inconsistent, hypocritcal, patronizing, pedantic and basically has a track record of deliberately talking shit to stir up trouble, then the people who are familiar with his antics are not going to believe anything he says, much less assume that his premises are reliable.
Everything NP says depends on his assumption that we actually think he is an intelligent human being and we care about what he’s got to say.
Since I have been in his mind, heart and soul since he stopped posting on T-Nation, I thought the least I could do was bump his intended magnum-opus thread in return. I plan to keep his memory alive for a few more weeks, shall we.
And yes, that thread got deleted before I could even read it lol. I saw something about a covestor profile (that I don’t even have to my knowledge) and mentioning my activity on stock investment communities (that I have openly declared here on GAL -bumped that as well) so if anyone read that thread before it was deleted, mind telling me what the gist was?
[quote]bushidobadboy wrote:
tribunaldude wrote:
Bumping for the unwashed masses so they can get aquainted with NP’s training philosophy.
Is this because he started a thread about you (which now seems to be deleted and was not even accessible when I tried to click on it)?
What was that thread about? I couldn’t open it either.
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
bushidobadboy wrote:
tribunaldude wrote:
Bumping for the unwashed masses so they can get aquainted with NP’s training philosophy.
Is this because he started a thread about you (which now seems to be deleted and was not even accessible when I tried to click on it)?
What did that thread say, anyway?
Ah f*kit, I don’t really care, TBH.
BBB
I saw the that thread. You didn’t miss anything. [/quote]
Well, to be honest I seek to increment my ability to lift heavier and with proper form, which results inevitably in muscle hypertrophy, in simple english, muscles get bigger while the CNS is getting rattled to adapt to the new weight.
Of course, sometimes I need to give my CNS a break from lifting what I feel at the moment as ‘heavy’ and may introduce a ‘speed day’.
Where weights are dropped to approx 80% the weight I lift in ‘heavy days’, but increment the speed of the overall lifting while still controlling the weight. This way I’m giving a break to my CNS while STILL maximizing muscle fibers involved in the lift. Hence again, hypertrophy occurs.
In both cases we are still burning muscle glycogen anyway. Wanna focus on burning fat? Do some fucking cardio PLUS the above while following a sound diet.
Also what the heck is this ‘isolatiing bla bla bla until to failure cause bodybuilders yada yada??!!’ Bullshit. read again the above.
I’m no expert and can’t hold a cadle to most veterans in here. But hell I mean. Its a fucking no brainer. FIRST isolate the muscle THEN introduce into a compound lift. When the body adapts either switch training routine or more simply do the opposite.
I learned the above by reading this site and experimenting myself. and-it fucking works for me! Brilliant.
