Biceps!

In article <4757b009$0$72736$dbd4b001@news.wanadoo.nl>,
"Uncle Bob" <unclebobrules@gmail.com> wrote:

> "Hobbes" <khobman800@yahoo.com> schreef:
>
> >> Damn, me too. Well, no, I mean, when I was in my early twenties
> >> (teenage, your bones are still growing, and there's the fear of
> >> stunting growth height-wise).
>
> > Supply even an ounce of credible evidence to support that statement.
>
> Naim Suleymanoglu & Halil Mutlu!

Both of whom were using steroids in their teens, I suspect.
>
> > The loads on the joints in weightlifting are minor compared to most
> > other sports, especially basketball with all the jumping.
>
> > Steroid use can cause the epiphyseal plates to prematurally 'seal' or
> > whatever you want to call it.
>
> Only if they aromatize to estrogens. Its the estrogens that "close" the bone
> ends.

Okay. I wasn't sure of the mechanism.

--
Keith

Dude, did you injure your funny bone recently?

Please, sit down before your hurt yourself.


On Dec 5, 5:37 pm, Hobbes <khobman...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> Where did he say his joints were sore? He said muscles. And unusual
> activity will always do that.
>
> Jeez. I give up on this kind of bs. I think you are either an idiot or
> an elaborate troll.
>
> --
> Keith

On Dec 5, 8:47 pm, Curt <curtja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Bingo.

If I'm a troll, you're lunch, shrimp!

> I miss John Williams.

Ask Santa for your very own JMW blow-up doll!

> --
> Curt

On Dec 6, 4:37 am, "Uncle Bob" <unclebobru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> The factors described are not a result of genetics?

The question was whether those particular factors determined arm
size. The correct answer is that genetics determine arm size.

And no, wrist size most definitely does not determine or indicate arm
size.

> For big arms you need long muscle bellys.

I think those affect shape more than sheer mass.

> Hard work. Enough protein and
> Kcals in general.

By "genetics" I don't mean that hard work goes out the window. It
still takes hard work, proper nutrition, etc., for the genetics to be
stimulated enough to express itself fully.

> And androgen levels shouldnt be too low.

Don't know about that, but I suppose it all goes back to genetics,
what an individual's pre-set parameters are.

> --
> Uncle Bob

On Dec 5, 5:34 pm, Hobbes <khobman...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> Find scientific evidence to back up your contention weightlifting causes
> premature sealing of bone growth. Anything peer-reviewed will work for
> me. Make sure the focus of the study is that and it isn't simply an
> opinion of the researchers embedded somewhere in the review.



> Also, I didn't say basketball was bad for you.

I didn't say you did, if that's what you're implying.

> I said the loading on the
> joints in weightlfifting is minor compared to most sports and used
> basketball for an example.

And I said "then some basketball fan will ask for credible evidence
that all that jumping does anything bad."

You really like this game?

> Growing bodies are not delicate at all.

Well, perhaps we have different definitions of delicate.

Most people would agree that growing bodies are delicate. This is why
there are different levels of safety for children and adults WRT most
things, from sleep deprivation to television.

> They are incredibly adaptative
> and can take an unreal amount of stresses. Much more so than, say, an
> aging body. The key, as always, is progression.

The content of your objections are true, but they do not disprove the
general consensus that growing bodies are delicate.

> In terms of sports weightlifting (and I'm talking olympic style
> weightlifting) or powerlifting are relatively safe choices. You may want
> your children to stay at home, stay in bed and fear challenging
> themselves - I do not.

Well, that's a wild leap of logic, from advising caution WRT weights
to staying home in bed!

> Well, I don't really care what you do with your
> children, but my children were (are) involved in a number of sports.

Dude, I'm not running for your local school board. Relax.

> --
> Keith

On Dec 6, 3:27 am, "Uncle Bob" <unclebobru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> I was pressing barbells (about 10 kilo or so...) overhead when i was 9-10
> years old.
>
> When i was 14, i did several sets of overhead presses 20-25 kilo...) every
> night just after dinner. Ate lots of horse steak, too.
>
> My delts got huge and stayed huge. I grew to be 6 feet.
> If i knew then what i know now, i would have started to train serious from
> the age of twelve.

Correlation is not causation. But speaking of correlations, the
general observation is that the stocky beefy kids tend to be shorter
than the slimmer kids. Hence the fear that weights might stunt bone
growth, which, after genetics, is the major factor in determining
height.

> And eat even more horses.

Pussy is what makes you grow, man. Horses only give you butt-hair.

> --
> Uncle Bob

On Dec 6, 3:17 am, "Uncle Bob" <unclebobru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Naim Suleymanoglu & Halil Mutlu!

But are they "credible"?? He wants "credible." Which, according to
the MFW FAQ, means "tie-me-up-and-shove-it-down-my-throat
indisputable, even by God who designed the whole thing!"

> Only if they aromatize to estrogens. Its the estrogens that "close" the bone
> ends.

How about a lot of hiking and flat feet? I've heard that that there's
no cause-and-effect relationship, and I've heard that there is.

> --
> Uncle Bob

Prisoner at War wrote:
> On Dec 5, 2:59 pm, "Wotmewurry" <m...@home.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hey PAW, I am curious as to your build - how about posting a pic?
>
>
>
> Are you serious?? I'd already posted links twice in the past four
> months! Lemme see if Craig's List Taiwan is still active...OMG, it's
> still up!
>
> http://taipei.craigslist.com.tw/rnr/461503435.html

Good stocky build PAW

"Curt" <curtjames@gmail.com> schreef:

> I had this photo book titled something like "Elvis is Everywhere". I'm
> having a similar experience here with my Pete sightings!

> Kcals! It's Pete. Welcome back.

Yeah its me.

I figured you figured it out several weeks ago.

My response to Joanne was a dead giveaway.

Movie quote related to A Few Good Men.

Uncle Bob is a name i used several times a while back. Sorta of an
alter-ego, the more darker/cynical/sarcastic side of myself.

And for good reason.

Its like i have lactic acid flowing through my veins instead of blood.

--
Pete

"Prisoner at War" <prisoner_at_war@yahoo.com> schreef:

> Dude, did you injure your funny bone recently?

> Please, sit down before your hurt yourself.

Haha!

Keith has forgotten more about lifting the heavy than you will ever know.

And he starts to dislike you, which is unusual...

--
Pete

Uncle Bob wrote:
> "Curt" <curtjames@gmail.com> schreef:
>
>> I had this photo book titled something like "Elvis is Everywhere".
>> I'm having a similar experience here with my Pete sightings!
>
>> Kcals! It's Pete. Welcome back.
>
> Yeah its me.
>
> I figured you figured it out several weeks ago.
>
> My response to Joanne was a dead giveaway.
>
> Movie quote related to A Few Good Men.
>
> Uncle Bob is a name i used several times a while back. Sorta of an
> alter-ego, the more darker/cynical/sarcastic side of myself.
>
> And for good reason.
>
> Its like i have lactic acid flowing through my veins instead of blood.


Yes, welcome back Pete - great to have you back

Wow, some really corny seventh-grade put-downs.

Sorry, you'll need to start a flame war somewhere else.



On Dec 6, 2:18 pm, "Uncle Bob" <unclebobru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Haha!
>
> Keith has forgotten more about lifting the heavy than you will ever know.
>
> And he starts to dislike you, which is unusual...
>
> --
> Pete

On Dec 6, 1:45 pm, "Wotmewurry" <m...@home.com> wrote:
>
>
> Good stocky build PAW



Thanks -- but the thing is, it's just genetics! The photo in the
lower right-hand corner is from years ago, whereas the others are
current, and you see how there's not much difference...I like weights
but truth to tell, I was considered "big" even back in high school,
before I was doing all them push-ups and pull-ups in the Army! And
there I was considered "buff" before I really got into weights in
college! So I think it's all basically genetics...I do work out hard,
but I know I'm not dedicated about a proper diet...so you see, it's
just genetics, the luck of the draw!

The thing is, we need to work hard in order for the genetics to
express itself! But the result is indeed mainly genetics. This may
all sound tautologous, but it seems to be a missing dimension in many
people's perspectives....

On Dec 6, 8:50 am, Tom Anderson <t...@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
[...]

> Ding! You win a prize! I twigged a few weeks ago.
>
> But keep it quiet! 'Bob' is clearly trying to keep his identity on the
> downlow ...

I KNOW NOZZINK! /sgt schultz

--

On Dec 6, 8:54 am, Tom Anderson <t...@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Dec 2007, Curt wrote:
> > No PubMed at my fingertips, but it seems intuitive (izzat the right
> > word) that stronger equals bigger and so while it's impossible to
> > estimate what poundage would be required for you to achieve that 16"
> > measurement (if that is indeed your goal), certainly the more you curl
> > then the larger your biceps will become.
>
> Well, that's definitely my working assumption.

And this, too, is so variable (again, a guess, but it seems obvious).
Person A with a 15" arm may curl 100 lbs. while person B has a 17" arm
and curls 75 lbs. or vice versa. Maybe a third person (C) with 18"
arms is curling 150 lbs.

Person A @ 100lbs.may need to work up to 150 lbs. to make the leap to
16" while
Person B @ 75 lbs. may need to only curl 100 lbs to jump his arms to
18" while
Person C @ 150 lbs. may eventually curl 195 lbs. but his arms will
only jump to 18 1/2".

Or yeah, person D might begin with 12" arms and never exceed 15" arms.
(GOD DAMM!T!!!)

....

But I'm not bitter.

--
Curt

On Dec 6, 9:02 am, Tom Anderson <t...@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Uncle Bob wrote:
[...]
> > The length of the belly. Is there much space between the end od the
> > muscle and the joint?
>
> Couple of inches, maybe.<snip>

No, no, no! Maybe a couple of fingers, but not inches or you've got
yourself one high (or short) biceps with less potential for size
increase than your longer biceped brethren. It's the distance from the
joint to the end of the biceps, not the length of the entire biceps.
In other words (if I'm thinking correctly - a big IF), the amount of
tendon "showing."

L = arm with the top of the L being your fist/wrist and the bottom of
the L being the bicep to delt area and the 90 degree thingy being the
elbow/joint... er, just check out that one Nautilus book where Jones
talks about size potential, especially related to guys like Oliva and
Schwarzenegger, etc. Iirc, there's a great pic of Richard Baldwin
compared to Mike Mentzer showing the difference in biceps length.
Again, iirc, that's the Nautilus Bodybuilding Book.

--

On Dec 6, 11:21 am, Prisoner at War <prisoner_at_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]

> You really like this game?

What, Kick the Idiot?

[...]

--

The only game at which you have a chance, eh?



On Dec 6, 4:21 pm, Curt <curtja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> What, Kick the Idiot?
>
> [...]
>
> --

On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Curt wrote:

> On Dec 6, 8:54 am, Tom Anderson <t...@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
>> On Wed, 5 Dec 2007, Curt wrote:
>>> No PubMed at my fingertips, but it seems intuitive (izzat the right
>>> word) that stronger equals bigger and so while it's impossible to
>>> estimate what poundage would be required for you to achieve that 16"
>>> measurement (if that is indeed your goal), certainly the more you curl
>>> then the larger your biceps will become.
>>
>> Well, that's definitely my working assumption.
>
> And this, too, is so variable (again, a guess, but it seems obvious).
> Person A with a 15" arm may curl 100 lbs. while person B has a 17" arm
> and curls 75 lbs. or vice versa. Maybe a third person (C) with 18"
> arms is curling 150 lbs.

Yebbut for person A, if they want to work up to a 16" arm, they need to
curl more than 100 lbs. That's all i meant. That i'm not going to get
bigger by lifting smaller weights.

tom

--
Osteoclasts = monsters from the DEEP -- Andrew

On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 12:07:02 -0800, Prisoner at War wrote:

> On Dec 5, 2:43 pm, Tom Anderson <t...@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
>>
>> ...
>
> Are those done sitting or standing? I think standing curls (and lat
> raises) are much easier, right? And those ("bent-over") concentration
> curls are easier than those done with the arms straight at your sides,
> IME....
>
>> ...


If performed properly, the standing curls will be more difficult. Most
people do not do then properly when standing. The key is keep the rest of
Your body perfectly still. That is not as easy as it sounds. It requires
a lot of the core and postural muscles. Some people find it helps if they
can push their back into a pole or some other upright to ensure they are
not moving their torso. If standing curls seem easier, it is almost
certain that You are moving Your torso or shoulders or breaking form in
some other way.

If You want to make curls, or should press, or similar standing lifts
really really difficult, try doing them on a Bosu or balance board.
Alternately, You could do them while sitting on a stability ball. That
might be a workable intermediate.

On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Shava_X wrote:

> If You want to make curls, or should press, or similar standing lifts
> really really difficult, try doing them on a Bosu or balance board.

While fighting off ninjas.

> Alternately, You could do them while sitting on a stability ball. That
> might be a workable intermediate.

Yeah, pirates would do here.

tom

--
Osteoclasts = monsters from the DEEP -- Andrew

On Dec 6, 4:52 pm, Prisoner at War <prisoner_at_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 6, 4:21 pm, Curt <curtja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > What, Kick the Idiot?

> The only game at which you have a chance, eh?
>

Actually, with such a long line, it seems I'll never get an at
bat. (

Idiot.

--
Curt

On Dec 6, 5:31 pm, Tom Anderson <t...@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Curt wrote:
> > On Dec 6, 8:54 am, Tom Anderson <t...@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 5 Dec 2007, Curt wrote:
> >>> No PubMed at my fingertips, but it seems intuitive (izzat the right
> >>> word) that stronger equals bigger and so while it's impossible to
> >>> estimate what poundage would be required for you to achieve that 16"
> >>> measurement (if that is indeed your goal), certainly the more you curl
> >>> then the larger your biceps will become.
>
> >> Well, that's definitely my working assumption.
>
> > And this, too, is so variable (again, a guess, but it seems obvious).
> > Person A with a 15" arm may curl 100 lbs. while person B has a 17" arm
> > and curls 75 lbs. or vice versa. Maybe a third person (C) with 18"
> > arms is curling 150 lbs.
>
> Yebbut for person A, if they want to work up to a 16" arm, they need to
> curl more than 100 lbs. That's all i meant. That i'm not going to get
> bigger by lifting smaller weights.

Otoh, how much do those vials of AAS-type stuff weigh? ;o)

--

"Prisoner at War" <prisoner_at_war@yahoo.com> schreef:

> And I said "then some basketball fan will ask for credible evidence
> that all that jumping does anything bad."

> You really like this game?

BasketBall = Heavy Impact

Weightlifting/Powerlifting/Bodybuilding = ZERO mpact.

Not counting the negative part of a snatch, where the calves hit the hams,
when performed through an Asian female, is one of the most erotic things to
watch...

>> Growing bodies are not delicate at all.

> Well, perhaps we have different definitions of delicate.

> Most people would agree that growing bodies are delicate. This is why
> there are different levels of safety for children and adults WRT most
> things, from sleep deprivation to television.

And exercise is NOT one of them!

> The content of your objections are true, but they do not disprove the
> general consensus that growing bodies are delicate.

Ever watched an 8 year old on the playground?

>> Well, I don't really care what you do with your
>> children, but my children were (are) involved in a number of sports.

> Dude, I'm not running for your local school board. Relax.

I dont have childen myself, but i know one thing...

Computers,TVs and cellphones = bad.

Exercise = GOOD.

--
Pete

"Hobbes" <khobman800@yahoo.com> schreef:

>> > Supply even an ounce of credible evidence to support that statement.

>> Naim Suleymanoglu & Halil Mutlu!

> Both of whom were using steroids in their teens, I suspect.

Well, they were Bulgarin, not Turkish.

Naim was the perfect lifter. I will never forget 1988.

Arms/torso/legs 1/1/1 ratio. Perfect.

> The loads on the joints in weightlifting are minor compared to most
> other sports, especially basketball with all the jumping.

Damn right!

>> > Steroid use can cause the epiphyseal plates to prematurally 'seal' or
>> > whatever you want to call it.

>> Only if they aromatize to estrogens. Its the estrogens that "close" the
>> bone
>> ends.

> Okay. I wasn't sure of the mechanism.

Most Andrologists arent sure either.

--
Pete

"Prisoner at War" <prisoner_at_war@yahoo.com> schreef:

> Wow, some really corny seventh-grade put-downs.

Actually, i never got past 6th grade.

> Sorry, you'll need to start a flame war somewhere else.

Flame war?

--
Pete

"Prisoner at War" <prisoner_at_war@yahoo.com> schreef:

>> My delts got huge and stayed huge. I grew to be 6 feet.
>> If i knew then what i know now, i would have started to train serious
>> from
>> the age of twelve.

> Correlation is not causation. But speaking of correlations, the
> general observation is that the stocky beefy kids tend to be shorter
> than the slimmer kids.

Because of their bone structure.

Mesomorphs can be tall, but their legs, and especially the lower legs and
even arms have a tendency to be short.

A friend of mine who is one inch taller has legs that are about 5 inches
longer than mine, and his lower legs by themselves about 3. He has a
relative short torso. He has great diffuculties gaining weight.

So its the other way around. If you are shorther, changes are that the arms
and legs are shorter compared to a person who is 5 inches taller. The torso
can be the same or even a bit longer.

Check out the build of the WSM guys. Tall, but kinda short legged.

> Hence the fear that weights might stunt bone
> growth, which, after genetics, is the major factor in determining
> height.

Your build will dictate if you gain weight easily, lifting does NOT change
the way you are build.

--
Pete

In article <47593671$0$36370$dbd4f001@news.wanadoo.nl>,
"Uncle Bob" <unclebobrules@gmail.com> wrote:

> "Hobbes" <khobman800@yahoo.com> schreef:
>
> >> > Supply even an ounce of credible evidence to support that statement.
>
> >> Naim Suleymanoglu & Halil Mutlu!
>
> > Both of whom were using steroids in their teens, I suspect.
>
> Well, they were Bulgarin, not Turkish.
>
> Naim was the perfect lifter. I will never forget 1988.
>
> Arms/torso/legs 1/1/1 ratio. Perfect.

It was shocking what he was able to do as a teenager. Almost setting a
world record at age 15 and getting it at 16.

That is genetics. Plus hard work, good coaching and nutritional
'enhancement', I realize. But he really probably didn't have access to a
sophisticated drug program and to be able to do what he did was freaky.

Plus both Suleymanoglu and Mutlu kind of disprove the theory the
Bulgarian method 'burns out' its lifters, don't they?

--
Keith

On Dec 6, 10:11 pm, Curt <curtja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Actually, with such a long line, it seems I'll never get an at
> bat. (

Birds of a feather flock together, Curt.

> Idiot.

Please keep saying that. You have no idea how much harm it does your
soul, but keep it up and pretty soon you'll show everyone who the real
idiot is!

> --
> Curt

On Dec 6, 2:29 pm, "Uncle Bob" <unclebobru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> BasketBall = Heavy Impact
>
> Weightlifting/Powerlifting/Bodybuilding = ZERO mpact.

It's not simply about "impact." The observation is that muscle-heads
in high school are shorter than regular, even slim, kids.
Coincidental correlation or incidental causation? Until the jury is
in with an unanimous verdict, why take the risk? Lotsa other ways to
get buff. It was calisthenics for me.

> Not counting the negative part of a snatch, where the calves hit the hams,
> when performed through an Asian female, is one of the most erotic things to
> watch...

Shit, you're really corny. I guess that's why the Dutch have a red
light district -- so that screwballs like you can self-quarantine!

> And exercise is NOT one of them!

Sure it is. You don't have lil' prepubescent kids weight-lifting.
Doesn't do them any good -- and could probably cause harm. Of course,
teenagers are not prepubescent, but they're still growing, and why
take chances when Mother Nature hasn't finished laying the
foundations?

> Ever watched an 8 year old on the playground?

The young are resilient, sure. I myself fell flat on my back from a
height of five or six feet as a nine or ten year old. But that's no
excuse not to exercise caution. Better safe than sorry.

And in high school it was diagnosed that my spine was slightly
crooked, laterally. I've always wondered whether it was that fall,
which had me unable to breathe for a good five seconds. I was on the
floor unable to move or breathe for about five seconds or so.

> I dont have childen myself, but i know one thing...
>
> Computers,TVs and cellphones = bad.

With computers, I think one should have an LCD monitor. Otherwise,
keep a good distance from the monitor.

TV is 98% bad. Cellphones are 99% bad.

> Exercise = GOOD.

Everything at the proper time. Growing bodies should stick to
calisthenics. Achieve the same results with no worries whatsoever.
You take identical twins, and I wouldn't be surprised if the one who
starts weightlifting at 15-18 will prove shorter than the one who
starts at 21, 22, even 25. By age 30, they will both be equally buff,
but one will be taller.

> --
> Pete

On Dec 7, 8:14 am, "Uncle Bob" <unclebobru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Because of their bone structure.
>
> Mesomorphs can be tall, but their legs, and especially the lower legs and
> even arms have a tendency to be short.

That's possible. This is the ol' "does a baby eat so much because it
is growing, or does it grow because it eats so much" question...but
until a definite verdict is reached, why take the chance? There are
other ways to get diesel in high school, namely, calisthenics.

> A friend of mine who is one inch taller has legs that are about 5 inches
> longer than mine, and his lower legs by themselves about 3. He has a
> relative short torso. He has great diffuculties gaining weight.
>
> So its the other way around. If you are shorther, changes are that the arms
> and legs are shorter compared to a person who is 5 inches taller. The torso
> can be the same or even a bit longer.
>
> Check out the build of the WSM guys. Tall, but kinda short legged.

I would wager that out of a pair of identical twins, the one who
starts weightlifting in the teenage years will prove shorter than the
one who waits until his twenties.

> Your build will dictate if you gain weight easily, lifting does NOT change
> the way you are build.

I'm not talking about overall "build" here, but "height" in
particular. Serious weight-lifting -- as opposed using ten or twenty-
pound dumbbells once in a while -- during the teenage years could
contribute to stunting bone growth in terms of height. There's not
been enough research, apparently, so why take the chance? There's the
rest of the twenties and even the thirties to doing weights and
packing on mass, whereas only the teenage years to really establish
one's genetic height potential.

My advice to kids: calisthenics.

> --
> Pete

On Dec 7, 9:27 am, Prisoner at War <prisoner_at_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 6, 2:29 pm, "Uncle Bob" <unclebobru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > BasketBall = Heavy Impact
>
> > Weightlifting/Powerlifting/Bodybuilding = ZERO mpact.
>
> It's not simply about "impact." The observation is that muscle-heads
> in high school are shorter than regular, even slim, kids.
> Coincidental correlation or incidental causation?

Self-selection, doofus. Do you actually *know* any short people who
started lifting when they were teenagers? If so, perhaps you should
ask them why they started lifting, and whether or not they have non-
lifting family members who are also short. If not, perhaps you should
STFU.

On Dec 7, 10:53 am, geek_girl <sarah.brilli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Self-selection, doofus. Do you actually *know* any short people who
> started lifting when they were teenagers? If so, perhaps you should
> ask them why they started lifting, and whether or not they have non-
> lifting family members who are also short. If not, perhaps you should
> STFU.


Hey, you're so smart, how come you haven't authored the definitive
study on this, then?

The only self-selection going on here is the color of your shades,
fungus.

On Dec 7, 10:19 am, Prisoner at War <prisoner_at_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 7, 10:53 am, geek_girl <sarah.brilli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Self-selection, doofus. Do you actually *know* any short people who
> > started lifting when they were teenagers? If so, perhaps you should
> > ask them why they started lifting, and whether or not they have non-
> > lifting family members who are also short. If not, perhaps you should
> > STFU.
>
> Hey, you're so smart, how come you haven't authored the definitive
> study on this, then?

Because like you, all I have are my observations. But unlike yours, my
observations came from actually, y'know, observing.

In article
<0e835bc1-0d6b-40f0-aa3d-79615dcf3083@o42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
geek_girl <sarah.brilliant@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Dec 7, 9:27 am, Prisoner at War <prisoner_at_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 6, 2:29 pm, "Uncle Bob" <unclebobru...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > BasketBall = Heavy Impact
> >
> > > Weightlifting/Powerlifting/Bodybuilding = ZERO mpact.
> >
> > It's not simply about "impact." The observation is that muscle-heads
> > in high school are shorter than regular, even slim, kids.
> > Coincidental correlation or incidental causation?
>
> Self-selection, doofus. Do you actually *know* any short people who
> started lifting when they were teenagers? If so, perhaps you should
> ask them why they started lifting, and whether or not they have non-
> lifting family members who are also short. If not, perhaps you should
> STFU.

He doesn't seem to follow ideas too well. Jumping in basketball causes
way more force on joints than weightlifting, as both 'Uncle Bob' and I
pointed out. And yet basketball players are invariably tall. Could it
have something to do with being good in their sport?

Weightlifters have a leverage advantage if they have short arms and legs
relative to their torso (talking olympic style weightlifers here).
Weightlifters are generally shorter with relatively short arms and legs.
Could it have something to do with being good in their sport?

Teenagers who take up bodybuilding or hypertrophy training are
invariably short to start off with. Why indeed do you think they started
weightlifting?

Calisthentics is resistance training, using bodyweight. Gymnasts do tons
of bodyweight exercise. They are also invariably short. Should I then
assume it is the bodyweight exercises that make them short? Or could it
have something to do with it being easier to control a smaller mass?

--
Keith

On Dec 7, 11:30 am, geek_girl <sarah.brilli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Because like you, all I have are my observations. But unlike yours, my
> observations came from actually, y'know, observing.



Wow, you observe from afar that my observations aren't observations,
but your observations are really observations because...you say so.

Do you really enjoy usenet pissing contests? I have to ask; I'm
really puzzled why anyone bothers logging on to engage in this kind of
a game. Sounds like you've already concluded all you need to know.

So, then...what's your point, really? I mean, really...what's your
point? What's *the* point? Are you just practicing your typing, then?

On Dec 7, 11:37 am, Hobbes <khobman...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> He doesn't seem to follow ideas too well.

You don't seem to have basic reading comprehension skills.

> Jumping in basketball causes
> way more force on joints than weightlifting,

And I am sure many a high school basketball coach would dismiss your
concerns as irrelevant, same way you do of ideas about weightlifting
WRT teens.

> as both 'Uncle Bob' and I
> pointed out.

Wow, the eminence grises of MFW, now that Brinks and Willaims have
left to, one hopes, do some real weight-lifting.

The more things change, the more they stay the same, eh?

> And yet basketball players are invariably tall. Could it
> have something to do with being good in their sport?

Could it be that you never hear about the ones who didn't make it on
to the team -- 'cause they're short?

> Weightlifters have a leverage advantage if they have short arms and legs
> relative to their torso (talking olympic style weightlifers here).
> Weightlifters are generally shorter with relatively short arms and legs.
> Could it have something to do with being good in their sport?

Irrelevant to the issue of whether weight-lifting has adverse effects
on growing bodies.

But feel free to change the subject if that helps distract the
nincompoops.

> Teenagers who take up bodybuilding or hypertrophy training are
> invariably short to start off with. Why indeed do you think they started
> weightlifting?

The question is why some teenage bodybuilders are short.

The question is whether weight-lifting adversely affects growing
bodies.

> Calisthentics is resistance training, using bodyweight. Gymnasts do tons
> of bodyweight exercise. They are also invariably short. Should I then
> assume it is the bodyweight exercises that make them short? Or could it
> have something to do with it being easier to control a smaller mass?

No one is claiming causation of a correlation. I've already noted
it's a correlation, and not causation.

But feel free to take a small footnote and make of it a thesis against
which you can launch a strawman argument.

You don't vote Republican by anyway, do you? Just curious (LOL).

> --
> Keith

On Dec 7, 10:56 am, Prisoner at War <prisoner_at_...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> No one is claiming causation of a correlation. I've already noted
> it's a correlation, and not causation.

Oy vey. Not only do you have trouble understanding what others write,
you have no idea what you wrote!