Still more intullugints: Pavel does barbells....

[Existential Angst]

Very nice 12 min. clinic on the deadlift...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boNVh...eature=related
Lotsa subtleties, very informative.

He calls the deadlift "the czar of weightlifting". I personally disagree
with this, but the point is still well taken.

What is especially, well, stunning, imo, is that at the end of the video,
where he sums up all the demo's in the vid, and dubs the deadlift "the
czar", he astutely observes that virtually the entire musculature of the
body can be addressed in just two moves!!

Now, I disagree with this as well (it's more like 3, mebbe 4), but again the
point is well taken, and should be the basis from which a given individual
tailors his own strategy.

This stuff is orders of magnitudes better than the typical youtube bull****
exhibitionism.
And I would nitpick a lot of his points, but still, he is much closer to
right than wrong, and a lot of this depends on personal context. Overall,
an excellent conceptual starting point for anyone, imo.

How he got stuck on effing kettlebells is beyond me.

I'm going to test his assertion that curls done later in the day, from the
first earlier set, will be 30 to 50% greater.... I don't quite see that.


But one thing is curious:
He often distinguishes between muscle mass and strength. Now I
understand the point: Powerlifters are indeed stronger than bodybuilders
(mostly). But I think he has misconstrued muscle MASS with muscle SIZE.

Bodybuilders have *apparently bigger* muscles, but their actual total
(non-pumped) mass is certainly LESS than that of a powerlifter, in direct
proportinn to their differences in strength.

If a powerlifter had LESS mass than a bb-er, well then what explains his
greater strength?
Bodybuilders just have "artificially" puffed up muscles, giving the
appearance of greater mass.

Bodybuilders are derogatorily referred to as Inflates/Deflates.... their
muscle tissue has ADAPTED to the osmotic dilution of lactic acid through the
influx of water into the muscle, causing the muscle to almost literally
inflate.

Catch a bodybuilder out of training for just a week or so -- mebbe even a
day -- and his appearance is totally different from just a short time in a
gym. Powerlifters don't exhibit this.

So I don't think the distinction between strength and TRUE muscle mass holds
much, uh, water.
I think what Pavel should be distinguishing between is true
hypertrophic-type lifting (for strength/mass), and endurance-type lifting --
ie, kettlebells. Or bodybuilding.

What's nice about this Pavel stuff is that his delivery is crisp and lucid,
so that if there is technical disagreement on some points, it's not all
muddied up in chaotic uselessness -- the disagreement can be
intelligentlly/coherently addressed.

Which, in this field, is rare indeed.

To Pavel's chagrin, tho, because he is cogent, his logical errors are easier
to catch -- such as in the Friedes interview link, where he argues the
advantages of kb's precisely because of their off-center of gravity.
THAT, imo, is the Marketing Pavel, not the Lifting Pavel.
--
EA

[Jason Earl]

On Sun, Mar 04 2012, Existential Angst wrote:

> Very nice 12 min. clinic on the deadlift...
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boNVh...eature=related
> Lotsa subtleties, very informative.
>
> He calls the deadlift "the czar of weightlifting". I personally disagree
> with this, but the point is still well taken.

You should find yourself a copy of Power to the People. I think that
you would actually like it. I know that I used it quite successfully
back in the day. In fact, I became interested in kettlebells because
Pavel's deadlifting workout worked so well for me.

> What is especially, well, stunning, imo, is that at the end of the
> video, where he sums up all the demo's in the vid, and dubs the
> deadlift "the czar", he astutely observes that virtually the entire
> musculature of the body can be addressed in just two moves!!
>
> Now, I disagree with this as well (it's more like 3, mebbe 4), but
> again the point is well taken, and should be the basis from which a
> given individual tailors his own strategy.
>
> This stuff is orders of magnitudes better than the typical youtube
> bull**** exhibitionism. And I would nitpick a lot of his points, but
> still, he is much closer to right than wrong, and a lot of this
> depends on personal context. Overall, an excellent conceptual
> starting point for anyone, imo.
>
> How he got stuck on effing kettlebells is beyond me.
>
> I'm going to test his assertion that curls done later in the day, from
> the first earlier set, will be 30 to 50% greater.... I don't quite
> see that.
>
>
> But one thing is curious:
> He often distinguishes between muscle mass and strength. Now I
> understand the point: Powerlifters are indeed stronger than bodybuilders
> (mostly). But I think he has misconstrued muscle MASS with muscle SIZE.
>
> Bodybuilders have *apparently bigger* muscles, but their actual total
> (non-pumped) mass is certainly LESS than that of a powerlifter, in direct
> proportinn to their differences in strength.
>
> If a powerlifter had LESS mass than a bb-er, well then what explains
> his greater strength? Bodybuilders just have "artificially" puffed up
> muscles, giving the appearance of greater mass.
>
> Bodybuilders are derogatorily referred to as Inflates/Deflates....
> their muscle tissue has ADAPTED to the osmotic dilution of lactic acid
> through the influx of water into the muscle, causing the muscle to
> almost literally inflate.
>
> Catch a bodybuilder out of training for just a week or so -- mebbe
> even a day -- and his appearance is totally different from just a
> short time in a gym. Powerlifters don't exhibit this.
>
> So I don't think the distinction between strength and TRUE muscle mass
> holds much, uh, water. I think what Pavel should be distinguishing
> between is true hypertrophic-type lifting (for strength/mass), and
> endurance-type lifting -- ie, kettlebells. Or bodybuilding.

You really need to get /Power to the People/, you'll find that Pavel
agrees with you.

> What's nice about this Pavel stuff is that his delivery is crisp and
> lucid, so that if there is technical disagreement on some points, it's
> not all muddied up in chaotic uselessness -- the disagreement can be
> intelligentlly/coherently addressed.

Plus his stuff is fun to read. I realize some people don't like his
whole "Comrade" schtick, but it makes for interesting books.

> Which, in this field, is rare indeed.
>
> To Pavel's chagrin, tho, because he is cogent, his logical errors are
> easier to catch -- such as in the Friedes interview link, where he
> argues the advantages of kb's precisely because of their off-center of
> gravity. THAT, imo, is the Marketing Pavel, not the Lifting Pavel.

Possibly. However, I really do think that, for the lifts that Pavel
suggests the kettlebell is a good choice. Some of that is probably
cherry-picking. Pavel wants to sell kettlebells, so he stresses
exercises that work well with the tool. On the other hand, at least for
me, his workouts really do seem to work.

Which is why I am going to be starting a cycle based on the /Rite of
Passage/ workout later today. I am going to try and get in a little bit
of running on my miscellaneous days, but I am going to be done with
running heavy workout schedules for a while.

Jason

[Steve Freides]

Jason Earl wrote:
> I am going to be starting a cycle based on the /Rite of
> Passage/ workout later today. I am going to try and get in a little
> bit of running on my miscellaneous days, but I am going to be done
> with running heavy workout schedules for a while.

Cool.

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com
http://www.RideChickens.blogspot.com

[Existential Angst]

"Steve Freides" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:jj8e9n$tp7$[email protected]..
> Jason Earl wrote:
>> I am going to be starting a cycle based on the /Rite of
>> Passage/ workout later today. I am going to try and get in a little
>> bit of running on my miscellaneous days, but I am going to be done
>> with running heavy workout schedules for a while.
>
> Cool.

Since Friedes has me killfiled, I wonder if, when replying to replies to me,
he closes his eyes on the quoted content, ie, my stuff.....
What an asshole.....

Hopefully Jason will wake up and start using dumbbells, esp. the dumbbell
hurl -- heads and shoulders above the kb stuff, ito raw bang fer yer buck,
time-wise AND dollar-wise.

About a dozen different ways to do these, as well, with a few ways building
a good squat right into the hurl move. Most of the db techniques -- which
actually doesn't require any real dexterity or skill, just a little
physics -- *cannot* be ergonomically or smoothly done with kb's.
Funny how that works.... LOL

Jason, did you listen to the Pavel interview?
--
EA



>
> -S-
> http://www.kbnj.com
> http://www.RideChickens.blogspot.com
>
>

[Jason Earl]

On Wed, Mar 07 2012, Existential Angst wrote:

> "Steve Freides" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:jj8e9n$tp7$[email protected]..
>> Jason Earl wrote:
>>> I am going to be starting a cycle based on the /Rite of
>>> Passage/ workout later today. I am going to try and get in a little
>>> bit of running on my miscellaneous days, but I am going to be done
>>> with running heavy workout schedules for a while.
>>
>> Cool.
>
> Since Friedes has me killfiled.

Since "Freides" has you killfiled there is very little sense in talking
to him. Especially since your criticism apply to *my* workout.

> Hopefully Jason will wake up and start using dumbbells, esp. the
> dumbbell hurl -- heads and shoulders above the kb stuff, ito raw bang
> fer yer buck, time-wise AND dollar-wise.

I have done dumbbell snatches, and there are some advantages. Namely,
dumbbell snatches do not bang up my hands quite as badly at first. The
problem with dumbbell snatches is two fold.

First of all, the extra width of the adjustable dumbbells I own comes
too close to my kneecaps for comfort. That's the real issue I have with
the movement, and it could probably be fixed if I had a 50# fixed weight
dumbbell. Unfortunately, I don't have a fixed dumbbell, and I don't
plan on getting one. One of the times I was testing dumbbell snatches I
nicked my knee, and that basically ended my curiosity about the move--
especially since I already own a 24kg and 32kg kettlebell.

The second insurmountable problem with dumbbell snatches is that they
don't look nearly as cool.

There are other small problems with dumbbell snatches, but, in my mind,
those are the big problems.

I still think that dumbbell snatches are a great exercise. If they
don't make you nervous, and if you don't mind looking staid and
pedestrian when you could look awesome, then I heartily recommend them.

> About a dozen different ways to do these, as well, with a few ways
> building a good squat right into the hurl move. Most of the db
> techniques -- which actually doesn't require any real dexterity or
> skill, just a little physics -- *cannot* be ergonomically or smoothly
> done with kb's. Funny how that works.... LOL

To be honest, I am not sure that I want variation. When I do snatches
for volume (whether with a kettlebell or a dumbbell) I just want to do
as many snatches in a set amount of time as possible. Snatches are
really a full body exercise. I am not trying to *target* any particular
body part.

> Jason, did you listen to the Pavel interview?

No, I haven't had time. Maybe I could queue it up for the drive home
tonight. I like reading Pavel's stuff, I imagine an interview would be
interesting.

[Existential Angst]

"Jason Earl" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]..
> On Wed, Mar 07 2012, Existential Angst wrote:
>
>> "Steve Freides" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:jj8e9n$tp7$[email protected]..
>>> Jason Earl wrote:
>>>> I am going to be starting a cycle based on the /Rite of
>>>> Passage/ workout later today. I am going to try and get in a little
>>>> bit of running on my miscellaneous days, but I am going to be done
>>>> with running heavy workout schedules for a while.
>>>
>>> Cool.
>>
>> Since Friedes has me killfiled.
>
> Since "Freides" has you killfiled there is very little sense in talking
> to him.

Well, it was not to him, but *about* him -- AND it was rhetorical.
Altho Friedes being an asshole is certainly not rhetorical, but a near
universal consensus.

> Especially since your criticism apply to *my* workout.
>
>> Hopefully Jason will wake up and start using dumbbells, esp. the
>> dumbbell hurl -- heads and shoulders above the kb stuff, ito raw bang
>> fer yer buck, time-wise AND dollar-wise.
>
> I have done dumbbell snatches, and there are some advantages. Namely,
> dumbbell snatches do not bang up my hands quite as badly at first. The
> problem with dumbbell snatches is two fold.
>
> First of all, the extra width of the adjustable dumbbells I own comes
> too close to my kneecaps for comfort.

What plate size are you using?
10# plates shouldn't be a problem, and you could easily use 5" plates.

Admittedly, the solid dbs are more ergonomic than plate db's.

That's the real issue I have with
> the movement, and it could probably be fixed if I had a 50# fixed weight
> dumbbell. Unfortunately, I don't have a fixed dumbbell, and I don't
> plan on getting one. One of the times I was testing dumbbell snatches I
> nicked my knee, and that basically ended my curiosity about the move--
> especially since I already own a 24kg and 32kg kettlebell.
>
> The second insurmountable problem with dumbbell snatches is that they
> don't look nearly as cool.
>
> There are other small problems with dumbbell snatches, but, in my mind,
> those are the big problems.
>
> I still think that dumbbell snatches are a great exercise. If they
> don't make you nervous, and if you don't mind looking staid and
> pedestrian when you could look awesome, then I heartily recommend them.
>
>> About a dozen different ways to do these, as well, with a few ways
>> building a good squat right into the hurl move. Most of the db
>> techniques -- which actually doesn't require any real dexterity or
>> skill, just a little physics -- *cannot* be ergonomically or smoothly
>> done with kb's. Funny how that works.... LOL
>
> To be honest, I am not sure that I want variation. When I do snatches
> for volume (whether with a kettlebell or a dumbbell) I just want to do
> as many snatches in a set amount of time as possible. Snatches are
> really a full body exercise. I am not trying to *target* any particular
> body part.

But, with db's you *can*, and seamlessly, and at will.
If we did a side-by-side demo, you'd see what I mean, and you'd proly really
like some of the variations, as they seamlessly change the loading to the
back, knees, hips, in very significant ways, with little loss in volume, if
that's your emphasis.

Plus, "whole body" can be a little context sensitive: If I hurl a weight
from the floor to overhead, in one motion, that's certainly whole body.
But if I lift the weight to the thighs, then to the chest, then to overhead,
I have a different "whole body" move -- proly at fewer reps per minute, tho.
But still whole body, just in discrete steps.

Ito volume, I'll bet that for every 10 reps of kb hurls you can do, you
could do 12-15 db hurls, because of the simpler (heh, less cool) more direct
technique.
AND be getting a few more add'l foot-lbs of work in, PER REP, cuz the db
lies lower than the kb. So you'll get more foot-lbs bec of more reps, and
more ft-lbs bec of a greater distance per rep.

The only problem is, as everyone knows, is that a 50# kb is heavier than a
50# db.... according to DragonDoor.... <eyeroll>

So if you are going for volume and efficiency, dbs win, hands down. Without
beating up yer hands, wrists, forearms.
And, they will win on almost every facet of lifting, incl raw liftable
weight.

PLUS, you can also do some tricks with db's, more easily and safely than
with kb's, if you can even do these with kb's at all
For example, suppose you want to get more power per rep, by *throwing* the
weight up a few inches or a foot.
You can do this much more easily with a db (cuz, well, of it's pedestrian
symmetry LOL), than you can with a kb -- AND you won't jack up yer hands.

If you wanted to move from a floor to overhead hurl, then to a tricep
extension, back up overhead, and down to the floor, you can implement that
type of ancillary move, which you *cannot* do with those dopey kb's.

Etc.


>
>> Jason, did you listen to the Pavel interview?
>
> No, I haven't had time. Maybe I could queue it up for the drive home
> tonight. I like reading Pavel's stuff, I imagine an interview would be
> interesting.

I like Pavel's style, clarity. The Komrad stuff is a li'l dopey, but he
def'ly has presence, f'sure f'sure.
He just needs to be correct a little more often.... LOL

But actually, I've learned some stuff via his presentations already, even if
by only forcing me to re-think a few things, such as the "to failure"
business..
--
EA

[Steve Freides]

Jason Earl wrote:

> First of all, the extra width of the adjustable dumbbells I own comes
> too close to my kneecaps for comfort. That's the real issue I have
> with the movement, and it could probably be fixed if I had a 50#
> fixed weight dumbbell. Unfortunately, I don't have a fixed dumbbell,
> and I don't plan on getting one. One of the times I was testing
> dumbbell snatches I nicked my knee, and that basically ended my
> curiosity about the move-- especially since I already own a 24kg and
> 32kg kettlebell.
>
> The second insurmountable problem with dumbbell snatches is that they
> don't look nearly as cool.

Better to stick with a barbell for low rep, high weight explosvie work,
and a kettlebell when you want higher reps and the backloading of the
swing. Still, the dumbell snatch is better than a slap in the face with
a wet fish.

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com
http://RideChickens.blogspot.com

[ATP]

"Existential Angst" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:4f580875$0$9641$[email protected]..
> "Jason Earl" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]..
>> On Wed, Mar 07 2012, Existential Angst wrote:
>>
>>> "Steve Freides" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:jj8e9n$tp7$[email protected]..
>>>> Jason Earl wrote:
>>>>> I am going to be starting a cycle based on the /Rite of
>>>>> Passage/ workout later today. I am going to try and get in a little
>>>>> bit of running on my miscellaneous days, but I am going to be done
>>>>> with running heavy workout schedules for a while.
>>>>
>>>> Cool.
>>>
>>> Since Friedes has me killfiled.
>>
>> Since "Freides" has you killfiled there is very little sense in talking
>> to him.
>
> Well, it was not to him, but *about* him -- AND it was rhetorical.
> Altho Friedes being an asshole is certainly not rhetorical, but a near
> universal consensus.
>
Seems to me like he's always been a gentleman and you've been rather rude
and more than a little obsessed over this whole KB/DB thing.

[Existential Angst]

"Steve Freides" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:jj9681$oj7$[email protected]..
> Jason Earl wrote:
>
>> First of all, the extra width of the adjustable dumbbells I own comes
>> too close to my kneecaps for comfort. That's the real issue I have
>> with the movement, and it could probably be fixed if I had a 50#
>> fixed weight dumbbell. Unfortunately, I don't have a fixed dumbbell,
>> and I don't plan on getting one. One of the times I was testing
>> dumbbell snatches I nicked my knee, and that basically ended my
>> curiosity about the move-- especially since I already own a 24kg and
>> 32kg kettlebell.
>>
>> The second insurmountable problem with dumbbell snatches is that they
>> don't look nearly as cool.
>
> Better to stick with a barbell for low rep, high weight explosvie work,
> and a kettlebell when you want higher reps and the backloading of the
> swing. Still, the dumbell snatch is better than a slap in the face with a
> wet fish.

Even nursing students have to take physics, albeit without calculus.
But apparently not music majors.....

Here: Conceputal Physics, by Paul G. Hewitt, super excellent book, no math.
http://www.amazon.com/Conceptual-Phy...1180828&sr=8-5
Used from $1.78, 8th edition..
The 11th edition is out now, mebbe he does String Theory for Dummies in the
11th.
--
EA


>
> -S-
> http://www.kbnj.com
> http://RideChickens.blogspot.com
>
>

[Existential Angst]

"ATP" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:4f582d7a$0$2012$[email protected]..
>
> "Existential Angst" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:4f580875$0$9641$[email protected]..
>> "Jason Earl" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]..
>>> On Wed, Mar 07 2012, Existential Angst wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Steve Freides" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:jj8e9n$tp7$[email protected]..
>>>>> Jason Earl wrote:
>>>>>> I am going to be starting a cycle based on the /Rite of
>>>>>> Passage/ workout later today. I am going to try and get in a little
>>>>>> bit of running on my miscellaneous days, but I am going to be done
>>>>>> with running heavy workout schedules for a while.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cool.
>>>>
>>>> Since Friedes has me killfiled.
>>>
>>> Since "Freides" has you killfiled there is very little sense in talking
>>> to him.
>>
>> Well, it was not to him, but *about* him -- AND it was rhetorical.
>> Altho Friedes being an asshole is certainly not rhetorical, but a near
>> universal consensus.
>>
> Seems to me like he's always been a gentleman

Hustlers often are.

> and you've been rather rude

More like impatient, and you've probably missed HIS character assassinations
of me.
I actually give Friedes a lot of credit -- just that he can't take being
challenged. Which is why I'm killfiled, not for any rudeness.

> and more than a little obsessed over this whole KB/DB thing.

More like flabbergasted. I just cain't believe the momentum this kb con has
gathered. It's really incredible, and partly why we elected Bush....
TWICE.

If you can't see the lunacy behind kb claims, you shouldn't be allowed to
vote.
Truth is truth, physics is physics.
You should ask not why I'm so obsessed, but why no one can rebut my
statements -- except for mebbe Jason, who more or less agrees, but for some
reason still straddles the fence. And well, now we know why: The Cool
Factor.... LOL.

kb's are a conjob, Komrad, plain and simple. Just like ab gadgets, MLM,
totalgym, Zumba's 1,000 cals/hr claims, and most of the other stuff.
--
EA




>
>

[Jim Janney]

"Existential Angst" <[email protected]> writes:

> "Jason Earl" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]..
>> On Wed, Mar 07 2012, Existential Angst wrote:
>>
>>> "Steve Freides" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:jj8e9n$tp7$[email protected]..
>>>> Jason Earl wrote:
>>>>> I am going to be starting a cycle based on the /Rite of
>>>>> Passage/ workout later today. I am going to try and get in a little
>>>>> bit of running on my miscellaneous days, but I am going to be done
>>>>> with running heavy workout schedules for a while.
>>>>
>>>> Cool.
>>>
>>> Since Friedes has me killfiled.
>>
>> Since "Freides" has you killfiled there is very little sense in talking
>> to him.
>
> Well, it was not to him, but *about* him -- AND it was rhetorical.
> Altho Friedes being an asshole is certainly not rhetorical, but a near
> universal consensus.

I don't agree. If anyone is the asshole here it's you, with your petty
little grudges and your endless, needless, pointless, baseless attacks
on my friends. And your delusional belief that people agree with you
when they've just gotten bored with arguing. You should give it a rest.

--
Jim Janney

[Jim Janney]

"Existential Angst" <[email protected]> writes:

> "Steve Freides" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:jj9681$oj7$[email protected]..
>> Jason Earl wrote:
>>
>>> First of all, the extra width of the adjustable dumbbells I own comes
>>> too close to my kneecaps for comfort. That's the real issue I have
>>> with the movement, and it could probably be fixed if I had a 50#
>>> fixed weight dumbbell. Unfortunately, I don't have a fixed dumbbell,
>>> and I don't plan on getting one. One of the times I was testing
>>> dumbbell snatches I nicked my knee, and that basically ended my
>>> curiosity about the move-- especially since I already own a 24kg and
>>> 32kg kettlebell.
>>>
>>> The second insurmountable problem with dumbbell snatches is that they
>>> don't look nearly as cool.
>>
>> Better to stick with a barbell for low rep, high weight explosvie work,
>> and a kettlebell when you want higher reps and the backloading of the
>> swing. Still, the dumbell snatch is better than a slap in the face with a
>> wet fish.
>
> Even nursing students have to take physics, albeit without calculus.
> But apparently not music majors.....

I'm not a physicist. But I do come from a family of physicists: my
father, my brother, and at least one of my uncles have degrees in
physics. When I was twelve I worked my way through Asimov's
three-volume set on Understanding Physics. When I was a freshman in
college (and a music major) I took two semesters of physics and aced
them: the professor told me I should be a physics major. So I'm not
totally ignorant.

And I tell you again: the way physicists define work is only marginally
useful in evaluating exercises. Holding a plank does no work at all, as
physicists define work. Does that mean you should be able to do it
indefinitely? No one "refutes" your arguments because you never
actually make an argument. You just wave your hands and bleat about how
obvious it all is.

--
Jim Janney

[Existential Angst]

"Jim Janney" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]..
> "Existential Angst" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> "Jason Earl" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]..
>>> On Wed, Mar 07 2012, Existential Angst wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Steve Freides" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:jj8e9n$tp7$[email protected]..
>>>>> Jason Earl wrote:
>>>>>> I am going to be starting a cycle based on the /Rite of
>>>>>> Passage/ workout later today. I am going to try and get in a little
>>>>>> bit of running on my miscellaneous days, but I am going to be done
>>>>>> with running heavy workout schedules for a while.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cool.
>>>>
>>>> Since Friedes has me killfiled.
>>>
>>> Since "Freides" has you killfiled there is very little sense in talking
>>> to him.
>>
>> Well, it was not to him, but *about* him -- AND it was rhetorical.
>> Altho Friedes being an asshole is certainly not rhetorical, but a near
>> universal consensus.
>
> I don't agree.

I should have said "was". Now that you kettlebell culthead (that's with a
lowercase "L") comrades are here, his popularity/credibility has quite
risen.

If anyone is the asshole here it's you, with your petty
> little grudges and your endless, needless, pointless, baseless attacks
> on my friends.

Friends???? goodgawd, you've got some low standards.
So "friends" shouldn't be held accountable for illogic and physics
delusions?
And, you are ignerint of mfw history -- Friedes actually started this thing,
I've tried numerous times to mend the fence.

And your delusional belief that people agree with you
> when they've just gotten bored with arguing.

No delusion. The troubling thing is, there's, like, only 1 1/2 fukn people
in this whole fukn ignerint ng that understand what I'm talking about with
kettlebells, and that it is simply a matter of conceptual assthetics and
addressing an artful conjob..

Does it ultimately matter? Proly not, just like it doesn't matter whether
the earth is flat or round, for 99.999% of structural engineering
applications.
But are you going to take the Flat Earth Society seriously and buy their
stuff?? Well, apparently you would.

> You should give it a rest.

I will fight to my last breath defending W = mg, and notions of symmetry..
Where's David when I need him?? LOL
--
EA




>
> --
> Jim Janney

[Existential Angst]

"Jim Janney" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]..
> "Existential Angst" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> "Steve Freides" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:jj9681$oj7$[email protected]..
>>> Jason Earl wrote:
>>>
>>>> First of all, the extra width of the adjustable dumbbells I own comes
>>>> too close to my kneecaps for comfort. That's the real issue I have
>>>> with the movement, and it could probably be fixed if I had a 50#
>>>> fixed weight dumbbell. Unfortunately, I don't have a fixed dumbbell,
>>>> and I don't plan on getting one. One of the times I was testing
>>>> dumbbell snatches I nicked my knee, and that basically ended my
>>>> curiosity about the move-- especially since I already own a 24kg and
>>>> 32kg kettlebell.
>>>>
>>>> The second insurmountable problem with dumbbell snatches is that they
>>>> don't look nearly as cool.
>>>
>>> Better to stick with a barbell for low rep, high weight explosvie work,
>>> and a kettlebell when you want higher reps and the backloading of the
>>> swing. Still, the dumbell snatch is better than a slap in the face with
>>> a
>>> wet fish.
>>
>> Even nursing students have to take physics, albeit without calculus.
>> But apparently not music majors.....
>
> I'm not a physicist. But I do come from a family of physicists: my
> father, my brother, and at least one of my uncles have degrees in
> physics. When I was twelve I worked my way through Asimov's
> three-volume set on Understanding Physics. When I was a freshman in
> college (and a music major) I took two semesters of physics and aced
> them: the professor told me I should be a physics major.

goodgawd.... <groan>

So I'm not
> totally ignorant.

Then explain why such an edjucated person would elect to address *hip
problems* with PISTOLS.... repeatedly!!
That shocked even the lurking/stalking moron MU!

>
> And I tell you again: the way physicists define work is only marginally
> useful in evaluating exercises.

Are you effing kidding???? Look up VO2. Read Feynman, since Asimov
apparently didn't do it for you.... Read some ex. physio.... ft-lbs of
work is a "currency" of exercise, fitness.

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_no...ywords=feynman
Scroll down for the 3-volume lecture series. I also highly recommend Surely
Your Joking, Mr. Feynman....


Holding a plank does no work at all, as
> physicists define work. Does that mean you should be able to do it
> indefinitely?

Except.... except..... I wasn't comparing db's to isometrics, I was
comparing db's to kb's.
Isometrics are fine -- if you know their place.

No one "refutes" your arguments because you never
> actually make an argument. You just wave your hands and bleat about how
> obvious it all is.

No, it looks like hand-waving to you because, well, apparently Asimov didn't
make his points well enough.

I tell you what:
Bring a db and kb to your next MENSA family get-together, and ask those
brainiacs what POSSIBLE difference, or more specifically, what advantage a
kb has over a db.
Ask them to calculate the bending moments generated in the forearm by a kb,
and evaluate just how insignificant that is.

Ask them which is heavier: a 20# kb, or a 20# db.......

If y'all are so enamored over the off-center handle of kb's, why don't you
weld a one ot two or three-foot STICK to the kb, and lift that?? I mean,
if 6" off the c.o.g. is good, shouldn't a few feet be better?

If jerking yourself off or looking cool and being called "Komrad" is
important, kb's are proly the way to go.
If fact and reality are of any concern, and you don't mind pedestrian, db's
are by far the better way to go.

Glad to have you back, tho.... really, no foolin...
--
EA

>
> --
> Jim Janney

[Jason Earl]

On Wed, Mar 07 2012, Existential Angst wrote:

> "Jason Earl" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]..
>> On Wed, Mar 07 2012, Existential Angst wrote:
>>
>>> "Steve Freides" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:jj8e9n$tp7$[email protected]..
>>>> Jason Earl wrote:
>>>>> I am going to be starting a cycle based on the /Rite of
>>>>> Passage/ workout later today. I am going to try and get in a little
>>>>> bit of running on my miscellaneous days, but I am going to be done
>>>>> with running heavy workout schedules for a while.
>>>>
>>>> Cool.
>>>
>>> Since Friedes has me killfiled.
>>
>> Since "Freides" has you killfiled there is very little sense in talking
>> to him.
>
> Well, it was not to him, but *about* him -- AND it was rhetorical.
> Altho Friedes being an asshole is certainly not rhetorical, but a near
> universal consensus.

Yeah, well if you want to snipe at Freides, feel free to do so, but I am
not particularly interested in reading those posts.

>> Especially since your criticism apply to *my* workout.
>>
>>> Hopefully Jason will wake up and start using dumbbells, esp. the
>>> dumbbell hurl -- heads and shoulders above the kb stuff, ito raw
>>> bang fer yer buck, time-wise AND dollar-wise.
>>
>> I have done dumbbell snatches, and there are some advantages.
>> Namely, dumbbell snatches do not bang up my hands quite as badly at
>> first. The problem with dumbbell snatches is two fold.
>>
>> First of all, the extra width of the adjustable dumbbells I own comes
>> too close to my kneecaps for comfort.
>
> What plate size are you using? 10# plates shouldn't be a problem, and
> you could easily use 5" plates.

I use 5# plates, but it doesn't really matter. The problem is how wide
my dumbbell handles are.

> Admittedly, the solid dbs are more ergonomic than plate db's.
>
>> That's the real issue I have with the movement, and it could probably
>> be fixed if I had a 50# fixed weight dumbbell. Unfortunately, I
>> don't have a fixed dumbbell, and I don't plan on getting one. One of
>> the times I was testing dumbbell snatches I nicked my knee, and that
>> basically ended my curiosity about the move-- especially since I
>> already own a 24kg and 32kg kettlebell.
>>
>> The second insurmountable problem with dumbbell snatches is that they
>> don't look nearly as cool.
>>
>> There are other small problems with dumbbell snatches, but, in my
>> mind, those are the big problems.
>>
>> I still think that dumbbell snatches are a great exercise. If they
>> don't make you nervous, and if you don't mind looking staid and
>> pedestrian when you could look awesome, then I heartily recommend
>> them.
>>
>>> About a dozen different ways to do these, as well, with a few ways
>>> building a good squat right into the hurl move. Most of the db
>>> techniques -- which actually doesn't require any real dexterity or
>>> skill, just a little physics -- *cannot* be ergonomically or
>>> smoothly done with kb's. Funny how that works.... LOL
>>
>> To be honest, I am not sure that I want variation. When I do snatches
>> for volume (whether with a kettlebell or a dumbbell) I just want to do
>> as many snatches in a set amount of time as possible. Snatches are
>> really a full body exercise. I am not trying to *target* any particular
>> body part.
>
> But, with db's you *can*, and seamlessly, and at will. If we did a
> side-by-side demo, you'd see what I mean, and you'd proly really like
> some of the variations, as they seamlessly change the loading to the
> back, knees, hips, in very significant ways, with little loss in
> volume, if that's your emphasis.

I don't need to change the loading. With a 24kg kettlebell the limiting
factor (at least for me) tends to be conditioning.

What I am looking for is a (mostly) comfortable that I can do tens of
times per minute. One handed snatches work well. I happen to prefer
the kettlebell variety. I've tried both though, and I can see why
others might choose differently.

It really is as simple as that.

> Plus, "whole body" can be a little context sensitive: If I hurl a
> weight from the floor to overhead, in one motion, that's certainly
> whole body. But if I lift the weight to the thighs, then to the
> chest, then to overhead, I have a different "whole body" move -- proly
> at fewer reps per minute, tho. But still whole body, just in discrete
> steps.

I do cleans and presses with the kettlebell too, but with those I am
going for max strength and not strength endurance. To be honest, with
this move I think that the shape of the kettlebell provides an even
bigger advantage.

Holding a heavy kettlebell in the clean position is much more
comfortable than with a dumbbell, and pressing is far easier with a
kettlebell as well. Kettlebells are so stable to press than you can
open your hand.

As for stopping the weight at your thighs, well that doesn't seem to
make too much sense for me. I can clean more weight to my shoulder
directly than I can with a layover at my thigh.

> Ito volume, I'll bet that for every 10 reps of kb hurls you can do,
> you could do 12-15 db hurls, because of the simpler (heh, less cool)
> more direct technique.

Actually, we did this experiment (if you'll remember). Kettlebells won
by about 15%. Part of that was that you insisted that the dumbbells
needed to touch the floor with each rep.

It was much closer once I started doing dumbbell snatches kettlebell
style.

> AND be getting a few more add'l foot-lbs of work in, PER REP, cuz the
> db lies lower than the kb. So you'll get more foot-lbs bec of more
> reps, and more ft-lbs bec of a greater distance per rep.

Actually, when I did the dumbbell snatches kettlebell style the weight
moved over a *shorter* distance. When I touched the ground on each
snatch I did considerably less snatches per time period.

It's not a big deal in real life, but if you are going to pretend that
this is some sort of basic physics assignment, that's something to keep
in mind.

> The only problem is, as everyone knows, is that a 50# kb is heavier
> than a 50# db.... according to DragonDoor.... <eyeroll>

You keep mentioning that, but I have yet to see a citation. Personally,
I think you are making it up. Instead of paraphrasing why don't you
provide a link to the page that you disagree with, so that we can read
the actual quote, in context.

> So if you are going for volume and efficiency, dbs win, hands down.
> Without beating up yer hands, wrists, forearms. And, they will win on
> almost every facet of lifting, incl raw liftable weight.

I did the actual experiment (db and kettlebell within 0.5# of the same
weight) and that is not the result that I got.

Surely you remember the discussion?

> PLUS, you can also do some tricks with db's, more easily and safely
> than with kb's, if you can even do these with kb's at all For example,
> suppose you want to get more power per rep, by *throwing* the weight
> up a few inches or a foot.

Dumbbells are very cool, and if I was going to launch overhead presses I
would *definitely* want to use dumbbells.

Then again, I happen to think that juggling 50# weights overhead is too
foolhardy for people who aren't circus performers. You'll notice that
most folks that juggle kettlebells give them enough swing so that a
missed juggle simply launches the bell away.

> You can do this much more easily with a db (cuz, well, of it's
> pedestrian symmetry LOL), than you can with a kb -- AND you won't jack
> up yer hands.

I will give you that kettlebells are hard on the hands. I am working on
forming up new callouses. Until then, there is some pain involved.

> If you wanted to move from a floor to overhead hurl, then to a tricep
> extension, back up overhead, and down to the floor, you can implement
> that type of ancillary move, which you *cannot* do with those dopey
> kb's.
>
> Etc.

I agree that dumbbells are more versatile. I am just willing to
purchase what I think is the right tool for this particular job. I own
dumbbells, and use them. Just not for this.

>>> Jason, did you listen to the Pavel interview?
>>
>> No, I haven't had time. Maybe I could queue it up for the drive home
>> tonight. I like reading Pavel's stuff, I imagine an interview would be
>> interesting.
>
> I like Pavel's style, clarity. The Komrad stuff is a li'l dopey, but
> he def'ly has presence, f'sure f'sure. He just needs to be correct a
> little more often.... LOL
>
> But actually, I've learned some stuff via his presentations already,
> even if by only forcing me to re-think a few things, such as the "to
> failure" business..

I am going to have to listen right now.

Jason

[Jason Earl]

On Wed, Mar 07 2012, Steve Freides wrote:

> Jason Earl wrote:
>
>> First of all, the extra width of the adjustable dumbbells I own comes
>> too close to my kneecaps for comfort. That's the real issue I have
>> with the movement, and it could probably be fixed if I had a 50#
>> fixed weight dumbbell. Unfortunately, I don't have a fixed dumbbell,
>> and I don't plan on getting one. One of the times I was testing
>> dumbbell snatches I nicked my knee, and that basically ended my
>> curiosity about the move-- especially since I already own a 24kg and
>> 32kg kettlebell.
>>
>> The second insurmountable problem with dumbbell snatches is that they
>> don't look nearly as cool.
>
> Better to stick with a barbell for low rep, high weight explosvie
> work, and a kettlebell when you want higher reps and the backloading
> of the swing. Still, the dumbell snatch is better than a slap in the
> face with a wet fish.

At some point I will probably work power cleans back into my workout
regimen. In fact, that sounds like a good idea for a future cycle. A
few months where I concentrate on power cleans would probably be fun.

Still, all kidding aside, I am really interested to see if the /Rite of
Passage/ works as well for me this time as it did last time. Pavel
really knows how to design programs.

Jason

[Jim Janney]

"Existential Angst" <[email protected]> writes:

> "Jim Janney" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]..
>> "Existential Angst" <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>> "Steve Freides" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:jj9681$oj7$[email protected]..
>>>> Jason Earl wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> First of all, the extra width of the adjustable dumbbells I own comes
>>>>> too close to my kneecaps for comfort. That's the real issue I have
>>>>> with the movement, and it could probably be fixed if I had a 50#
>>>>> fixed weight dumbbell. Unfortunately, I don't have a fixed dumbbell,
>>>>> and I don't plan on getting one. One of the times I was testing
>>>>> dumbbell snatches I nicked my knee, and that basically ended my
>>>>> curiosity about the move-- especially since I already own a 24kg and
>>>>> 32kg kettlebell.
>>>>>
>>>>> The second insurmountable problem with dumbbell snatches is that they
>>>>> don't look nearly as cool.
>>>>
>>>> Better to stick with a barbell for low rep, high weight explosvie work,
>>>> and a kettlebell when you want higher reps and the backloading of the
>>>> swing. Still, the dumbell snatch is better than a slap in the face with
>>>> a
>>>> wet fish.
>>>
>>> Even nursing students have to take physics, albeit without calculus.
>>> But apparently not music majors.....
>>
>> I'm not a physicist. But I do come from a family of physicists: my
>> father, my brother, and at least one of my uncles have degrees in
>> physics. When I was twelve I worked my way through Asimov's
>> three-volume set on Understanding Physics. When I was a freshman in
>> college (and a music major) I took two semesters of physics and aced
>> them: the professor told me I should be a physics major.
>
> goodgawd.... <groan>
>
> So I'm not
>> totally ignorant.
>
> Then explain why such an edjucated person would elect to address *hip
> problems* with PISTOLS.... repeatedly!!
> That shocked even the lurking/stalking moron MU!
>
>>
>> And I tell you again: the way physicists define work is only marginally
>> useful in evaluating exercises.
>
> Are you effing kidding???? Look up VO2. Read Feynman, since Asimov
> apparently didn't do it for you.... Read some ex. physio.... ft-lbs of
> work is a "currency" of exercise, fitness.
>
> http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_no...ywords=feynman
> Scroll down for the 3-volume lecture series. I also highly recommend Surely
> Your Joking, Mr. Feynman....
>
>
> Holding a plank does no work at all, as
>> physicists define work. Does that mean you should be able to do it
>> indefinitely?
>
> Except.... except..... I wasn't comparing db's to isometrics, I was
> comparing db's to kb's.
> Isometrics are fine -- if you know their place.

The problems I see in trying to use physics to understand exercise also
apply to concentric and eccentric movements. I just picked isometric
contractions because it's the simplest case to think about: constant
force and zero movement. If you want to argue that some exercises are
exempt from the laws of physics, that's fine, but you're going to have
to supply some sort of framework to explain which ones they are and why.

I have some more ideas on this. Actually, I have too many ideas, and
some of them seem to contradict each other, so I've going some more
thinking to do before I talk about them.

--
Jim Janney

[Jim Janney]

Jim Janney <[email protected]> writes:

> "Existential Angst" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> "Jim Janney" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]..
>>> "Existential Angst" <[email protected]> writes:
>>>
>>>> "Steve Freides" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:jj9681$oj7$[email protected]..
>>>>> Jason Earl wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> First of all, the extra width of the adjustable dumbbells I own comes
>>>>>> too close to my kneecaps for comfort. That's the real issue I have
>>>>>> with the movement, and it could probably be fixed if I had a 50#
>>>>>> fixed weight dumbbell. Unfortunately, I don't have a fixed dumbbell,
>>>>>> and I don't plan on getting one. One of the times I was testing
>>>>>> dumbbell snatches I nicked my knee, and that basically ended my
>>>>>> curiosity about the move-- especially since I already own a 24kg and
>>>>>> 32kg kettlebell.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The second insurmountable problem with dumbbell snatches is that they
>>>>>> don't look nearly as cool.
>>>>>
>>>>> Better to stick with a barbell for low rep, high weight explosvie work,
>>>>> and a kettlebell when you want higher reps and the backloading of the
>>>>> swing. Still, the dumbell snatch is better than a slap in the face with
>>>>> a
>>>>> wet fish.
>>>>
>>>> Even nursing students have to take physics, albeit without calculus.
>>>> But apparently not music majors.....
>>>
>>> I'm not a physicist. But I do come from a family of physicists: my
>>> father, my brother, and at least one of my uncles have degrees in
>>> physics. When I was twelve I worked my way through Asimov's
>>> three-volume set on Understanding Physics. When I was a freshman in
>>> college (and a music major) I took two semesters of physics and aced
>>> them: the professor told me I should be a physics major.
>>
>> goodgawd.... <groan>
>>
>> So I'm not
>>> totally ignorant.
>>
>> Then explain why such an edjucated person would elect to address *hip
>> problems* with PISTOLS.... repeatedly!!
>> That shocked even the lurking/stalking moron MU!
>>
>>>
>>> And I tell you again: the way physicists define work is only marginally
>>> useful in evaluating exercises.
>>
>> Are you effing kidding???? Look up VO2. Read Feynman, since Asimov
>> apparently didn't do it for you.... Read some ex. physio.... ft-lbs of
>> work is a "currency" of exercise, fitness.
>>
>> http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_no...ywords=feynman
>> Scroll down for the 3-volume lecture series. I also highly recommend Surely
>> Your Joking, Mr. Feynman....
>>
>>
>> Holding a plank does no work at all, as
>>> physicists define work. Does that mean you should be able to do it
>>> indefinitely?
>>
>> Except.... except..... I wasn't comparing db's to isometrics, I was
>> comparing db's to kb's.
>> Isometrics are fine -- if you know their place.
>
> The problems I see in trying to use physics to understand exercise also
> apply to concentric and eccentric movements. I just picked isometric
> contractions because it's the simplest case to think about: constant
> force and zero movement. If you want to argue that some exercises are
> exempt from the laws of physics, that's fine, but you're going to have
> to supply some sort of framework to explain which ones they are and why.

If you don't like isometrics, here's another one. Pick a dumbbell off
the floor and lift it over your head. Now lower it back down and put it
on the floor again. Has any work been done? A physicist would say no:
the dumbbell is exactly where it started, and the energy in the system
has not changed.

For an explanation of how this can be, I refer you to another writer who
says it better than I can:

It strikes most students as nonsensical when they are told that if
they stand still and hold a heavy bag of cement, they are doing no
work on the bag. Even if it makes sense mathematically that W=Fd
gives zero when d is zero, it seems to violate common sense. You
would certainly become tired! The solution is simple. Physicists
have taken over the common word "work" and given it a new technical
meaning, which is the transfer of energy. The energy of the bag of
cement is not changing, and that is what the physicist means by
saying no work is done on the bag.

For the rest of the chapter, see

http://www.lightandmatter.com/html_b...ch13/ch13.html

This is not to say that physics is never useful in thinking about
exercise, But applying it can be surprisingly tricky, even when you
understand how the terms are defined.

--
Jim Janney

[David]

"Existential Angst" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:4f57c947$0$13504$[email protected]..
> "Steve Freides" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:jj8e9n$tp7$[email protected]..
>> Jason Earl wrote:
>>> I am going to be starting a cycle based on the /Rite of
>>> Passage/ workout later today. I am going to try and get in a little
>>> bit of running on my miscellaneous days, but I am going to be done
>>> with running heavy workout schedules for a while.
>>
>> Cool.
>
> Since Friedes has me killfiled, I wonder if, when replying to replies to
> me, he closes his eyes on the quoted content, ie, my stuff.....
> What an asshole.....
>
> Hopefully Jason will wake up and start using dumbbells, esp. the dumbbell
> hurl -- heads and shoulders above the kb stuff, ito raw bang fer yer buck,
> time-wise AND dollar-wise.
>
> About a dozen different ways to do these, as well, with a few ways
> building a good squat right into the hurl move. Most of the db
> techniques -- which actually doesn't require any real dexterity or skill,
> just a little physics -- *cannot* be ergonomically or smoothly done with
> kb's.
> Funny how that works.... LOL
>
> Jason, did you listen to the Pavel interview?
> --

what a dumb cocksucker Freeds is - I can understand killfiling a dumb ****
who is out to troll - but why killfile a solid guy with worthwhile
contributions who is smarter than you are?

> EA
>
>
>
>>
>> -S-
>> http://www.kbnj.com
>> http://www.RideChickens.blogspot.com
>>
>>
>
>

[Steve Freides]

Jim Janney wrote:

> If you don't like isometrics, here's another one. Pick a dumbbell off
> the floor and lift it over your head. Now lower it back down and put
> it on the floor again. Has any work been done? A physicist would
> say no: the dumbbell is exactly where it started, and the energy in
> the system has not changed.
>
> For an explanation of how this can be, I refer you to another writer
> who says it better than I can:
>
> It strikes most students as nonsensical when they are told that if
> they stand still and hold a heavy bag of cement, they are doing no
> work on the bag. Even if it makes sense mathematically that W=Fd
> gives zero when d is zero, it seems to violate common sense. You
> would certainly become tired! The solution is simple. Physicists
> have taken over the common word "work" and given it a new technical
> meaning, which is the transfer of energy. The energy of the bag of
> cement is not changing, and that is what the physicist means by
> saying no work is done on the bag.
>
> For the rest of the chapter, see
>
> http://www.lightandmatter.com/html_b...ch13/ch13.html
>
> This is not to say that physics is never useful in thinking about
> exercise, But applying it can be surprisingly tricky, even when you
> understand how the terms are defined.

If you look up the word kinesiology, you'll be barking up the correct
tree. Kinesiology is also sometimes called human kinetics, the latter
term denoting the study or science of movement.

If you look at, e.g., the Wiki on kinesiology, you'll find, "Kinesiology
is the study of human and animal movement, performance, and function by
applying the sciences of biomechanics, anatomy, physiology, psychology,
and neuroscience." It's worth noting that "physics" isn't in the list
of scientific disciplines mentioned. Biomechanics or, if you like,
biophysics, gets closer.

Which is not to say that physics isn't useful in understanding some
things about exercise, e.g. a force plate under your feet while
performing a kettlebell swing produces interesting results, but it's
really only part of the larger picture.

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com
http://RideChickens.blogspot.com

[Existential Angst]

"David" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:T%m6r.4386$%[email protected] ond.com...
>
> "Existential Angst" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:4f57c947$0$13504$[email protected]..
>> "Steve Freides" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:jj8e9n$tp7$[email protected]..
>>> Jason Earl wrote:
>>>> I am going to be starting a cycle based on the /Rite of
>>>> Passage/ workout later today. I am going to try and get in a little
>>>> bit of running on my miscellaneous days, but I am going to be done
>>>> with running heavy workout schedules for a while.
>>>
>>> Cool.
>>
>> Since Friedes has me killfiled, I wonder if, when replying to replies to
>> me, he closes his eyes on the quoted content, ie, my stuff.....
>> What an asshole.....
>>
>> Hopefully Jason will wake up and start using dumbbells, esp. the dumbbell
>> hurl -- heads and shoulders above the kb stuff, ito raw bang fer yer
>> buck, time-wise AND dollar-wise.
>>
>> About a dozen different ways to do these, as well, with a few ways
>> building a good squat right into the hurl move. Most of the db
>> techniques -- which actually doesn't require any real dexterity or skill,
>> just a little physics -- *cannot* be ergonomically or smoothly done with
>> kb's.
>> Funny how that works.... LOL
>>
>> Jason, did you listen to the Pavel interview?
>> --
>
> what a dumb cocksucker Freeds is - I can understand killfiling a dumb ****
> who is out to troll - but why killfile a solid guy with worthwhile
> contributions who is smarter than you are?

Janney et al would like to think I did the ole mfw-hazing-hating-stalking
type thing to Friedes in the ole mfw. you know, gratuitous abuse,
obscentiy, etc etc etc -- you know, the *good ole days in mfw*, when men
were men, and sheep were sheep....

Not the case.
In fact, iirc, I was more a part of the "Friedes clique" than the
Schuh-clique, just tryna make sense out of ****. In fact, me'n'Friedes had
some long exchanges for a while, until he abruptly cut it off, deeming me
killfile-worthy.
Why?

Bec like all assholes with messianic complexes, he will not tolerate being
challenged, taken to task for what he believes.
Doctor Friedes is Doctor Friedes, and you better kiss his ass -- gentiley
and civilly, of course, but you still better kiss it.

OR, you will get killfiled.

So the non-perspicacious around here think Moi is the abusive asshole, and
in fact, lately, I have let some of the civility go, in response to Friedes
doing his back-stabbing thing, trying to get OTHERS to kill-file me as well.
But apparently THAT tactic is OK with people, but not a straght-forward
response.

But these same quasi-intelligent syntactically correct EA-is-an-asshole
crowd apparently don't have the capacity to find the 30+ errors in
http://www.kbnj.com/WhyKettlebells.html , or the capacity to take any
umbrage whatsoever at the kb campaign foisting a con job on Le Pubic.
They'll let some asshole grab their wife's ass in their face, and pretend he
was just taking off some lint.....
They don't understand what the real con is, OR they just don't want to face
it.

And frankly, we're ALL being conned, one way or the other, in the political
system, but dats another story.
But the fact that we can't confront LITTLE CONS with any effectiveness
explain why the political cons have us gasping for air.... but dats another
story.

The con is not that kb's don't ":work". OF COURSE KETTLEBELLS """WORK""".

The con is the *manipulation of information* about OTHER THINGS THAT WORK AS
WELL OR BETTER.
Apparently that's just too fukn subtle for gentile civilized assholes to
wrap their heads around.
http://www.kbnj.com/WhyKettlebells.html is a very good example of that
manipulation..... if you don't mind maudlin.....

And *ahm* the asshole for raising a ruckus over this. ALL CONS should have
a ruckus made over them.

But here's another point, that Janney made in this thread: -- after he got
over his snit.... LOL
True, in a sense, it's not all about physics, and it's even a bit
disingenuous to hand-wave and say, Oh, a weight is a just a weight.....

Medicine balls are a weight, and used much differently than db's or kb's.
Your body is a weight, with a much different context than free weights --
which the fuknTotalGym Clones don't have a clue about, but that doesn't stop
them from blathering all over the air waves.....
Etc. etc.

So in fact, it's not quite as simple as "a weight is a weight".....

BUT.... to think that just cuz you change the fukn SHAPE of a dumbbell, put
an off-center handle on it, and all of a sudden it has magical effing
powers, is effing insanity.
And then circularly supporting that insanity by calling the practitioners
Girevics and Komrads and hand out effing certifications.... well, that
just makes kb's a kind of Fool's Gold.

Imo, to make ANY justification for kb's is pushing the limits of conceptual
integrity -- such as, Oh, OH, I can open my effing hand and still hold it
over my head..... WTF is DAT??????

But apparently, you, me, and mebbe 2 other people in all of the fuknUSA and
Australia get it.... WTF????

Again, "kb's work"..... but at the expense of mind****ing the Exercising
Public about what works as well or better.

Total disingenuousness, imo, and that's putting politely. Utter dishonesty
is more apt.

But, BRILLIANT dishonesty, yo, perty fukn brilliant.
--
EA




>
>> EA
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> -S-
>>> http://www.kbnj.com
>>> http://www.RideChickens.blogspot.com
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Jim Janney]

"Steve Freides" <[email protected]> writes:

> Jim Janney wrote:
>
>> If you don't like isometrics, here's another one. Pick a dumbbell off
>> the floor and lift it over your head. Now lower it back down and put
>> it on the floor again. Has any work been done? A physicist would
>> say no: the dumbbell is exactly where it started, and the energy in
>> the system has not changed.
>>
>> For an explanation of how this can be, I refer you to another writer
>> who says it better than I can:
>>
>> It strikes most students as nonsensical when they are told that if
>> they stand still and hold a heavy bag of cement, they are doing no
>> work on the bag. Even if it makes sense mathematically that W=Fd
>> gives zero when d is zero, it seems to violate common sense. You
>> would certainly become tired! The solution is simple. Physicists
>> have taken over the common word "work" and given it a new technical
>> meaning, which is the transfer of energy. The energy of the bag of
>> cement is not changing, and that is what the physicist means by
>> saying no work is done on the bag.
>>
>> For the rest of the chapter, see
>>
>> http://www.lightandmatter.com/html_b...ch13/ch13.html
>>
>> This is not to say that physics is never useful in thinking about
>> exercise, But applying it can be surprisingly tricky, even when you
>> understand how the terms are defined.
>
> If you look up the word kinesiology, you'll be barking up the correct
> tree. Kinesiology is also sometimes called human kinetics, the latter
> term denoting the study or science of movement.
>
> If you look at, e.g., the Wiki on kinesiology, you'll find, "Kinesiology
> is the study of human and animal movement, performance, and function by
> applying the sciences of biomechanics, anatomy, physiology, psychology,
> and neuroscience." It's worth noting that "physics" isn't in the list
> of scientific disciplines mentioned. Biomechanics or, if you like,
> biophysics, gets closer.
>
> Which is not to say that physics isn't useful in understanding some
> things about exercise, e.g. a force plate under your feet while
> performing a kettlebell swing produces interesting results, but it's
> really only part of the larger picture.

Yes. Classical physics is vital in that it defines fundamental concepts
in a mathematically precise way, but those definitions don't always
correspond well to our experience in everyday life. A perfect machine
(one with no friction, that could recapture and reuse the energy
released in the downward movement) would be able to go on doing overhead
lifts forever with no energy input. We, however, are not perfect
machines. Any lifter will tell you it's easier to drop the bar than to
lower it carefully: physics says it makes no difference.

--
Jim Janney

[Steve Freides]

Jim Janney wrote:
> "Steve Freides" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Jim Janney wrote:
>>
>>> If you don't like isometrics, here's another one. Pick a dumbbell
>>> off the floor and lift it over your head. Now lower it back down
>>> and put it on the floor again. Has any work been done? A
>>> physicist would say no: the dumbbell is exactly where it started,
>>> and the energy in the system has not changed.
>>>
>>> For an explanation of how this can be, I refer you to another writer
>>> who says it better than I can:
>>>
>>> It strikes most students as nonsensical when they are told that
>>> if they stand still and hold a heavy bag of cement, they are
>>> doing no work on the bag. Even if it makes sense mathematically
>>> that W=Fd gives zero when d is zero, it seems to violate common
>>> sense. You would certainly become tired! The solution is simple.
>>> Physicists have taken over the common word "work" and given it a
>>> new technical meaning, which is the transfer of energy. The
>>> energy of the bag of cement is not changing, and that is what
>>> the physicist means by saying no work is done on the bag.
>>>
>>> For the rest of the chapter, see
>>>
>>> http://www.lightandmatter.com/html_b...ch13/ch13.html
>>>
>>> This is not to say that physics is never useful in thinking about
>>> exercise, But applying it can be surprisingly tricky, even when you
>>> understand how the terms are defined.
>>
>> If you look up the word kinesiology, you'll be barking up the correct
>> tree. Kinesiology is also sometimes called human kinetics, the
>> latter term denoting the study or science of movement.
>>
>> If you look at, e.g., the Wiki on kinesiology, you'll find,
>> "Kinesiology is the study of human and animal movement, performance,
>> and function by applying the sciences of biomechanics, anatomy,
>> physiology, psychology, and neuroscience." It's worth noting that
>> "physics" isn't in the list of scientific disciplines mentioned.
>> Biomechanics or, if you like, biophysics, gets closer.
>>
>> Which is not to say that physics isn't useful in understanding some
>> things about exercise, e.g. a force plate under your feet while
>> performing a kettlebell swing produces interesting results, but it's
>> really only part of the larger picture.
>
> Yes. Classical physics is vital in that it defines fundamental
> concepts in a mathematically precise way, but those definitions don't
> always correspond well to our experience in everyday life. A perfect
> machine (one with no friction, that could recapture and reuse the
> energy released in the downward movement) would be able to go on
> doing overhead lifts forever with no energy input. We, however, are
> not perfect machines. Any lifter will tell you it's easier to drop
> the bar than to lower it carefully: physics says it makes no
> difference.

Agreed, and the important thing to note here is that the physics concept
of "work" is of only limited usefulness here, e.g., only doing the work
necessary to press a given weight isn't necessarily the best preparation
for pressing a heavier weight. They often say to pretend your light
weights are heavy if you want your heavy weights to feel light. There
is a lot of that sort of thing in training and the physics idea of work
performed is pretty useless in that conversation.

My first ladder to 5 this go 'round is tomorrow - wish me luck.

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com
http://RideChickens.blogspot.com

-S-

[Existential Angst]

"Jim Janney" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]..
> "Steve Freides" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Jim Janney wrote:
>>
>>> If you don't like isometrics, here's another one. Pick a dumbbell off
>>> the floor and lift it over your head. Now lower it back down and put
>>> it on the floor again. Has any work been done? A physicist would
>>> say no: the dumbbell is exactly where it started, and the energy in
>>> the system has not changed.
>>>
>>> For an explanation of how this can be, I refer you to another writer
>>> who says it better than I can:
>>>
>>> It strikes most students as nonsensical when they are told that if
>>> they stand still and hold a heavy bag of cement, they are doing no
>>> work on the bag. Even if it makes sense mathematically that W=Fd
>>> gives zero when d is zero, it seems to violate common sense. You
>>> would certainly become tired! The solution is simple. Physicists
>>> have taken over the common word "work" and given it a new technical
>>> meaning, which is the transfer of energy. The energy of the bag of
>>> cement is not changing, and that is what the physicist means by
>>> saying no work is done on the bag.

This is absolutely correct.
And has little to do with what appears to be your point.

What you are apparently unaware of is that chemical energy (ATP) indeed
fuels both isometric and isotonic contractions, BUT much less ATP is
consumed in isometric contractions, because of the nature of ATP hydrolysis
at the actin/myosin complex.

Isometric contractions, per unit time, burn only about 20% of the calories
of the full isotonic contraction, but the poor lactic acid clearance etc etc
of a non-moving muscle makes the "work" feel like a whole lot more.


>>>
>>> For the rest of the chapter, see
>>>
>>> http://www.lightandmatter.com/html_b...ch13/ch13.html
>>>
>>> This is not to say that physics is never useful in thinking about
>>> exercise, But applying it can be surprisingly tricky, even when you
>>> understand how the terms are defined.
>>
>> If you look up the word kinesiology, you'll be barking up the correct
>> tree. Kinesiology is also sometimes called human kinetics, the latter
>> term denoting the study or science of movement.
>>
>> If you look at, e.g., the Wiki on kinesiology, you'll find, "Kinesiology
>> is the study of human and animal movement, performance, and function by
>> applying the sciences of biomechanics, anatomy, physiology, psychology,
>> and neuroscience." It's worth noting that "physics" isn't in the list
>> of scientific disciplines mentioned. Biomechanics or, if you like,
>> biophysics, gets closer.
>>
>> Which is not to say that physics isn't useful in understanding some
>> things about exercise, e.g. a force plate under your feet while
>> performing a kettlebell swing produces interesting results, but it's
>> really only part of the larger picture.
>
> Yes. Classical physics is vital in that it defines fundamental concepts
> in a mathematically precise way, but those definitions don't always
> correspond well to our experience in everyday life. A perfect machine
> (one with no friction, that could recapture and reuse the energy
> released in the downward movement) would be able to go on doing overhead
> lifts forever with no energy input. We, however, are not perfect
> machines. Any lifter will tell you it's easier to drop the bar than to
> lower it carefully: physics says it makes no difference.

Absolutely incorrect.

Physics would distinguish between conservative and non-conservative systems,
between a weight being lifted and a roller coaster exchanging energies.
Physics will tell you that lowrering a weight sufficiently slowly will burn
as many calories as raising it -- this is called "quasi-static" process in
thermo, and is the basis of all heat-engine analysis.

If you drop the weight, gravity does the work, instead of you. There's no
mystery to that, and a competent physicist would never say "it makes no
difference", or Ohhhh, what a mystery we have here.

You are creating an ambiguous straw man, when none exists.

Ultimately, if one wanted to get very detailed, physics is not "just part of
the picture...." All of this is all physics. Ultimately chemistry (bio
or otherwise) is "just" quantum physics and/or thermodynamics.

BUT,
We group *recurring paradigms or patterns*, if you will, and call things
"biophysics", biomechanics, structural engineering, whatever whatever, just
a like a programmer has libraries of subroutines/algorithms, that he can
pull off the shelf, to accomplish a task at hand. But it's all the same
code, cuz, well, all computers are basically super-fast adding machines.

Things become "specialties" because they have enough subtleties to them that
a professional pretty much has to dedicate himself to those subtleties, if
he is to be proficient and productive, but that doesn't justify these
hand-waving proclamations of, Ohhh, physics can't explain everything, and,
Ohhh, what a mystery we have here.... Please......

It does explain everything (at least in the mechanical realm), you just have
to know how to do it.

That Friedes sees, uh, fit to dismiss physics as an "arbiter of fitness"
because some **** article in Wiki on kinesiology doesn't mention physics as
a contributing discipline is *precisely* why he was able to write that
shoddy drivel in http://www.kbnj.com/WhyKettlebells.html , with a straight
face.

The real Q is: Why aren't ostensibly intelligent people like you and Jason
willing to acknowledge such disingenuous tactics and sloppiness (and that's
being kind), and instead choose defending it and making excuses for it?

You have taken a dumbbell, made it round, put an off-center handle on it,
you've then given it magical fitness powers, and proclaim that physics can't
explain it.
<whew> Y'all are on a conceptual roll, eh?
--
EA


>
> --
> Jim Janney
>
>

[Existential Angst]

"Steve Freides" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:jjdfr1$sal$[email protected]..
> Jim Janney wrote:
>> "Steve Freides" <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>> Jim Janney wrote:
>>>
>>>> If you don't like isometrics, here's another one. Pick a dumbbell
>>>> off the floor and lift it over your head. Now lower it back down
>>>> and put it on the floor again. Has any work been done? A
>>>> physicist would say no: the dumbbell is exactly where it started,
>>>> and the energy in the system has not changed.
>>>>
>>>> For an explanation of how this can be, I refer you to another writer
>>>> who says it better than I can:
>>>>
>>>> It strikes most students as nonsensical when they are told that
>>>> if they stand still and hold a heavy bag of cement, they are
>>>> doing no work on the bag. Even if it makes sense mathematically
>>>> that W=Fd gives zero when d is zero, it seems to violate common
>>>> sense. You would certainly become tired! The solution is simple.
>>>> Physicists have taken over the common word "work" and given it a
>>>> new technical meaning, which is the transfer of energy. The
>>>> energy of the bag of cement is not changing, and that is what
>>>> the physicist means by saying no work is done on the bag.
>>>>
>>>> For the rest of the chapter, see
>>>>
>>>> http://www.lightandmatter.com/html_b...ch13/ch13.html
>>>>
>>>> This is not to say that physics is never useful in thinking about
>>>> exercise, But applying it can be surprisingly tricky, even when you
>>>> understand how the terms are defined.
>>>
>>> If you look up the word kinesiology, you'll be barking up the correct
>>> tree. Kinesiology is also sometimes called human kinetics, the
>>> latter term denoting the study or science of movement.
>>>
>>> If you look at, e.g., the Wiki on kinesiology, you'll find,
>>> "Kinesiology is the study of human and animal movement, performance,
>>> and function by applying the sciences of biomechanics, anatomy,
>>> physiology, psychology, and neuroscience." It's worth noting that
>>> "physics" isn't in the list of scientific disciplines mentioned.
>>> Biomechanics or, if you like, biophysics, gets closer.
>>>
>>> Which is not to say that physics isn't useful in understanding some
>>> things about exercise, e.g. a force plate under your feet while
>>> performing a kettlebell swing produces interesting results, but it's
>>> really only part of the larger picture.
>>
>> Yes. Classical physics is vital in that it defines fundamental
>> concepts in a mathematically precise way, but those definitions don't
>> always correspond well to our experience in everyday life. A perfect
>> machine (one with no friction, that could recapture and reuse the
>> energy released in the downward movement) would be able to go on
>> doing overhead lifts forever with no energy input. We, however, are
>> not perfect machines. Any lifter will tell you it's easier to drop
>> the bar than to lower it carefully: physics says it makes no
>> difference.
>
> Agreed, and the important thing to note here is that the physics concept
> of "work" is of only limited usefulness here, e.g., only doing the work
> necessary to press a given weight isn't necessarily the best preparation
> for pressing a heavier weight. They often say to pretend your light
> weights are heavy if you want your heavy weights to feel light. There is
> a lot of that sort of thing in training and the physics idea of work
> performed is pretty useless in that conversation.

More uninformed drivel.

Choosing a *strategy* is an additional separate "spin" to the underlying
physics behind it all.
ft-lbs is ft-lbs. HOW you apply those ft-lbs will affect whether the body
responds with increased VO2, or muscle hypertrophy, or some of both.

The whole point to the "physics" behind all this is SIMPLY to show that a db
and a kb will have IDENTICAL physiological cause and effect (indeed,
essentially separate from physics, if you like), because the physics are
essentially the same, cuz, well, mass is mass.

That you put a fukn handle on a kb does not make one whit of difference, for
most intents and purposes.
The whit of difference these might make are simply ergonomic.
DATS what the physics is telling you, loud and clear.

The DragonDoor people will lead you to believe otherwise, cuz, well, like
Friedes, they won't acknowledge the physics, for the purpose of purporting
their magical claims.
Reality and fraud are most often mutually exclusive.
--
EA






>
> My first ladder to 5 this go 'round is tomorrow - wish me luck.
>
> -S-
> http://www.kbnj.com
> http://RideChickens.blogspot.com
>
> -S-
>
>

[David]

"Existential Angst" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:4f5a27d6$0$13484$[email protected]..
> "David" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:T%m6r.4386$%[email protected] ond.com...
>>
>> "Existential Angst" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:4f57c947$0$13504$[email protected]..
>>> "Steve Freides" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:jj8e9n$tp7$[email protected]..
>>>> Jason Earl wrote:
>>>>> I am going to be starting a cycle based on the /Rite of
>>>>> Passage/ workout later today. I am going to try and get in a little
>>>>> bit of running on my miscellaneous days, but I am going to be done
>>>>> with running heavy workout schedules for a while.
>>>>
>>>> Cool.
>>>
>>> Since Friedes has me killfiled, I wonder if, when replying to replies to
>>> me, he closes his eyes on the quoted content, ie, my stuff.....
>>> What an asshole.....
>>>
>>> Hopefully Jason will wake up and start using dumbbells, esp. the
>>> dumbbell hurl -- heads and shoulders above the kb stuff, ito raw bang
>>> fer yer buck, time-wise AND dollar-wise.
>>>
>>> About a dozen different ways to do these, as well, with a few ways
>>> building a good squat right into the hurl move. Most of the db
>>> techniques -- which actually doesn't require any real dexterity or
>>> skill, just a little physics -- *cannot* be ergonomically or smoothly
>>> done with kb's.
>>> Funny how that works.... LOL
>>>
>>> Jason, did you listen to the Pavel interview?
>>> --
>>
>> what a dumb cocksucker Freeds is - I can understand killfiling a dumb
>> **** who is out to troll - but why killfile a solid guy with worthwhile
>> contributions who is smarter than you are?
>
> Janney et al would like to think I did the ole mfw-hazing-hating-stalking
> type thing to Friedes in the ole mfw. you know, gratuitous abuse,
> obscentiy, etc etc etc -- you know, the *good ole days in mfw*, when men
> were men, and sheep were sheep....
>
> Not the case.
> In fact, iirc, I was more a part of the "Friedes clique" than the
> Schuh-clique, just tryna make sense out of ****. In fact, me'n'Friedes
> had some long exchanges for a while, until he abruptly cut it off, deeming
> me killfile-worthy.
> Why?
>
> Bec like all assholes with messianic complexes, he will not tolerate being
> challenged, taken to task for what he believes.
> Doctor Friedes is Doctor Friedes, and you better kiss his ass -- gentiley
> and civilly, of course, but you still better kiss it.
>
> OR, you will get killfiled.
>
> So the non-perspicacious around here think Moi is the abusive asshole, and
> in fact, lately, I have let some of the civility go, in response to
> Friedes doing his back-stabbing thing, trying to get OTHERS to kill-file
> me as well. But apparently THAT tactic is OK with people, but not a
> straght-forward response.
>
> But these same quasi-intelligent syntactically correct EA-is-an-asshole
> crowd apparently don't have the capacity to find the 30+ errors in
> http://www.kbnj.com/WhyKettlebells.html , or the capacity to take any
> umbrage whatsoever at the kb campaign foisting a con job on Le Pubic.
> They'll let some asshole grab their wife's ass in their face, and pretend
> he was just taking off some lint.....
> They don't understand what the real con is, OR they just don't want to
> face it.
>
> And frankly, we're ALL being conned, one way or the other, in the
> political system, but dats another story.
> But the fact that we can't confront LITTLE CONS with any effectiveness
> explain why the political cons have us gasping for air.... but dats
> another story.
>
> The con is not that kb's don't ":work". OF COURSE KETTLEBELLS
> """WORK""".
>
> The con is the *manipulation of information* about OTHER THINGS THAT WORK
> AS WELL OR BETTER.
> Apparently that's just too fukn subtle for gentile civilized assholes to
> wrap their heads around.
> http://www.kbnj.com/WhyKettlebells.html is a very good example of that
> manipulation..... if you don't mind maudlin.....
>
> And *ahm* the asshole for raising a ruckus over this. ALL CONS should
> have a ruckus made over them.
>
> But here's another point, that Janney made in this thread: -- after he got
> over his snit.... LOL
> True, in a sense, it's not all about physics, and it's even a bit
> disingenuous to hand-wave and say, Oh, a weight is a just a weight.....
>
> Medicine balls are a weight, and used much differently than db's or kb's.
> Your body is a weight, with a much different context than free weights --
> which the fuknTotalGym Clones don't have a clue about, but that doesn't
> stop them from blathering all over the air waves.....
> Etc. etc.
>
> So in fact, it's not quite as simple as "a weight is a weight".....
>
> BUT.... to think that just cuz you change the fukn SHAPE of a dumbbell,
> put an off-center handle on it, and all of a sudden it has magical effing
> powers, is effing insanity.
> And then circularly supporting that insanity by calling the practitioners
> Girevics and Komrads and hand out effing certifications.... well, that
> just makes kb's a kind of Fool's Gold.
>
> Imo, to make ANY justification for kb's is pushing the limits of
> conceptual integrity -- such as, Oh, OH, I can open my effing hand and
> still hold it over my head..... WTF is DAT??????
>
> But apparently, you, me, and mebbe 2 other people in all of the fuknUSA
> and Australia get it.... WTF????
>
> Again, "kb's work"..... but at the expense of mind****ing the Exercising
> Public about what works as well or better.
>
> Total disingenuousness, imo, and that's putting politely. Utter
> dishonesty is more apt.
>
> But, BRILLIANT dishonesty, yo, perty fukn brilliant.
> --
> EA
>
Good to see the history and it only confirms what an asshole the good doctor
is
>
>
>>
>>> EA
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> -S-
>>>> http://www.kbnj.com
>>>> http://www.RideChickens.blogspot.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Existential Angst]

"David" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:KTs6r.4263$[email protected] nd.com...
>
> "Existential Angst" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:4f5a27d6$0$13484$[email protected]..
>> "David" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:T%m6r.4386$%[email protected] ond.com...
>>>
>>> "Existential Angst" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:4f57c947$0$13504$[email protected]..
>>>> "Steve Freides" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:jj8e9n$tp7$[email protected]..
>>>>> Jason Earl wrote:
>>>>>> I am going to be starting a cycle based on the /Rite of
>>>>>> Passage/ workout later today. I am going to try and get in a little
>>>>>> bit of running on my miscellaneous days, but I am going to be done
>>>>>> with running heavy workout schedules for a while.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cool.
>>>>
>>>> Since Friedes has me killfiled, I wonder if, when replying to replies
>>>> to me, he closes his eyes on the quoted content, ie, my stuff.....
>>>> What an asshole.....
>>>>
>>>> Hopefully Jason will wake up and start using dumbbells, esp. the
>>>> dumbbell hurl -- heads and shoulders above the kb stuff, ito raw bang
>>>> fer yer buck, time-wise AND dollar-wise.
>>>>
>>>> About a dozen different ways to do these, as well, with a few ways
>>>> building a good squat right into the hurl move. Most of the db
>>>> techniques -- which actually doesn't require any real dexterity or
>>>> skill, just a little physics -- *cannot* be ergonomically or smoothly
>>>> done with kb's.
>>>> Funny how that works.... LOL
>>>>
>>>> Jason, did you listen to the Pavel interview?
>>>> --
>>>
>>> what a dumb cocksucker Freeds is - I can understand killfiling a dumb
>>> **** who is out to troll - but why killfile a solid guy with worthwhile
>>> contributions who is smarter than you are?
>>
>> Janney et al would like to think I did the ole mfw-hazing-hating-stalking
>> type thing to Friedes in the ole mfw. you know, gratuitous abuse,
>> obscentiy, etc etc etc -- you know, the *good ole days in mfw*, when men
>> were men, and sheep were sheep....
>>
>> Not the case.
>> In fact, iirc, I was more a part of the "Friedes clique" than the
>> Schuh-clique, just tryna make sense out of ****. In fact, me'n'Friedes
>> had some long exchanges for a while, until he abruptly cut it off,
>> deeming me killfile-worthy.
>> Why?
>>
>> Bec like all assholes with messianic complexes, he will not tolerate
>> being challenged, taken to task for what he believes.
>> Doctor Friedes is Doctor Friedes, and you better kiss his ass -- gentiley
>> and civilly, of course, but you still better kiss it.
>>
>> OR, you will get killfiled.
>>
>> So the non-perspicacious around here think Moi is the abusive asshole,
>> and in fact, lately, I have let some of the civility go, in response to
>> Friedes doing his back-stabbing thing, trying to get OTHERS to kill-file
>> me as well. But apparently THAT tactic is OK with people, but not a
>> straght-forward response.
>>
>> But these same quasi-intelligent syntactically correct EA-is-an-asshole
>> crowd apparently don't have the capacity to find the 30+ errors in
>> http://www.kbnj.com/WhyKettlebells.html , or the capacity to take any
>> umbrage whatsoever at the kb campaign foisting a con job on Le Pubic.
>> They'll let some asshole grab their wife's ass in their face, and pretend
>> he was just taking off some lint.....
>> They don't understand what the real con is, OR they just don't want to
>> face it.
>>
>> And frankly, we're ALL being conned, one way or the other, in the
>> political system, but dats another story.
>> But the fact that we can't confront LITTLE CONS with any effectiveness
>> explain why the political cons have us gasping for air.... but dats
>> another story.
>>
>> The con is not that kb's don't ":work". OF COURSE KETTLEBELLS
>> """WORK""".
>>
>> The con is the *manipulation of information* about OTHER THINGS THAT WORK
>> AS WELL OR BETTER.
>> Apparently that's just too fukn subtle for gentile civilized assholes to
>> wrap their heads around.
>> http://www.kbnj.com/WhyKettlebells.html is a very good example of that
>> manipulation..... if you don't mind maudlin.....
>>
>> And *ahm* the asshole for raising a ruckus over this. ALL CONS should
>> have a ruckus made over them.
>>
>> But here's another point, that Janney made in this thread: -- after he
>> got over his snit.... LOL
>> True, in a sense, it's not all about physics, and it's even a bit
>> disingenuous to hand-wave and say, Oh, a weight is a just a weight.....
>>
>> Medicine balls are a weight, and used much differently than db's or kb's.
>> Your body is a weight, with a much different context than free weights --
>> which the fuknTotalGym Clones don't have a clue about, but that doesn't
>> stop them from blathering all over the air waves.....
>> Etc. etc.
>>
>> So in fact, it's not quite as simple as "a weight is a weight".....
>>
>> BUT.... to think that just cuz you change the fukn SHAPE of a dumbbell,
>> put an off-center handle on it, and all of a sudden it has magical effing
>> powers, is effing insanity.
>> And then circularly supporting that insanity by calling the practitioners
>> Girevics and Komrads and hand out effing certifications.... well, that
>> just makes kb's a kind of Fool's Gold.
>>
>> Imo, to make ANY justification for kb's is pushing the limits of
>> conceptual integrity -- such as, Oh, OH, I can open my effing hand and
>> still hold it over my head..... WTF is DAT??????
>>
>> But apparently, you, me, and mebbe 2 other people in all of the fuknUSA
>> and Australia get it.... WTF????
>>
>> Again, "kb's work"..... but at the expense of mind****ing the
>> Exercising Public about what works as well or better.
>>
>> Total disingenuousness, imo, and that's putting politely. Utter
>> dishonesty is more apt.
>>
>> But, BRILLIANT dishonesty, yo, perty fukn brilliant.
>> --
>> EA
>>
> Good to see the history and it only confirms what an asshole the good
> doctor

But, but.... You MISS the old MFW, right??? LOL

If this WAS the ole mfw, we could just tell Friedes and all these kettle
cultheads (that's a lower-case "L") to kiss our collective asses....
Schuh-style....
Ackshooly, I was going to use another vernacular phrase, but we got
religious people here....
And, it's the NEW mfw, so we have to be, well, gentile, polite, and MENSA
fuknIntulleegint.... LOL

It's funny, at one time, you could skip all the analytical bull****, and
just use some good ole common sense, but with the epidemic plague of
fraudulent marketing and relentless mind****ing, you practically have to
watch yer feet while you walk, conceptually speaking. It's really a pita.

Even more strangely, it is this ongoing fraud and mind**** that fuels a
substantial part of our economy: bull**** and useless crap is a
trillion-dollar industry.

And then, when you point **** out, you get called an asshole....
goodgawd.....
--
EA


> is
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> EA
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -S-
>>>>> http://www.kbnj.com
>>>>> http://www.RideChickens.blogspot.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Jim Janney]

"Steve Freides" <[email protected]> writes:

> Jim Janney wrote:
>> "Steve Freides" <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>> Jim Janney wrote:
>>>
>>>> If you don't like isometrics, here's another one. Pick a dumbbell
>>>> off the floor and lift it over your head. Now lower it back down
>>>> and put it on the floor again. Has any work been done? A
>>>> physicist would say no: the dumbbell is exactly where it started,
>>>> and the energy in the system has not changed.
>>>>
>>>> For an explanation of how this can be, I refer you to another writer
>>>> who says it better than I can:
>>>>
>>>> It strikes most students as nonsensical when they are told that
>>>> if they stand still and hold a heavy bag of cement, they are
>>>> doing no work on the bag. Even if it makes sense mathematically
>>>> that W=Fd gives zero when d is zero, it seems to violate common
>>>> sense. You would certainly become tired! The solution is simple.
>>>> Physicists have taken over the common word "work" and given it a
>>>> new technical meaning, which is the transfer of energy. The
>>>> energy of the bag of cement is not changing, and that is what
>>>> the physicist means by saying no work is done on the bag.
>>>>
>>>> For the rest of the chapter, see
>>>>
>>>> http://www.lightandmatter.com/html_b...ch13/ch13.html
>>>>
>>>> This is not to say that physics is never useful in thinking about
>>>> exercise, But applying it can be surprisingly tricky, even when you
>>>> understand how the terms are defined.
>>>
>>> If you look up the word kinesiology, you'll be barking up the correct
>>> tree. Kinesiology is also sometimes called human kinetics, the
>>> latter term denoting the study or science of movement.
>>>
>>> If you look at, e.g., the Wiki on kinesiology, you'll find,
>>> "Kinesiology is the study of human and animal movement, performance,
>>> and function by applying the sciences of biomechanics, anatomy,
>>> physiology, psychology, and neuroscience." It's worth noting that
>>> "physics" isn't in the list of scientific disciplines mentioned.
>>> Biomechanics or, if you like, biophysics, gets closer.
>>>
>>> Which is not to say that physics isn't useful in understanding some
>>> things about exercise, e.g. a force plate under your feet while
>>> performing a kettlebell swing produces interesting results, but it's
>>> really only part of the larger picture.
>>
>> Yes. Classical physics is vital in that it defines fundamental
>> concepts in a mathematically precise way, but those definitions don't
>> always correspond well to our experience in everyday life. A perfect
>> machine (one with no friction, that could recapture and reuse the
>> energy released in the downward movement) would be able to go on
>> doing overhead lifts forever with no energy input. We, however, are
>> not perfect machines. Any lifter will tell you it's easier to drop
>> the bar than to lower it carefully: physics says it makes no
>> difference.
>
> Agreed, and the important thing to note here is that the physics concept
> of "work" is of only limited usefulness here, e.g., only doing the work
> necessary to press a given weight isn't necessarily the best preparation
> for pressing a heavier weight. They often say to pretend your light
> weights are heavy if you want your heavy weights to feel light. There
> is a lot of that sort of thing in training and the physics idea of work
> performed is pretty useless in that conversation.
>
> My first ladder to 5 this go 'round is tomorrow - wish me luck.

Good luck :-)

People don't lift weights out of a burning desire to do work, for any
definition of work. They lift them to get stronger, or bigger, or both.
The point is to stimulate the body into adapting. You don't get
stronger lifting weights, you get stronger recovering from lifting
weights.

--
Jim Janney

[Jim Janney]

"Existential Angst" <[email protected]> writes:

> "Jim Janney" <jjanney@shell.xmission.com> wrote in message
> news:2pmx7pen0q.fsf@shell.xmission.com...
>> "Steve Freides" <steve@kbnj.com> writes:
>>
>>> Jim Janney wrote:
>>>
>>>> If you don't like isometrics, here's another one. Pick a dumbbell off
>>>> the floor and lift it over your head. Now lower it back down and put
>>>> it on the floor again. Has any work been done? A physicist would
>>>> say no: the dumbbell is exactly where it started, and the energy in
>>>> the system has not changed.
>>>>
>>>> For an explanation of how this can be, I refer you to another writer
>>>> who says it better than I can:
>>>>
>>>> It strikes most students as nonsensical when they are told that if
>>>> they stand still and hold a heavy bag of cement, they are doing no
>>>> work on the bag. Even if it makes sense mathematically that W=Fd
>>>> gives zero when d is zero, it seems to violate common sense. You
>>>> would certainly become tired! The solution is simple. Physicists
>>>> have taken over the common word "work" and given it a new technical
>>>> meaning, which is the transfer of energy. The energy of the bag of
>>>> cement is not changing, and that is what the physicist means by
>>>> saying no work is done on the bag.
>
> This is absolutely correct.
> And has little to do with what appears to be your point.
>
> What you are apparently unaware of is that chemical energy (ATP) indeed
> fuels both isometric and isotonic contractions, BUT much less ATP is
> consumed in isometric contractions, because of the nature of ATP hydrolysis
> at the actin/myosin complex.
>
> Isometric contractions, per unit time, burn only about 20% of the calories
> of the full isotonic contraction, but the poor lactic acid clearance etc etc
> of a non-moving muscle makes the "work" feel like a whole lot more.
>
>
>>>>
>>>> For the rest of the chapter, see
>>>>
>>>> http://www.lightandmatter.com/html_b...ch13/ch13.html
>>>>
>>>> This is not to say that physics is never useful in thinking about
>>>> exercise, But applying it can be surprisingly tricky, even when you
>>>> understand how the terms are defined.
>>>
>>> If you look up the word kinesiology, you'll be barking up the correct
>>> tree. Kinesiology is also sometimes called human kinetics, the latter
>>> term denoting the study or science of movement.
>>>
>>> If you look at, e.g., the Wiki on kinesiology, you'll find, "Kinesiology
>>> is the study of human and animal movement, performance, and function by
>>> applying the sciences of biomechanics, anatomy, physiology, psychology,
>>> and neuroscience." It's worth noting that "physics" isn't in the list
>>> of scientific disciplines mentioned. Biomechanics or, if you like,
>>> biophysics, gets closer.
>>>
>>> Which is not to say that physics isn't useful in understanding some
>>> things about exercise, e.g. a force plate under your feet while
>>> performing a kettlebell swing produces interesting results, but it's
>>> really only part of the larger picture.
>>
>> Yes. Classical physics is vital in that it defines fundamental concepts
>> in a mathematically precise way, but those definitions don't always
>> correspond well to our experience in everyday life. A perfect machine
>> (one with no friction, that could recapture and reuse the energy
>> released in the downward movement) would be able to go on doing overhead
>> lifts forever with no energy input. We, however, are not perfect
>> machines. Any lifter will tell you it's easier to drop the bar than to
>> lower it carefully: physics says it makes no difference.
>
> Absolutely incorrect.
>
> Physics would distinguish between conservative and non-conservative systems,
> between a weight being lifted and a roller coaster exchanging energies.
> Physics will tell you that lowrering a weight sufficiently slowly will burn
> as many calories as raising it -- this is called "quasi-static" process in
> thermo, and is the basis of all heat-engine analysis.
>
> If you drop the weight, gravity does the work, instead of you. There's no
> mystery to that, and a competent physicist would never say "it makes no
> difference", or Ohhhh, what a mystery we have here.
>
> You are creating an ambiguous straw man, when none exists.
>
> Ultimately, if one wanted to get very detailed, physics is not "just part of
> the picture...." All of this is all physics. Ultimately chemistry (bio
> or otherwise) is "just" quantum physics and/or thermodynamics.
>
> BUT,
> We group *recurring paradigms or patterns*, if you will, and call things
> "biophysics", biomechanics, structural engineering, whatever whatever, just
> a like a programmer has libraries of subroutines/algorithms, that he can
> pull off the shelf, to accomplish a task at hand. But it's all the same
> code, cuz, well, all computers are basically super-fast adding machines.
>
> Things become "specialties" because they have enough subtleties to them that
> a professional pretty much has to dedicate himself to those subtleties, if
> he is to be proficient and productive, but that doesn't justify these
> hand-waving proclamations of, Ohhh, physics can't explain everything, and,
> Ohhh, what a mystery we have here.... Please......
>
> It does explain everything (at least in the mechanical realm), you just have
> to know how to do it.
>
> That Friedes sees, uh, fit to dismiss physics as an "arbiter of fitness"
> because some **** article in Wiki on kinesiology doesn't mention physics as
> a contributing discipline is *precisely* why he was able to write that
> shoddy drivel in http://www.kbnj.com/WhyKettlebells.html , with a straight
> face.
>
> The real Q is: Why aren't ostensibly intelligent people like you and Jason
> willing to acknowledge such disingenuous tactics and sloppiness (and that's
> being kind), and instead choose defending it and making excuses for it?

My point was not that exercise is a mystery but that physics is not the
right tool to apply to it. I did, however, assume that when you talked
about physics you meant, well, the things you find in physics textbooks
or the books you recommended. I had no idea your view of physics was so
expansive. And yes, if we define physics to include chemistry, biology,
kinesiology, structural engineering, and anything else you happen to
need at the moment, then certainly it's capable of handling just about
anything you want to throw at it. Although I suspect some of the people
working in those fields might be surprised to learn that they were doing
physics.

And if music is physics, and I don't see how you can rule that out at
this point, then Steve and I are now physicists. Physics is vast, it
contains multitudes...

> You have taken a dumbbell, made it round, put an off-center handle on it,
> you've then given it magical fitness powers, and proclaim that physics can't
> explain it.
> <whew> Y'all are on a conceptual roll, eh?

This is the first time in this thread I've even mentioned kettlebells,
because I think everyone is tired of the argument. You are the one who
keeps bringing them up.

--
Jim Janney

[Existential Angst]

"Jim Janney" <jjanney@shell.xmission.com> wrote in message
news:2pboo5do0x.fsf@shell.xmission.com...
> "Existential Angst" <fitcat@optonline.net> writes:
>
>> "Jim Janney" <jjanney@shell.xmission.com> wrote in message
>> news:2pmx7pen0q.fsf@shell.xmission.com...
>>> "Steve Freides" <steve@kbnj.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Jim Janney wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If you don't like isometrics, here's another one. Pick a dumbbell off
>>>>> the floor and lift it over your head. Now lower it back down and put
>>>>> it on the floor again. Has any work been done? A physicist would
>>>>> say no: the dumbbell is exactly where it started, and the energy in
>>>>> the system has not changed.
>>>>>
>>>>> For an explanation of how this can be, I refer you to another writer
>>>>> who says it better than I can:
>>>>>
>>>>> It strikes most students as nonsensical when they are told that if
>>>>> they stand still and hold a heavy bag of cement, they are doing no
>>>>> work on the bag. Even if it makes sense mathematically that W=Fd
>>>>> gives zero when d is zero, it seems to violate common sense. You
>>>>> would certainly become tired! The solution is simple. Physicists
>>>>> have taken over the common word "work" and given it a new technical
>>>>> meaning, which is the transfer of energy. The energy of the bag of
>>>>> cement is not changing, and that is what the physicist means by
>>>>> saying no work is done on the bag.
>>
>> This is absolutely correct.
>> And has little to do with what appears to be your point.
>>
>> What you are apparently unaware of is that chemical energy (ATP) indeed
>> fuels both isometric and isotonic contractions, BUT much less ATP is
>> consumed in isometric contractions, because of the nature of ATP
>> hydrolysis
>> at the actin/myosin complex.
>>
>> Isometric contractions, per unit time, burn only about 20% of the
>> calories
>> of the full isotonic contraction, but the poor lactic acid clearance etc
>> etc
>> of a non-moving muscle makes the "work" feel like a whole lot more.
>>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> For the rest of the chapter, see
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.lightandmatter.com/html_b...ch13/ch13.html
>>>>>
>>>>> This is not to say that physics is never useful in thinking about
>>>>> exercise, But applying it can be surprisingly tricky, even when you
>>>>> understand how the terms are defined.
>>>>
>>>> If you look up the word kinesiology, you'll be barking up the correct
>>>> tree. Kinesiology is also sometimes called human kinetics, the latter
>>>> term denoting the study or science of movement.
>>>>
>>>> If you look at, e.g., the Wiki on kinesiology, you'll find,
>>>> "Kinesiology
>>>> is the study of human and animal movement, performance, and function by
>>>> applying the sciences of biomechanics, anatomy, physiology, psychology,
>>>> and neuroscience." It's worth noting that "physics" isn't in the list
>>>> of scientific disciplines mentioned. Biomechanics or, if you like,
>>>> biophysics, gets closer.
>>>>
>>>> Which is not to say that physics isn't useful in understanding some
>>>> things about exercise, e.g. a force plate under your feet while
>>>> performing a kettlebell swing produces interesting results, but it's
>>>> really only part of the larger picture.
>>>
>>> Yes. Classical physics is vital in that it defines fundamental concepts
>>> in a mathematically precise way, but those definitions don't always
>>> correspond well to our experience in everyday life. A perfect machine
>>> (one with no friction, that could recapture and reuse the energy
>>> released in the downward movement) would be able to go on doing overhead
>>> lifts forever with no energy input. We, however, are not perfect
>>> machines. Any lifter will tell you it's easier to drop the bar than to
>>> lower it carefully: physics says it makes no difference.
>>
>> Absolutely incorrect.
>>
>> Physics would distinguish between conservative and non-conservative
>> systems,
>> between a weight being lifted and a roller coaster exchanging energies.
>> Physics will tell you that lowrering a weight sufficiently slowly will
>> burn
>> as many calories as raising it -- this is called "quasi-static" process
>> in
>> thermo, and is the basis of all heat-engine analysis.
>>
>> If you drop the weight, gravity does the work, instead of you. There's
>> no
>> mystery to that, and a competent physicist would never say "it makes no
>> difference", or Ohhhh, what a mystery we have here.
>>
>> You are creating an ambiguous straw man, when none exists.
>>
>> Ultimately, if one wanted to get very detailed, physics is not "just part
>> of
>> the picture...." All of this is all physics. Ultimately chemistry
>> (bio
>> or otherwise) is "just" quantum physics and/or thermodynamics.
>>
>> BUT,
>> We group *recurring paradigms or patterns*, if you will, and call things
>> "biophysics", biomechanics, structural engineering, whatever whatever,
>> just
>> a like a programmer has libraries of subroutines/algorithms, that he can
>> pull off the shelf, to accomplish a task at hand. But it's all the same
>> code, cuz, well, all computers are basically super-fast adding machines.
>>
>> Things become "specialties" because they have enough subtleties to them
>> that
>> a professional pretty much has to dedicate himself to those subtleties,
>> if
>> he is to be proficient and productive, but that doesn't justify these
>> hand-waving proclamations of, Ohhh, physics can't explain everything,
>> and,
>> Ohhh, what a mystery we have here.... Please......
>>
>> It does explain everything (at least in the mechanical realm), you just
>> have
>> to know how to do it.
>>
>> That Friedes sees, uh, fit to dismiss physics as an "arbiter of fitness"
>> because some **** article in Wiki on kinesiology doesn't mention physics
>> as
>> a contributing discipline is *precisely* why he was able to write that
>> shoddy drivel in http://www.kbnj.com/WhyKettlebells.html , with a
>> straight
>> face.
>>
>> The real Q is: Why aren't ostensibly intelligent people like you and
>> Jason
>> willing to acknowledge such disingenuous tactics and sloppiness (and
>> that's
>> being kind), and instead choose defending it and making excuses for it?
>
> My point was not that exercise is a mystery but that physics is not the
> right tool to apply to it.

Wrong again. *You* just don't know how to apply it, and have somehow
concluded that ergo it can't applied.
A little narcissistic, donchathink?

You said to Friedes,

People don't lift weights out of a burning desire to do work, for any
> definition of work. They lift them to get stronger, or bigger, or both.
> The point is to stimulate the body into adapting. You don't get
> stronger lifting weights, you get stronger recovering from lifting
> weights.

And this in some measure is true. Dats why God invented power, ie, dW/dt,
which is, well, more physics..... LOL

Your refusal to believe that basic physics applies to biomechanical motion
sort of explains why you simply refused to bend your goddamm elbows during
those protracted handstands, despite all my exhortations.... You just don't
understand.....

But it doesn't explain how you came to the conclusion that Pistols would
help your worsening hip problem....
I think I mentioned that this even flabbergasted the Group Idiot MU -- who,
iyr, believes that 2# of food is the Diet Solution for the World.....


I did, however, assume that when you talked
> about physics you meant, well, the things you find in physics textbooks
> or the books you recommended. I had no idea your view of physics was so
> expansive. And yes, if we define physics to include chemistry, biology,
> kinesiology, structural engineering, and anything else you happen to
> need at the moment, then certainly it's capable of handling just about
> anything you want to throw at it. Although I suspect some of the people
> working in those fields might be surprised to learn that they were doing
> physics.

It was just a philosphical point, but relevant in the sense that you seem to
like to dismiss fundamentals, and fundamental causality. But I also
acknowledged that ultimately one DOES need to specialize, but that if
pushed, you could reduce most everything to transitions in orbital enegies
of electrons.

C'mon, everybody, let's burn some calories by hybridizing those s,p,d
orbitals.... <hup-two-three-four>

>
> And if music is physics, and I don't see how you can rule that out at
> this point, then Steve and I are now physicists. Physics is vast, it
> contains multitudes...

Very cute. And almost true....

It would be true if you understood the math/physics behind your music, and I
don't mean simple harmonics in octaves and I-IV-V chords.

As a musician, you DO know that the difference between a harsichord and a
pie-ano is that the strings of a harpsichord are plucked, while the strings
of a pie-ano are struck..... right?

But did you know that the reason the harpsichord SOUNDS so different from a
piano is because of Fourier series?
And that the Fourier series for a piano and harpsichord would be IDENTICAL,
save for one reality: the intial boundary conditions in setting up/solving
the series (because of the initial position of the string), which then
completely changes the resulting series -- and of course the harmonics, and
thus the sound.

Now, if you knew all this, you'd be semi-mathematically literate, at least
from a voyeur's pov.
And if you knew how to actually SOLVE the Fourier series for a piano and
harpsichord, to get their very different harmonic series, THEN you would be
a physicist.

So that's why you are a musician, and not a physicist -- Asimov
notwithstanding, of course. No offense, just clarifying your muddied
perception of science.


>
>> You have taken a dumbbell, made it round, put an off-center handle on it,
>> you've then given it magical fitness powers, and proclaim that physics
>> can't
>> explain it.
>> <whew> Y'all are on a conceptual roll, eh?
>
> This is the first time in this thread I've even mentioned kettlebells,
> because I think everyone is tired of the argument. You are the one who
> keeps bringing them up.

Well, let's be really clear on this.

YOU may not have mentioned kb's, but they were a part of this theme very
early on, *precisely* to demonstrate how obliviousness to basic principles
so readily fuels a marketing scam, and renders so many susceptible to the
scam.

And a marketing scam, btw, which has also fueled a peculiar sociopathic
demographic, like Friedes, Kenneth Jay, and all these kb RKC cultheads
(that's with a lower-case "L") with messianic complexes, who have latched on
to this ersatz opportunity (read: scam) under the guise of furthering
health, fitness, and the whole effing field of phys ed, ex. physio..

And you are proly right: People ARE tired of it, but for very innerestingly
different reasons:

1. Those who don't need to hear it, ie, those who understand W=mg and F=ma
et al, and understand the fact that putting an off-center handle on a
cannonball has NO germane effect on the lifting process, except to make it
less ergonomic, ie, more of a pita, as compared to a dumbbell.
UNLESS, of course, you think it looks cool, and like showing people yer
callouses.

2. Those who DO need to hear it, but don't understand it. They obviously
view this as being beaten over the head. 'Nuff said.

Presumably there is a third group, who reads this stuff, effing AMAZED at
how educated people just refuse to get it. Ought to be mildly entertaining
for them.
--
EA

>
> --
> Jim Janney

[Steve Freides]

Jim Janney wrote:

> And if music is physics, and I don't see how you can rule that out at
> this point, then Steve and I are now physicists. Physics is vast, it
> contains multitudes...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPHUhcBLsu8

Recorded and posted yesterday.

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com
http://RideChickens.blogspot.com

[Existential Angst]

"Jim Janney" <jjanney@shell.xmission.com> wrote in message
news:2pr4x2e47m.fsf@shell.xmission.com...
> Jim Janney <jjanney@shell.xmission.com> writes:
>
>> "Existential Angst" <fitcat@optonline.net> writes:
>>
>>> "Jim Janney" <jjanney@shell.xmission.com> wrote in message
>>> news:2pzkbre92f.fsf@shell.xmission.com...
>>>> "Existential Angst" <fitcat@optonline.net> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> "Steve Freides" <steve@kbnj.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:jj9681$oj7$1@speranza.aioe.org...
>>>>>> Jason Earl wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> First of all, the extra width of the adjustable dumbbells I own
>>>>>>> comes
>>>>>>> too close to my kneecaps for comfort. That's the real issue I have
>>>>>>> with the movement, and it could probably be fixed if I had a 50#
>>>>>>> fixed weight dumbbell. Unfortunately, I don't have a fixed
>>>>>>> dumbbell,
>>>>>>> and I don't plan on getting one. One of the times I was testing
>>>>>>> dumbbell snatches I nicked my knee, and that basically ended my
>>>>>>> curiosity about the move-- especially since I already own a 24kg and
>>>>>>> 32kg kettlebell.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The second insurmountable problem with dumbbell snatches is that
>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>> don't look nearly as cool.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Better to stick with a barbell for low rep, high weight explosvie
>>>>>> work,
>>>>>> and a kettlebell when you want higher reps and the backloading of the
>>>>>> swing. Still, the dumbell snatch is better than a slap in the face
>>>>>> with
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> wet fish.
>>>>>
>>>>> Even nursing students have to take physics, albeit without calculus.
>>>>> But apparently not music majors.....
>>>>
>>>> I'm not a physicist. But I do come from a family of physicists: my
>>>> father, my brother, and at least one of my uncles have degrees in
>>>> physics. When I was twelve I worked my way through Asimov's
>>>> three-volume set on Understanding Physics. When I was a freshman in
>>>> college (and a music major) I took two semesters of physics and aced
>>>> them: the professor told me I should be a physics major.
>>>
>>> goodgawd.... <groan>
>>>
>>> So I'm not
>>>> totally ignorant.
>>>
>>> Then explain why such an edjucated person would elect to address
>>> *hip
>>> problems* with PISTOLS.... repeatedly!!
>>> That shocked even the lurking/stalking moron MU!
>>>
>>>>
>>>> And I tell you again: the way physicists define work is only marginally
>>>> useful in evaluating exercises.
>>>
>>> Are you effing kidding???? Look up VO2. Read Feynman, since Asimov
>>> apparently didn't do it for you.... Read some ex. physio.... ft-lbs
>>> of
>>> work is a "currency" of exercise, fitness.
>>>
>>> http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_no...ywords=feynman
>>> Scroll down for the 3-volume lecture series. I also highly recommend
>>> Surely
>>> Your Joking, Mr. Feynman....
>>>
>>>
>>> Holding a plank does no work at all, as
>>>> physicists define work. Does that mean you should be able to do it
>>>> indefinitely?
>>>
>>> Except.... except..... I wasn't comparing db's to isometrics, I was
>>> comparing db's to kb's.
>>> Isometrics are fine -- if you know their place.
>>
>> The problems I see in trying to use physics to understand exercise also
>> apply to concentric and eccentric movements. I just picked isometric
>> contractions because it's the simplest case to think about: constant
>> force and zero movement. If you want to argue that some exercises are
>> exempt from the laws of physics, that's fine, but you're going to have
>> to supply some sort of framework to explain which ones they are and why.
>
> If you don't like isometrics, here's another one. Pick a dumbbell off
> the floor and lift it over your head. Now lower it back down and put it
> on the floor again. Has any work been done? A physicist would say no:
> the dumbbell is exactly where it started, and the energy in the system
> has not changed.

I had responded to this, but it apparently disappeared.....

But briefly, the above is totally incorrect. No physicist would ever say
that.
Iffin yer innerested, I'll explain why.

But suffice it to say that you are so in the dark about basic physics, you
don't even realize that what you quoted below, altho correct unto itself,
has nothing to do with the strawman conundrum you present above.

>
> For an explanation of how this can be, I refer you to another writer who
> says it better than I can:
>
> It strikes most students as nonsensical when they are told that if
> they stand still and hold a heavy bag of cement, they are doing no
> work on the bag. Even if it makes sense mathematically that W=Fd
> gives zero when d is zero, it seems to violate common sense. You
> would certainly become tired! The solution is simple. Physicists
> have taken over the common word "work" and given it a new technical
> meaning, which is the transfer of energy. The energy of the bag of
> cement is not changing, and that is what the physicist means by
> saying no work is done on the bag.

And actually, in a very technical sense, this paragraph is not strictly
correct either.

It is IS strictly correct to say that the energy of the bag has not changed,
but to be strictly correct, the last sentence would have to be changed to
".... no *mechanical* work is done on the bag."

But in fact *chemical work* is being done on the bag (or applied TO the
bag), which is what the body is perceiving, ito exertion, fatigue, etc.
Ergo the expenditure of calories during an isometric, like holding a heavy
bag..

So the person using the vernacular, This is a lot of WORK, when no
mechanical work is being done, is still technically correct. They just
haven't specified the TYPE of work.

One of your earlier insinuations of this scenario was that, SEE, physicas
doesn't always apply.....
Well, it DOES apply, you just have to know how to apply it.
--
EA







>
> For the rest of the chapter, see
>
> http://www.lightandmatter.com/html_b...ch13/ch13.html
>
> This is not to say that physics is never useful in thinking about
> exercise, But applying it can be surprisingly tricky, even when you
> understand how the terms are defined.
>
> --
> Jim Janney

[Me.Here]

On Fri, 9 Mar 2012 10:55:02 -0500, Existential Angst wrote:

> Bec like all assholes with messianic complexes, I will not tolerate being
> challenged, taken to task for what he believes.
> Doctor Friedes is Doctor Friedes, and you better kiss his ass -- gentiley
> and civilly, of course, but you still better kiss it. Tastes good.


Sick ****.
--
The best in freeware; alt.comp.freeware
My Excuse - http://tr.im/25tn

- random(signature) 1.4

[Existential Angst]

"Me.Here" <me.here.home.on.the.net@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4f5e1843$1@news.x-privat.org...
> On Fri, 9 Mar 2012 10:55:02 -0500, Existential Angst wrote:
>
>> Bec like all assholes with messianic complexes, I will not tolerate being
>> challenged, taken to task for what he believes.
>> Doctor Friedes is Doctor Friedes, and you better kiss his ass -- gentiley
>> and civilly, of course, but you still better kiss it. Tastes good.
>
>
> Sick ****.

Yet another stalker.... OOPS, the SAME stalker -- posting from
x-privat.org, of course.
--
EA


> --
> The best in freeware; alt.comp.freeware
> My Excuse - http://tr.im/25tn
>
> - random(signature) 1.4

[David]

"Existential Angst" <fitcat@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:4f5e2f0f$0$9655$607ed4bc@cv.net...
> "Me.Here" <me.here.home.on.the.net@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4f5e1843$1@news.x-privat.org...
>> On Fri, 9 Mar 2012 10:55:02 -0500, Existential Angst wrote:
>>
>>> Bec like all assholes with messianic complexes, I will not tolerate
>>> being
>>> challenged, taken to task for what he believes.
>>> Doctor Friedes is Doctor Friedes, and you better kiss his ass --
>>> gentiley
>>> and civilly, of course, but you still better kiss it. Tastes good.
>>
>>
>> Sick ****.
>
> Yet another stalker.... OOPS, the SAME stalker -- posting from
> x-privat.org, of course.

Just ignore them EA they got nothing to do - its a slow day in Buttsville

> --
> EA
>
>
>> --
>> The best in freeware; alt.comp.freeware
>> My Excuse - http://tr.im/25tn
>>
>> - random(signature) 1.4
>
>

[Me.Here]

On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 03:25:27 +1000, David wrote:

> Just ignore them EA they got nothing to do - its a slow day in Buttsville

I'll take your **** filled word for it.
--
The best in freeware; alt.comp.freeware
My Excuse - http://tr.im/25tn

- random(signature) 1.4

[David]

"Me.Here" <me.here.home.on.the.net@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4f5e857a@news.x-privat.org...
> On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 03:25:27 +1000, David wrote:
>
>> Just ignore them EA they got nothing to do - its a slow day in Buttsville
>
> I'll take your **** filled word for it.

**** filled? Ha ha you ****en moron - You dont need to do that Dick . . ..
you can take the word of every person who posts here

> --
> The best in freeware; alt.comp.freeware
> My Excuse - http://tr.im/25tn
>



> - random(signature) 1.4

[Mxsmanic]

On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 01:47:27 +1000, David wrote:

> "Me.Here" <me.here.home.on.the.net@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4f5e857a@news.x-privat.org...
>> On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 03:25:27 +1000, David wrote:
>>
>>> Just ignore them EA they got nothing to do - its a slow day in Buttsville
>>
>> I'll take your **** filled word for it.
>
> **** filled? Ha ha you ****en moron - You dont need to do that Dick .
> . .. you can take the word of every person who posts here.
>
> I suck cocks dry.

Wanker, full blown so2speak.

--
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0.2
iQA/AwUBR/qGPRv8knkS0DI6EQLqQQCfYI/+jhW28/0AaBVgq58mnuYYo2AAnRMP
r/ChOzrJkKnGHZcngwRffPMG
=2EPt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Existential Angst]

"David" <forgotwhy@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:g438r.4452$v14.3480@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigp ond.com...
>
> "Me.Here" <me.here.home.on.the.net@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4f5e857a@news.x-privat.org...
>> On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 03:25:27 +1000, David wrote:
>>
>>> Just ignore them EA they got nothing to do - its a slow day in
>>> Buttsville
>>
>> I'll take your **** filled word for it.
>
> **** filled? Ha ha you ****en moron - You dont need to do that Dick . . ..
> you can take the word of every person who posts here

Note the x-privat.org news server. All these assholes post anonymously from
places like x-privat, cuz, well, they are assholes, proly unemployed,
posting from a public liberry....
Too broke to afford a woman, too broke to leave mom's basement....
The asshole EA actually culls my old posts, cuts and pastes out-of-context
****.....
I'd slit my wrists if my life were reduced to that.... goodgawd....
--
EA


>
>> --
>> The best in freeware; alt.comp.freeware
>> My Excuse - http://tr.im/25tn
>>
>
>
>
>> - random(signature) 1.4
>
>

[David]

"Existential Angst" <fitcat@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:4f60de13$0$28373$607ed4bc@cv.net...
> "David" <forgotwhy@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:g438r.4452$v14.3480@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigp ond.com...
>>
>> "Me.Here" <me.here.home.on.the.net@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:4f5e857a@news.x-privat.org...
>>> On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 03:25:27 +1000, David wrote:
>>>
>>>> Just ignore them EA they got nothing to do - its a slow day in
>>>> Buttsville
>>>
>>> I'll take your **** filled word for it.
>>
>> **** filled? Ha ha you ****en moron - You dont need to do that Dick . .
>> .. you can take the word of every person who posts here
>
> Note the x-privat.org news server. All these assholes post anonymously
> from places like x-privat, cuz, well, they are assholes, proly unemployed,
> posting from a public liberry....
> Too broke to afford a woman, too broke to leave mom's basement....
> The asshole EA actually culls my old posts, cuts and pastes out-of-context
> ****.....
> I'd slit my wrists if my life were reduced to that.... goodgawd....

You cant figger people - there are assholes everywhere - oh well better they
get their rocks off here than dabble in pedophilia or maybe they do that as
well


> --
> EA
>
>
>>
>>> --
>>> The best in freeware; alt.comp.freeware
>>> My Excuse - http://tr.im/25tn
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> - random(signature) 1.4
>>
>>
>
>