4 ms·

Being 'little-girl weak' after some time following a regime at a commercial gym sort of is evidence. And squatting 40lbs definitely is little-girl weak.

• dbecker 14y ago
  His claim at that point is that raw strength is more useful for general fitness and injury prevention than what he was doing before (which was stability ball training). While his poor squat performance shows that his stability ball workout wasn't building raw strength, it's quite possible that doing squats wouldn't improve his balance. So which has the biggest benefits for injury prevention? The article presents no evidence one way or the other. You (and I) may think raw strength is more important. But then we are agreeing with the author only because he's saying things we already thought. So the article promises to show us why our beliefs are wrong. But we have no reason to accept the author's claims, except that they reinforce our current beliefs.
  • analog 14y ago
    "he had a gift for building the injury-proof athlete and for reconstructing bodies badly broken on the field of play" And the article then goes on to mention several elite athletes that have been able to return to competition at the highest levels after using strength training to rebuild their bodies. Seems pretty solid to me.
  • vidarh 14y ago
    The people who are inclined to follow up references to evidence supporting these claims wouldn't be holding these misconceptions in the first place - the research is readily available for those who cares enough to be prepared to look.