You can refute me all you want. As far as sit back and listen I meant that you don't really know what I'm about yet you are making statements like taking the easy way out and lack of research.

You have said several things that are incorrect as far as I'm concerned. Since I disagree with you you say "I haven't done enough research.'' That kind of insistance on the infallibility of your own research makes me impatient. I.E. what you say is based on research and what everyone else says is based on anecdotal evidence. To say I throw out all science as crap so I don't have to sort it out when I refuted your very statements with scientific information in regards to training theory....yes that makes me impatient.

To say I rely ONLY on anecdotal evidence? Another very incorrect assumption. I take the lazy way out?

I said perhaps at one point that you don't like doctors and it was wrong of me to say. And yes that is a sore point because it should have been obvious if you had actually considered the things I said that great respect for doctors had nothing to do with it. Ok so I admit that I made one generalization.

But you fill a post with them and you don't see why that tries my patience. But I had decided to leave all that alone. For some reason the doctor comment got my goat and I mentioned that.

I don't expect praise for not acting like a jerk. Nor do I expect to have to give it. Now I apologize for getting irritated.

Back to what I was saying about percentages of max for strenght development. There is not complete agreement but the general consensus is between 75 and 100%. I actually said 70% which is what some experts believe and where I tend to think the max cut off is. Some oddballs put it at 60%.

To say that someone can develop max strength at intensities of less than 70% on a consistent basis, meaning despite changes in training status is to say they can do it at rep ranges more than 12. As I said some beginners can do that for a while. Generally though this is endurance territory and will do very little to effect changes in maximum strength. If you want to think about how things change in regards to training status think about the fact that as strength increases the number of reps a person can do at a certain percentage of max tends to DECREASE (example).

No I don't think there is a study proving that consistent progress in strength can be made at these low intensities. I have seen studies suggesting that 60% is endurance. And then that ranges of 70% or higher is necessary for maximal strength development. I don't know what they though of the range in between but I would venture to say that there are some people who can make progress in strength within this range but it is outside the average range.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
or
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


If you act sanctimonious I will just list out your logical fallacies until you get pissed off and spew blasphemous remarks.