Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Isn't that determined by the maximal strength? Or that was your idea as well? I mean, the stronger you are relatively, the longer stride length you're usually going to have.It's determined by how much force one can generate in a window of roughly .08 seconds, while true maximal strength takes at least 1-3 seconds to fully express. Strength in the weight room and strength on the track are different entities, but one can influence the other.
What does TL, DR mean? (I know you're waiting for someone to ask that)
And I just thought of one last thing to say in terms of this debate, let's turn to logic:
If a statement is true, the contrapositive must be true, but the inverse and converse do not need to be.
More on that here: http://www.jimloy.com/logic/converse.htm
Statement: If you have a negative calorie balance, you lose weight
Converse: If you are losing weight, you have a negative calorie balance
Inverse: If you don't have a negative calorie balance, you are not losing weight
Contrapositive: If you didn't lose weight, you did not have a negative calorie balance.
If you can only leg press 250 you have no business squatting 180.
okay brofessor
what should?
What I'm saying is your situation is impossible. If something is correct, there cannot be accurate research against it.
So it's possible for there to be conflicting evidence, but one is incorrect and the other is correct?
Quote
That would assume that all research results are in harmony. Unfortunately, that's not the case. Not to mention vast amounts of research that suffer from poor research design and/or interpretation that get accepted as fact. The inherent biases by the researchers, the questions they pose, and how they interpret the results confounds the issue further. Unfortunately, things are not as black and white as they may appear.
If things are still open for opinion/debate, you cannot say people poorly understand something. If someone was to poorly understand something, that is implying there is one right answer.
I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing your logic here. What are you trying to say? That there are no gaps in our knowledge? Or that there is only one right answer?
There is only one right answer
Alright, then let's assume that's true.
Do you believe that there is some research that conflicts other research? Do you believe that there is some research that the results are inconclusive? Do you believe that there is research that is presented as fact despite having flawed designs or interpretations? Do you believe there is some research that fails to demonstrate the desired outcome of the funding group, thus is never published? Do you believe there is research that is passed as fact but has not been able to be reproduced with further studies?
If your answer to any of the above questions is yes, then clearly we do not know it all yet and there is room for some debate as we do not know with 100% certainty what exactly the 'only one right answer' is.
Quote
That would assume that all research results are in harmony. Unfortunately, that's not the case. Not to mention vast amounts of research that suffer from poor research design and/or interpretation that get accepted as fact. The inherent biases by the researchers, the questions they pose, and how they interpret the results confounds the issue further. Unfortunately, things are not as black and white as they may appear.
If things are still open for opinion/debate, you cannot say people poorly understand something. If someone was to poorly understand something, that is implying there is one right answer.
I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing your logic here. What are you trying to say? That there are no gaps in our knowledge? Or that there is only one right answer?
That would assume that all research results are in harmony. Unfortunately, that's not the case. Not to mention vast amounts of research that suffer from poor research design and/or interpretation that get accepted as fact. The inherent biases by the researchers, the questions they pose, and how they interpret the results confounds the issue further. Unfortunately, things are not as black and white as they may appear.
It's a shame this thread disintegrated so quickly without any substantial debate. It had potential to be interesting.
There's not much to debate
Bullshit. Human metabolism is still extremely poorly understood even after 70 years of research.
