Sun, Sep-20-09, 12:52
|
|
Senior Member
Posts: 231
|
|
Plan: Personalized
Stats: 190/178/170
BF:
Progress:
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Seejay
Exercise science is dominated by athletics.
When studies are done with non-athletic goals in mind, then I might sit up and take notice. As is true of the slow protocols. I do want strength capacity period. That can be done by a number of ways. Don't care about hypertrophy! Don't care about explosiveness or x-streaming or energy expenditure!
|
Then I recommend you look at the studies I posted - none of the participants are athletes.
I agree that strength can be achieved in a variety of ways - especially in the early going. If, however you are looking for a more effective way in which to reach this goal, the slow burn method is far from optimal compared to other methods.
Essentially you want to look for a more well-rounded program than what slow burn offers. You want to include exercises that emphasize postural development and mobiliy (which SB does not address from what I've seen). You want to be able to correctly execute bigger lifts - which have better carry-over to daily movement and more applicability.
That is why I recommended the books I did - they address these things and do not follow such a myopic view of how strength training should be done.
|