Pilates

[Syborg47]

Anyone try this style of workout? Sy

[Avecfrites]

A friend of mine, a woman in her 40's has been doing this. She
looks great now, like a dancer. No bulk, but great tone.
--
Read your most critical mail, from your existing accounts, on
your existing cell phone, pushed automatically by mHook.
http://www.mhook.com/

"Syborg47" <syborg47@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020912193441.12717.00003060@mb-fa.aol.com...
> Anyone try this style of workout? Sy

[Wayne S. H]

Syborg47 wrote:

> Anyone try this style of workout? Sy

http://www.dolfzine.com/page95.htm

-Wayne

[William Br]

In article <20020912193441.12717.00003060@mb-fa.aol.com>,
syborg47@aol.com (Syborg47) wrote:

> Anyone try this style of workout?

Its a silly outdated fad marketing ploy. Go onto gym, pick up
heavy stuff, get results. It just aint that complicated.

> Sy

--
Will Brink

http://www.brinkzone.com/ http://www.aboutsupplements.com/

[pja]

Syborg47 <syborg47@aol.com> wrote:
> Anyone try this style of workout? Sy
It goes nicely with chicken..perhaps a bit on the salty side
especially if you make it using the boxed kind.
--
- Peter Attar Graduate Student Department of Mechanical
Engineering Duke University

[Don Quixot]

"Wayne S. Hill" <hillw4@asme.org> wrote in message
> > Anyone try this style of workout?

I should think you may well get short shrift here old chum,
not just for 'spamming' but I suspect Pilates and MFW are just
a fraction out of step. ;o))

news:Xns928844445BB56wshill@130.133.1.4...
> Syborg47 wrote:
>
> > Anyone try this style of workout? Sy
>
> http://www.dolfzine.com/page95.htm
>
> -Wayne

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG
anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.386 /
Virus Database: 218 - Release Date: 09/09/2002

[Marcus E E]

In article <wbrink-1309021139450001@bstnma1-ar1-4-64-205-138.-
bstnma1.elnk.dsl.genuity.net>, William Brink
<wbrink@*remove*earthlink.net> wrote:
>In article <20020912193441.12717.00003060@mb-fa.aol.com>,
>syborg47@aol.com

>> Anyone try this style of workout?

>Its a silly outdated fad marketing ploy. Go onto gym, pick up
>heavy stuff, get results. It just aint that complicated.

I know very little about pilates but I doubt that one could
get similar results by picking up heavy objects in the
traditional way.

Marcus

[Wayne S. H]

Don Quixote wrote:

> "Wayne S. Hill" <hillw4@asme.org> wrote in message
>> > Anyone try this style of workout?
>
> I should think you may well get short shrift here old chum,
> not just for 'spamming' but I suspect Pilates and MFW are
> just a fraction out of step. ;o))

Do you misquote on purpose?

-Wayne

> news:Xns928844445BB56wshill@130.133.1.4...
>> Syborg47 wrote:
>>
>> > Anyone try this style of workout? Sy
>>
>> http://www.dolfzine.com/page95.htm
>>
>> -Wayne

[Don Quixot]

"Wayne S. Hill" <hillw4@asme.org> wrote in message
> Do you misquote on purpose?

And the reason for your enquiry? Or are you merely being
parochial?

news:Xns9288573446378wshill@130.133.1.4...
> Don Quixote wrote:
>
> > "Wayne S. Hill" <hillw4@asme.org> wrote in message
> >> > Anyone try this style of workout?
> >
> > I should think you may well get short shrift here old
> > chum, not just for 'spamming' but I suspect Pilates and
> > MFW are just a fraction out of step. ;o))
>
> Do you misquote on purpose?
>
> -Wayne
>
>
> > news:Xns928844445BB56wshill@130.133.1.4...
> >> Syborg47 wrote:
> >>
> >> > Anyone try this style of workout? Sy
> >>
> >> http://www.dolfzine.com/page95.htm
> >>
> >> -Wayne

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG
anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.386 /
Virus Database: 218 - Release Date: 09/09/2002

[Marcus E E]

In article <khobman-1309020843100001@192.168.0.2>, Keith
Hobman <khobman@sasktelNOSPAM.net> wrote:
>In article <alsqg7$qsln$1@ID-158316.news.dfncis.de>,
>"Don Quixote"

>One of the big problems with Pilates is the bogus claims
>based on a compleat lack of knowledge of phsyiology or
>biology. The idea that you can shape the muscle and get long
>lean muscles though exercise selection is wrong. Genetics
>determine this.

Well, strething will make muscles longer. Prove me wrong.

>What has happened, of course, is that dancers are using
>Pilates. Pilates doesn't make them look like they do,
>they are attracted to Pilates because of their interest
>in dancing.

Dancers do a lot of Ashtanga Yoga to keep their body in shape
too. Too much weight training would be detrimental to their
profession, which might explain why there are no hyoooge
dancers (to my knowledge at least).

>As well Pilates suggests purchasing a whole pile of
>specialized equipment is necessary for fitness. This is
>wrong.

That is true. One does not even need heavy objects to be
'fit', body weight will do nicely. Of course, if one wants to
get hyooge, heavy objects are a must.

Marcus

[Wayne S. H]

Don Quixote wrote:

> "Wayne S. Hill" <hillw4@asme.org> wrote in message
>> Do you misquote on purpose?
>
> And the reason for your enquiry? Or are you merely being
> parochial?

Your rearrangement of the post was misleading. First, it
implied that I asked the original question, and secondly, that
the citation of Dolfzine was spam, rather than the answer to
the question. Was this a purposeful misrepresentation, or are
you just dense?

-Wayne

>> Don Quixote wrote:
>> > "Wayne S. Hill" <hillw4@asme.org> wrote in message
>> >> > Anyone try this style of workout?
>> >
>> > I should think you may well get short shrift here old
>> > chum, not just for 'spamming' but I suspect Pilates and
>> > MFW are just a fraction out of step. ;o))
>>
>> Do you misquote on purpose?
>>
>> -Wayne
>>
>>
>> > news:Xns928844445BB56wshill@130.133.1.4...
>> >> Syborg47 wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Anyone try this style of workout? Sy
>> >>
>> >> http://www.dolfzine.com/page95.htm
>> >>
>> >> -Wayne

[Donovan Re]

In article <alsmgd$o5ns$1@ID-158316.news.dfncis.de>, Don
Quixote wrote:
> "Wayne S. Hill" <hillw4@asme.org> wrote in message
>> Do you misquote on purpose?
>
> And the reason for your enquiry? Or are you merely being
> parochial?

I agree with Wayne on this one. You tagged Wayne's post, but
responded to someone else text, *and* removed all of Wayne's
text from the top of the post, *and* left Wayne's name at the
top of the post *and* removed the other guy's name from the
top of the post. In other words, you made it look like Wayne
said something that he didn't, and I can understand why he's
not very happy about
it.

Cheers,
--
Donovan

[Don Quixot]

What you actually said Wayne was:
> >> Do you misquote on purpose?

Well I made no quotes; what I did do was make an observation
on the entire post.

Any conclusions you may have arrived at are entirely due to
your own sensitivity; there was no "purposeful
misrepresentation" and certainly no disrespect intended.

I saw no clearly defined "answer" and the link you gave was
quite clearly to a web site. However, it doesn't appear to be
a commercial site and on further inspection it appears that it
is probably a quite useful site for those interested in the
subject matter. So perhaps I was being a bit of a 'smart-arse'
and jumped the gun.

As for me being dense, well that really is for you to decide.
I'm hardly well qualified to give an objective answer to that
question. ;o))

What *I am now* qualified to do is to state categorically that
you are rude and presumptive, and just a little bit prickly!
You are looking to be offended by what you perceive to be a
'newbie' having the effrontery to post something critical.
Well, as I said before Wayne, I'm no 'newbie', and neither am
I a shy retiring violet.

Live and let live Wayne, I'm happy with the 'cut and thrust'
here - so should you be!

As for Pilates and MFW - well it's obvious really! They are
simply poles apart.

Try smiling - I do a lot! ;o))

DQ

news:Xns92885C8018A83wshill@130.133.1.4...
> Don Quixote wrote:
>
> > "Wayne S. Hill" <hillw4@asme.org> wrote in message
> >> Do you misquote on purpose?
> >
> > And the reason for your enquiry? Or are you merely being
> > parochial?
>
> Your rearrangement of the post was misleading. First, it
> implied that I asked the original question, and secondly,
> that the citation of Dolfzine was spam, rather than the
> answer to the question. Was this a purposeful
> misrepresentation, or are you just dense?
>
> -Wayne
>
>
> >> Don Quixote wrote:
> >> > "Wayne S. Hill" <hillw4@asme.org> wrote in message
> >> >> > Anyone try this style of workout?
> >> >
> >> > I should think you may well get short shrift here old
> >> > chum, not just for 'spamming' but I suspect Pilates and
> >> > MFW are just a fraction out of step. ;o))
> >>
> >> Do you misquote on purpose?
> >>
> >> -Wayne
> >>
> >>
> >> > news:Xns928844445BB56wshill@130.133.1.4...
> >> >> Syborg47 wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Anyone try this style of workout? Sy
> >> >>
> >> >> http://www.dolfzine.com/page95.htm
> >> >>
> >> >> -Wayne

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG
anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.386 /
Virus Database: 218 - Release Date: 09/09/2002

[Don Quixot]

"Donovan Rebbechi" <elflord@panix.com> wrote in message
>You tagged Wayne's post, but responded to someone else text,
>*and* removed all of Wayne's text from the top of the
post,
> *and* left Wayne's name at the top of the post *and* removed
> the other
guy's
> name from the top of the post. In other words, you made it
> look like Wayne
said
> something that he didn't, and I can understand why he's not
> very happy
about
> it.

This sums it up quite accurately Donovan, and without
acrimony, how very refreshing! ;o))

I have admitted to Wayne that I was being a smart-arse. My
'cock-up' was committed in error without malice.

And cheers to you sir! ;o))

DQ

news:slrnao3qkh.6ct.elflord@panix2.panix.com...
> In article <alsmgd$o5ns$1@ID-158316.news.dfncis.de>, Don
> Quixote wrote:
> > "Wayne S. Hill" <hillw4@asme.org> wrote in message
> >> Do you misquote on purpose?
> >
> > And the reason for your enquiry? Or are you merely being
> > parochial?
>
> I agree with Wayne on this one. You tagged Wayne's post, but
> responded to someone else text, *and* removed all of Wayne's
> text from the top of the
post,
> *and* left Wayne's name at the top of the post *and* removed
> the other
guy's
> name from the top of the post. In other words, you made it
> look like Wayne
said
> something that he didn't, and I can understand why he's not
> very happy
about
> it.
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Donovan

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG
anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.386 /
Virus Database: 218 - Release Date: 09/09/2002

[David Cohe]

"Don Quixote" <don@linear.com> wrote:
> What you actually said Wayne was:
> > >> Do you misquote on purpose?
>
> Well I made no quotes; what I did do was make an
> observation on the
entire
> post.
>
> Any conclusions you may have arrived at are entirely due to
> your own sensitivity; there was no "purposeful
> misrepresentation" and
certainly no
> disrespect intended.
>
> I saw no clearly defined "answer" and the link you gave
> was quite
clearly to
> a web site. However, it doesn't appear to be a commercial
> site and
on
> further inspection it appears that it is probably a
> quite useful
site for
> those interested in the subject matter. So perhaps I was
> being a bit
of a
> 'smart-arse' and jumped the gun.
>
> As for me being dense, well that really is for you to
> decide. I'm
hardly
> well qualified to give an objective answer to that
> question. ;o))

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks
like a duck...

You're so dense, you bend light.

David

[Wayne S. H]

Don Quixote wrote:

> What you actually said Wayne was:
>> >> Do you misquote on purpose?
>
> Well I made no quotes; what I did do was make an observation
> on the entire post.

Quotes? I presume you mean quotations. No, you cut and pasted
parts of the post (which is called quoting, in Usenet
parlance) in a misleading fashion, apparently out of
misunderstanding.

> Any conclusions you may have arrived at are entirely due to
> your own sensitivity; there was no "purposeful
> misrepresentation" and certainly no disrespect intended.

That answers my question then: you were dense.

> I saw no clearly defined "answer" and the link you gave was
> quite clearly to a web site. However, it doesn't appear to
> be a commercial site

It is, in fact, a commercial site: how does that change your
evaluation of the content?

> and on further inspection it appears that it is probably a
> quite useful site for those interested in the subject
> matter. So perhaps I was being a bit of a 'smart-arse' and
> jumped the gun.

That's the point: you responded without knowing what you were
writing about.

> As for me being dense, well that really is for you to
> decide.

That should be 'my'.

> I'm hardly well qualified to give an objective answer to
> that question. ;o))
>
> What *I am now* qualified to do is to state categorically
> that you are rude and presumptive, and just a little bit
> prickly!

I asked a simple question, with two possible answers: you were
either purposely misrepresenting previous posts, or dense. I'm
satisfied that you were dense. Characterize that as you will.

> You are looking to be offended by what you perceive to be a
> 'newbie' having the effrontery to post something critical.

You have no knowledge of my intentions or attitude. I couldn't
care less who you are, newbie or not, and couldn't care less
whether what you post is critical or not. It just had better
be right, or at least interesting.

> Well, as I said before Wayne, I'm no 'newbie', and neither
> am I a shy retiring violet.

As if I care.

> Live and let live Wayne, I'm happy with the 'cut and thrust'
> here - so should you be!

I think I can take care of myself, thanks.

> As for Pilates and MFW - well it's obvious really! They are
> simply poles apart.

That is singularly uninformative. What is someone to do with
the benefit of such enlightenment?

> Try smiling - I do a lot! ;o))

That's a common trait among the clueless. Rococo prose aside,
I haven't seen any signs of a clue from you.

-Wayne

[Keith Hobm]

In article <alsqg7$qsln$1@ID-158316.news.dfncis.de>, "Don
Quixote" <don@linear.com> wrote:

>
> As for Pilates and MFW - well it's obvious really! They are
> simply poles apart.

Actually they are not. But the Pilates movement is the latest
fad for exercise and there are a lot of misleading claims
being made about its effectiveness. These fads come and go.
Good training is around forever.

One of the big problems with Pilates is the bogus claims based
on a compleat lack of knowledge of phsyiology or biology. The
idea that you can shape the muscle and get long lean muscles
though exercise selection is wrong. Genetics determine this. I
could do all the Pilates in the world and I'm still going to
be a stocky person. I ran marathons and with no other exercise
except running and low bodyfat I was still 5'10" and weighed
just under 200 lbs.

What has happened, of course, is that dancers are using
Pilates. Pilates doesn't make them look like they do, they are
attracted to Pilates because of their interest in dancing.

As well Pilates suggests purchasing a whole pile of
specialized equipment is necessary for fitness. This is wrong.
A person could accomplish much the same effect as Pilates in
terms of fitness - developing qualities of endurance, mobility
and strength while exercising fairly strenously - without the
expenditure in equipment.

But having said that, is Pilates effective? Yes, of course.
More effective than other forms of conditioning for the goals
of endurance, mobility, leaness and appearance? No, its not
and don't accept claims that it is.

So if you enjoy the workout, the people you are working out
with and the instructor(s), than by all means do Pilates. If
you don't there are other, equally effective alternatives for
the goals Pilates addresses.

--
Keith Hobman

You can put your boots in the oven, but that doesn't make
them biscuits.

[Don Quixot]

"David Cohen" <sammiesdad@earthlink.net>
> If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like
> a duck...

Were you looking for an answer to this conundrum ? I think the
answer is quite obvious if you were!

> You're so dense, you bend light.

A little refraction is a refreshing change!

Oh! I forgot! - FYT ;o))

wrote in message news:tpmg9.4329$Os3.299322@newsread1.prod.it-
d.earthlink.net...
>
> "Don Quixote" <don@linear.com> wrote:
> > What you actually said Wayne was:
> > > >> Do you misquote on purpose?
> >
> > Well I made no quotes; what I did do was make an
> > observation on the
> entire
> > post.
> >
> > Any conclusions you may have arrived at are entirely due
> > to your own sensitivity; there was no "purposeful
> > misrepresentation" and
> certainly no
> > disrespect intended.
> >
> > I saw no clearly defined "answer" and the link you gave
> > was quite
> clearly to
> > a web site. However, it doesn't appear to be a commercial
> > site and
> on
> > further inspection it appears that it is probably a quite
> > useful
> site for
> > those interested in the subject matter. So perhaps I was
> > being a bit
> of a
> > 'smart-arse' and jumped the gun.
> >
> > As for me being dense, well that really is for you to
> > decide. I'm
> hardly
> > well qualified to give an objective answer to that
> > question. ;o))
>
> If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like
> a duck...
>
> You're so dense, you bend light.
>
> David
>
>

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG
anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.386 /
Virus Database: 218 - Release Date: 09/09/2002

[Don Quixot]

"Wayne S. Hill" <hillw4@asme.org> wrote in message
> It is, in fact, a commercial site: how does that change your
> evaluation of the content?

Not much at all really, but it certainly causes me to retract
my quite reasonable apology for accusing you of 'spamming'!!

> As if I care.

You are going to considerable lengths to prove you don't
care! <VBG>

> That answers my question then: you were dense.

The description, although clearly written in the past tense,
indicates a permanence which may not be warranted - one is
either "dense" or one is not "dense". If in this instance it
is supposed to mean that I acted without complete awareness of
the situation, that is not necessarily a state of permanent
"denseness"! The choice of "dense" to describe my intelligence
is colloquial or slang, and therefore not a particularly good
choice. Any balanced evaluation should really be objectively
based on perhaps more than this one minor cock-up. Otherwise
you risk your judgement being clouded by emotion and therefore
not being as highly valued as you might perhaps think it is.
You must also never fall into the trap of thinking that an
admission of guilt is a sign of weakness. Where I come from
one is honour bound to admit when one is wrong; it can
sometimes involve considerable courage!

> I asked a simple question, with two possible answers: you
> were either purposely misrepresenting previous posts, or
> dense. I'm satisfied that you were dense. Characterize that
> as you will.

On the receiving end the question becomes anything but simple.
Your summary is at fault, as there are quite clearly other
possible conclusions you might have drawn.

> That is singularly uninformative. What is someone to do with
> the benefit of such enlightenment?

Well they can take it or leave it Wayne, which is in common
with everything else that is posted here! I can't see too many
who 'grunt with weights' being very much taken with the
concept of Pilates, which is really so different. It is of
course their choice, but hardly a valid point with which to
castigate me.

> That's a common trait among the clueless. Rococo prose
> aside, I haven't seen any signs of a clue from you.

Even ardent academics have a sense of humour. Dated though you
may consider my penmanship, it is rarely intemperate and never
rude simply for the sake of it, unless in sporting
retaliation. Casting unpleasant aspersions at strangers is a
sure sign of chauvinism, and possibly the inability to think
of anything more intelligent to say!

However, this is turning out to be a fun thread, and it's good
to see that it is still policy here, to be never satisfied
with a mole-hill, when there is the possibility of a mountain
to be constructed. ;o))

Keep smiling Wayne! ;o))

DQ

news:Xns928869255CFEAwshill@130.133.1.4...
> Don Quixote wrote:
>
> > What you actually said Wayne was:
> >> >> Do you misquote on purpose?
> >
> > Well I made no quotes; what I did do was make an
> > observation on the entire post.
>
> Quotes? I presume you mean quotations. No, you cut and
> pasted parts of the post (which is called quoting, in Usenet
> parlance) in a misleading fashion, apparently out of
> misunderstanding.
>
> > Any conclusions you may have arrived at are entirely due
> > to your own sensitivity; there was no "purposeful
> > misrepresentation" and certainly no disrespect intended.
>
> That answers my question then: you were dense.
>
> > I saw no clearly defined "answer" and the link you gave
> > was quite clearly to a web site. However, it doesn't
> > appear to be a commercial site
>
> It is, in fact, a commercial site: how does that change your
> evaluation of the content?
>
> > and on further inspection it appears that it is probably a
> > quite useful site for those interested in the subject
> > matter. So perhaps I was being a bit of a 'smart-arse' and
> > jumped the gun.
>
> That's the point: you responded without knowing what you
> were writing about.
>
> > As for me being dense, well that really is for you to
> > decide.
>
> That should be 'my'.
>
> > I'm hardly well qualified to give an objective answer to
> > that question. ;o))
> >
> > What *I am now* qualified to do is to state categorically
> > that you are rude and presumptive, and just a little bit
> > prickly!
>
> I asked a simple question, with two possible answers: you
> were either purposely misrepresenting previous posts, or
> dense. I'm satisfied that you were dense. Characterize that
> as you will.
>
> > You are looking to be offended by what you perceive to be
> > a 'newbie' having the effrontery to post something
> > critical.
>
> You have no knowledge of my intentions or attitude. I
> couldn't care less who you are, newbie or not, and couldn't
> care less whether what you post is critical or not. It just
> had better be right, or at least interesting.
>
> > Well, as I said before Wayne, I'm no 'newbie', and neither
> > am I a shy retiring violet.
>
> As if I care.
>
> > Live and let live Wayne, I'm happy with the 'cut and
> > thrust' here - so should you be!
>
> I think I can take care of myself, thanks.
>
> > As for Pilates and MFW - well it's obvious really! They
> > are simply poles apart.
>
> That is singularly uninformative. What is someone to do with
> the benefit of such enlightenment?
>
> > Try smiling - I do a lot! ;o))
>
> That's a common trait among the clueless. Rococo prose
> aside, I haven't seen any signs of a clue from you.
>
> -Wayne

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG
anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.386 /
Virus Database: 218 - Release Date: 09/09/2002

[Donovan Re]

In article <Xns928869255CFEAwshill@130.133.1.4>, Wayne S.
Hill wrote:

[snip]

Don't you have anything better to do ? Is a point by point
reply to this post really an optimal use of your valuable time
? We all know this guy f*cked up, but you could have just
explained to him what the problem was, and asked for an
apology, instead of spewing insults at him. If you make a
complaint and the offending poster is not receptive to it,
it's usually a waste of time to start a fight over it-- you've
called the guy on his mistake and made your point. To the
extent that you see the thread as a "competition" that you
have to "win", you already "won" when you called him on the
error. Getting the last word in is not victory-- on the
contrary, to quit while you're ahead is a sign of maturity.

Cheers,
--
Donovan

[David Cohe]

"Don Quixote" <don@linear.com> wrote:
> "David Cohen" <sammiesdad@earthlink.net>
> > If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks
> > like a
duck...
>
> Were you looking for an answer to this conundrum ? I
> think the
answer is
> quite obvious if you were!

A shape-shifting alien infiltrating our front line defenses?
>
> > You're so dense, you bend light.
>
> A little refraction is a refreshing change!
>
> Oh! I forgot! - FYT ;o))

Well, sure, that, too.

David
--
"This is the worse forum alive."- kev2112

[Wayne S. H]

Donovan Rebbechi wrote:

> Wayne S. Hill wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> Don't you have anything better to do ? Is a point by point
> reply to this post really an optimal use of your valuable
> time ? We all know this guy f*cked up, but you could have
> just explained to him what the problem was, and asked for an
> apology, instead of spewing insults at him. If you make a
> complaint and the offending poster is not receptive to it,
> it's usually a waste of time to start a fight over it--
> you've called the guy on his mistake and made your point. To
> the extent that you see the thread as a "competition" that
> you have to "win", you already "won" when you called him on
> the error.

I think you're the only one who's thinking in terms of
"competition" and "winning" here. The only problem I'm having
here is trying to pursue logical discourse. Both you and the
other Don appear to slip around like mercury when logic is
brought to bear.

-Wayne

> Getting the last word in is not victory-- on the contrary,
> to quit while you're ahead is a sign of maturity.
>
> Cheers,

[Wayne S. H]

Don Quixote wrote:

> "Wayne S. Hill" <hillw4@asme.org> wrote in message
>
>> As if I care.
>
> You are going to considerable lengths to prove you don't
> care! <VBG>

For someone who pretends to be logical and forthright, you're
awfully quick to quote out of context. Here's what was said:

>> > Well, as I said before Wayne, I'm no 'newbie', and
>> > neither am I a shy retiring violet.
>>
>> As if I care.

-Wayne

[Don Quixot]

** "Wayne S. Hill" <hillw4@asme.org> wrote in message
>> As if I care.

> > You are going to considerable lengths to prove you don't
> > care! <VBG>

It doesn't really matter where your statement and my response
is put, it still indicates that your motivation is because you
*do care*! That's understandable, because I care too. If you
are a competitive person, and almost everyone at MFW is, then
exchanges of this kind are inevitable. They are not
necessarily as tiresome as they may appear. Given that the
entire episodes are observed by everyone else in the group
(perhaps), it is important to those involved to acquit
themselves well.

Donovan had some points to make earlier in this thread,
which were no doubt well-intentioned, but which failed to
acknowledge those essential ingredients in this type of
exchange, which are almost always the preserve of the male
of the species. Provided they are conducted in reasonable
humour in a civilised manner, they can be quite stimulating
and amusing.

I think you spoiled your involvement in this one because you
chose to be gratuitously offensive , particularly after I had
admitted my faux pas and apologised. However, there was
nothing particularly heinous, and it was much better than some
which are simmering even as we speak! ;o))

Pax!

DQ

news:Xns928884DC0958Dwshill@130.133.1.4...
> Don Quixote wrote:
>
> > "Wayne S. Hill" <hillw4@asme.org> wrote in message
> >
> >> As if I care.
> >
> > You are going to considerable lengths to prove you don't
> > care! <VBG>
>
> For someone who pretends to be logical and forthright,
> you're awfully quick to quote out of context. Here's what
> was said:
>
> >> > Well, as I said before Wayne, I'm no 'newbie', and
> >> > neither am I a shy retiring violet.
> >>
> >> As if I care.
>
> -Wayne

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG
anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.386 /
Virus Database: 218 - Release Date: 09/09/2002

[Donovan Re]

In article <Xns9288846724B19wshill@130.133.1.4>, Wayne S.
Hill wrote:
> Donovan Rebbechi wrote:

> I think you're the only one who's thinking in terms of
> "competition" and "winning" here. The only problem I'm
> having here is trying to pursue logical discourse.

The logical discourse you are in pursuit of has an unfortunate
tendency to prove itself rather elusive in the presence of
insults. In any case, what I was trying to say was that the
search for logical discourse within the confines of this
particular thread is a futile one.

But I wish you all the best in your pursuit to find it
elsewhere.

Cheers,
--
Donovan

[Angela]

On Thu, 12 Sep 2002 20:19:07 -0400, "avecfrites"
<avecfrites@yahoo.com> wrote:

>A friend of mine, a woman in her 40's has been doing this.
>She looks great now, like a dancer. No bulk, but great tone.
>--

LOL! Good one!

>
>"Syborg47" <syborg47@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20020912193441.12717.00003060@mb-fa.aol.com...
>> Anyone try this style of workout? Sy
>
>
--
A

[Lee Michae]

<avecfrites@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >A friend of mine, a woman in her 40's has been doing this.
> >She looks
great
> >now, like a dancer. No bulk, but great tone.
> >--

If you hit her with a hammer, does she make a clear tone
like a bell??

[Keith Hobm]

In article <alt7mr$ih93$4@midnight.cs.hut.fi>,
mengdahl@cc.hut.fi (Marcus E Engdahl) wrote:

> In article <khobman-1309020843100001@192.168.0.2>, Keith
> Hobman <khobman@sasktelNOSPAM.net> wrote:
> >In article <alsqg7$qsln$1@ID-158316.news.dfncis.de>, "Don
> >Quixote"
>
> >One of the big problems with Pilates is the bogus claims
> >based on a compleat lack of knowledge of phsyiology or
> >biology. The idea that you can shape the muscle and get
> >long lean muscles though exercise selection is wrong.
> >Genetics determine this.
>
> Well, strething will make muscles longer. Prove me wrong.

You don't need Pilates to stretch. And this has little to do
with the 'long, lean' muscle look. You can bulk muscles up.
You can't signifigantly stretch muscles after puberty, but you
can prevent disuse from shortening them.

But the point is whether you look stocky or long and lean is
more genetics than exercise selection.
>
> >What has happened, of course, is that dancers are using
> >Pilates. Pilates doesn't make them look like they do, they
> >are attracted to Pilates because of their interest in
> >dancing.
>
> Dancers do a lot of Ashtanga Yoga to keep their body in
> shape too. Too much weight training would be detrimental to
> their profession, which might explain why there are no
> hyoooge dancers (to my knowledge at least).

Weight training doesn't necessarily make you hyooge.
>
> >As well Pilates suggests purchasing a whole pile of
> >specialized equipment is necessary for fitness. This
> >is wrong.
>
> That is true. One does not even need heavy objects to be
> 'fit', body weight will do nicely. Of course, if one wants
> to get hyooge, heavy objects are a must.

Pilates equipment is not really weight equipment that you
lift.

And people like Herschel Walker got huge without using heavy
objects. So heavy objects are not a must. But they can make
it easier.

--
Keith Hobman

You can put your boots in the oven, but that doesn't make
them biscuits.

[William Br]

In article <alt7op$ih93$5@midnight.cs.hut.fi>,
mengdahl@cc.hut.fi (Marcus E Engdahl) wrote:

> In article
<wbrink-1309021139450001@bstnma1-ar1-4-64-205-138.bstnma1.eln-
k.dsl.genuity.net>,
> William Brink <wbrink@*remove*earthlink.net> wrote:
> >In article <20020912193441.12717.00003060@mb-fa.aol.com>,
> >syborg47@aol.com
>
> >> Anyone try this style of workout?
>
> >Its a silly outdated fad marketing ploy. Go onto gym, pick
> >up heavy stuff, get results. It just aint that complicated.
>
> I know very little about pilates but I doubt that one could
> get similar results by picking up heavy objects in the
> traditional way.

Explian why please. Muscles know resistance period. What
causes that resistance effects your brain, not your muscles.
This comes under the silly "toning and firming" BS.

>
> Marcus

--
Will Brink

http://www.brinkzone.com/ http://www.aboutsupplements.com/

[Marcus E E]

In article <khobman-1309021314350001@192.168.0.2>, Keith
Hobman <khobman@sasktelNOSPAM.net> wrote:
>In article <alt7mr$ih93$4@midnight.cs.hut.fi>,
>mengdahl@cc.hut.fi (Marcus

>> Well, strething will make muscles longer. Prove me wrong.

>You don't need Pilates to stretch.

True of course.

>And this has little to do with the 'long, lean' muscle look.
>You can bulk muscles up. You can't signifigantly stretch
>muscles after puberty, but you can prevent disuse from
>shortening them.

Why couldn't I significantly stretch after puberty? Experience
tells me otherwise.

>But the point is whether you look stocky or long and lean is
>more genetics than exercise selection.

Probably.

Marcus

[Marcus E E]

In article <wbrink-1409021126520001@bstnma1-ar1-4-64-205-045.-
bstnma1.elnk.dsl.genuity.net>, William Brink
<wbrink@*remove*earthlink.net> wrote:
>In article <alt7op$ih93$5@midnight.cs.hut.fi>,
>mengdahl@cc.hut.fi (Marcus

>> I know very little about pilates but I doubt that one could
>> get similar results by picking up heavy objects in the
>> traditional way.

>Explian why please. Muscles know resistance period. What
>causes that resistance effects your brain, not your muscles.
>This comes under the silly "toning and firming" BS.

Sure you can get similar results if you do similar movements
with similar resistance.

Marcus

[Skunkhaus]

First off, you can completely disregard the part where the
Pilates instructor talks about length of muscle, tone,
leanness, etc. Forget
it.

Secondly, I do pilates for 1 hour a week as a compliment to a
massive training schedule including Ashtanga Yoga, strength
training, lap swimming, water polo, and calisthenics. I think
pilates has a lot of value to my regime, fad or no.

Pilates falls into the "isometric" category of exercise (I'm
in my second week of a kinesiology class), like many yoga
poses. It means that most or all of the muscles you are using,
are being used for stabilization and balance. This is a good
thing for your body to know how to do!

Here's a little anecdotal tidbit: When I began including
Pilates and Yoga into my training schedule, I found marked
increases in my endurance, strength, speed, and mental focus
(over weights and cardio alone). In fact, after 2 months
this summer of doing pilates (3 hrs/wk) and yoga (10-15
hrs/wk) to the _exclusion_ of weights and cardio, I found
that my 1RM in bench press had increased by 5 pounds and I
actually _broke_ an 8-year-old personal record of mine in
the 50 meter freestyle. I've since re-introduced the
swimming, polo, and weights.

I do the "34 classical pilates excercises". These are done on
a mat, and require no special equipment.

Here's some things that pilates is known to be good for:

Maintaining good form in your other athletic activities
Building core strength (esp. in the transverse abdomini, and
the erector spinae) Developing balance and motor control
Increasing range of motion (by strengthening agonist mucle
groups) Better posture

(how can those things be bad?)

Don't expect Pilates to:

Give you much of a stretch Create that "long, lean look"
Increase your VO2 max Give you a 6-pack Help you lose weight

I say try it for an hour, see if it makes you feel good, and
base your decision on that. Note that you could probably
achieve all of the benefits of Pilates from some other form of
exercise, if you preferred.

[Leek]

In article <khobman-1309021314350001@192.168.0.2>,
khobman@sasktelNOSPAM.net (Keith Hobman) wrote:

> But the point is whether you look stocky or long and lean is
> more genetics than exercise selection.

Lots of people have crappy posture. Things like Pilates help
you become more aware of what is going on in the center of the
body and use those muscles correctly to stand up straight.
Thus you *look* longer and leaner - you aren't actually making
muscles longer and leaner.

[Seth Breid]

In article <wbrink-1309021139450001@bstnma1-ar1-4-64-205-138.-
bstnma1.elnk.dsl.genuity.net>, William Brink
<wbrink@*remove*earthlink.net> wrote:
>In article <20020912193441.12717.00003060@mb-fa.aol.com>,
>syborg47@aol.com (Syborg47) wrote:
>
>> Anyone try this style of workout?
>
>Its a silly outdated fad marketing ploy. Go onto gym, pick up
>heavy stuff, get results. It just aint that complicated.

Geez, Will, you left out half the steps.

Eat Rest

Seth
--
Who cares? Shut up and lift. -- Watson (the pencil neck) Davis

[Seth Breid]

In article <alt8ng$10pnh$1@ID-158316.news.dfncis.de>, Don
Quixote <don@linear.com> wrote:
>** "Wayne S. Hill" <hillw4@asme.org> wrote in message
>>> As if I care.
>
>> > You are going to considerable lengths to prove you don't
>> > care! <VBG>
>
>It doesn't really matter where your statement and my response
>is put, it still indicates that

You're not smart enough to quote according to the Usenet
standards.

Seth
--
You are all words and they are not even spelled correctly. --
Bryce Lane

[Seth Breid]

In article <alv8q4$iuul$1@midnight.cs.hut.fi>, Marcus E
Engdahl <mengdahl@cc.hut.fi> wrote:

>Why couldn't I significantly stretch after puberty?
>Experience tells me otherwise.

Define "stretch". You can certainly increase your
flexibility (or, more easily, joint laxity). You can't make
the muscles longer.

Seth
--
Who cares? Shut up and lift. -- Watson (the pencil neck) Davis

[Lucas Buck]

On 13 Oct 2002 13:49:41 -0400, sethb@panix.com (Seth
Breidbart) wrote:

>In article <wbrink-1309021139450001@bstnma1-ar1-4-64-205-138-
>.bstnma1.elnk.dsl.genuity.net>, William Brink
><wbrink@*remove*earthlink.net> wrote:
>>In article <20020912193441.12717.00003060@mb-fa.aol.com>,
>>syborg47@aol.com (Syborg47) wrote:
>>
>>> Anyone try this style of workout?
>>
>>Its a silly outdated fad marketing ploy. Go onto gym, pick
>>up heavy stuff, get results. It just aint that complicated.
>
>Geez, Will, you left out half the steps.
>
>Eat Rest
>
>Seth

Putting the heavy stuff back DOWN at some point is
advisable as well.

[Marcus E E]

In article <aocbjp$cfk$1@panix5.panix.com>, Seth Breidbart
<sethb@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <alv8q4$iuul$1@midnight.cs.hut.fi>, Marcus E
>Engdahl <mengdahl@cc.hut.fi> wrote:

>>Why couldn't I significantly stretch after puberty?
>>Experience tells me otherwise.

>Define "stretch".

Very much increased mobility in the muscles without any damage
to ligaments or tendons.

>You can certainly increase your flexibility (or, more easily,
>joint laxity).

Maybe, if you are dumb enough to stretch without a teacher.

>You can't make the muscles longer.

References, please? Anyway, one can make the connective
tissue in muscles much more elastic, so the muscles will
stretch more.

Marcus

[Charles Po]

** "Marcus E Engdahl" <mengdahl@cc.hut.fi> wrote in message
news:aodv0u$rhtl$1@midnight.cs.hut.fi...
> In article <aocbjp$cfk$1@panix5.panix.com>, Seth Breidbart
> <sethb@panix.com> wrote:
> >In article <alv8q4$iuul$1@midnight.cs.hut.fi>, Marcus E
> >Engdahl <mengdahl@cc.hut.fi> wrote: You can certainly
> >increase your flexibility (or, more easily, joint laxity).
> >Define "stretch".

I view Pilates with great cynicism mainly because of its overt
commercialism, and probably because of its traditional
aficionados - the 'Fancy Dans' and the 'Quiffy Mincers'!! ;o))

As for stretching! Well stretching per se has acquired a
sullied reputation from those 'modernists' who attempt to
discredit it!

However, those of us that have already wandered into
'middle-age', know the benefits that 'mobility exercises' (a
sop to the modernists who poo poo stretching <<G>) bring to
'advancing age'! I know people younger than me who have
difficulty reversing their cars, because they cannot look over
their shoulders. Others can't crouch to tie a shoe lace, or
even raise their legs high enough to mount a bicycle!

We can't stop ourselves getting old, but we can stop ourselves
becoming infirm, and we can remain fit, healthy and most of
all retain full mobility in all our joints and main muscle
groups, if we practice good and regular stretching and
mobility routines.

Here endeth the lesson! ;o))

John

**

>
> >>Why couldn't I significantly stretch after puberty?
> >>Experience tells me otherwise.
>
> >Define "stretch".
>
> Very much increased mobility in the muscles without any
> damage to
ligaments
> or tendons.
>
> >You can certainly increase your flexibility (or, more
> >easily, joint laxity).
>
> Maybe, if you are dumb enough to stretch without a teacher.
>
> >You can't make the muscles longer.
>
> References, please? Anyway, one can make the connective
> tissue in muscles much more elastic, so the muscles will
> stretch more.
>
> Marcus

[Wayne S. H]

Charles PONSONBY Esq wrote:

> I view Pilates with great cynicism mainly because of its
> overt commercialism, and probably because of its
> traditional aficionados - the 'Fancy Dans' and the 'Quiffy
> Mincers'!! ;o))

Well, there's that, plus the complete lack of research
(credible or otherwise) to support the amazing claims.

I watched an entire Pilates infomercial on Saturday. I sat,
transfixed, as I watched Daisy Fuentes and other celebrities,
along with ordinary slender people, doing stupid exercises
that were responsible for their slenderness (without
dieting!). These exercises involved no weights or machines,
yet produced longer, stronger muscles (much better than those
bodybuilder muscles). One of these exercises is THE BEST
exercise for trimming and strengthening the abdominals and
obliques. Of course, the routine had to be done in a specific
manner and order, otherwise it wouldn't work.

-Wayne

[Bryce]

> Well, there's that, plus the complete lack of research
> (credible or otherwise) to support the amazing claims.
>
> I watched an entire Pilates infomercial on Saturday. I sat,
> transfixed, as I watched Daisy Fuentes and other
> celebrities, along with ordinary slender people, doing
> stupid exercises that were responsible for their
> slenderness (without dieting!). These exercises involved no
> weights or machines, yet produced longer, stronger muscles
> (much better than those bodybuilder muscles). One of these
> exercises is THE BEST exercise for trimming and
> strengthening the abdominals and obliques. Of course, the
> routine had to be done in a specific manner and order,
> otherwise it wouldn't work.
>
> -Wayne

Are you *Trying* to make me hurl?

Actually I do use some of their abdominal notions in my
business but most of it is throw away.

Now that "reformer" gadget looks good for a bit of S&M play
but not much else.

--
Bryce http://home.attbi.com/~joandbryce/power.htm

[Wayne S. H]

Bryce wrote:

>> Well, there's that, plus the complete lack of research
>> (credible or otherwise) to support the amazing claims.
>>
>> I watched an entire Pilates infomercial on Saturday. I sat,
>> transfixed, as I watched Daisy Fuentes and other
>> celebrities, along with ordinary slender people, doing
>> stupid exercises that were responsible for their
>> slenderness (without dieting!). These exercises involved no
>> weights or machines, yet produced longer, stronger muscles
>> (much better than those bodybuilder muscles). One of these
>> exercises is THE BEST exercise for trimming and
>> strengthening the abdominals and obliques. Of course, the
>> routine had to be done in a specific manner and order,
>> otherwise it wouldn't work.
>
> Are you *Trying* to make me hurl?

Oh, no, they were trying to make ME hurl.

-Wayne

[Bryce]

Wayne S. Hill wrote:
> Bryce wrote:
>
>
>>>Well, there's that, plus the complete lack of research
>>>(credible or otherwise) to support the amazing claims.
>>>
>>>I watched an entire Pilates infomercial on Saturday. I sat,
>>>transfixed, as I watched Daisy Fuentes and other
>>>celebrities, along with ordinary slender people, doing
>>>stupid exercises that were responsible for their
>>>slenderness (without dieting!). These exercises involved no
>>>weights or machines, yet produced longer, stronger muscles
>>>(much better than those bodybuilder muscles). One of these
>>>exercises is THE BEST exercise for trimming and
>>>strengthening the abdominals and obliques. Of course, the
>>>routine had to be done in a specific manner and order,
>>>otherwise it wouldn't work.
>>
>>Are you *Trying* to make me hurl?
>
>
> Oh, no, they were trying to make ME hurl.

Did it work?

Bryce

[Gps]

"Wayne S. Hill" wrote:
>
> Bryce wrote:
>
> >> Well, there's that, plus the complete lack of research
> >> (credible or otherwise) to support the amazing claims.
> >>
> >> I watched an entire Pilates infomercial on Saturday. I
> >> sat, transfixed, as I watched Daisy Fuentes and other
> >> celebrities, along with ordinary slender people, doing
> >> stupid exercises that were responsible for their
> >> slenderness (without dieting!). These exercises involved
> >> no weights or machines, yet produced longer, stronger
> >> muscles (much better than those bodybuilder muscles). One
> >> of these exercises is THE BEST exercise for trimming and
> >> strengthening the abdominals and obliques. Of course, the
> >> routine had to be done in a specific manner and order,
> >> otherwise it wouldn't work.
> >
> > Are you *Trying* to make me hurl?
>
> Oh, no, they were trying to make ME hurl.
>
> -Wayne

That's one of the key abdominal exercises, right?
ps

[Wayne S. H]

Bryce wrote:

> Wayne S. Hill wrote:
>> Bryce wrote:
>>
>>>>Well, there's that, plus the complete lack of research
>>>>(credible or otherwise) to support the amazing claims.
>>>>
>>>>I watched an entire Pilates infomercial on Saturday. I
>>>>sat, transfixed, as I watched Daisy Fuentes and other
>>>>celebrities, along with ordinary slender people, doing
>>>>stupid exercises that were responsible for their
>>>>slenderness (without dieting!). These exercises involved
>>>>no weights or machines, yet produced longer, stronger
>>>>muscles (much better than those bodybuilder muscles). One
>>>>of these exercises is THE BEST exercise for trimming and
>>>>strengthening the abdominals and obliques. Of course, the
>>>>routine had to be done in a specific manner and order,
>>>>otherwise it wouldn't work.
>>>
>>>Are you *Trying* to make me hurl?
>>
>> Oh, no, they were trying to make ME hurl.
>
> Did it work?

No. Being transfixed and all, I would have had to hurl on
myself. Now, I wasn't about to do that: my belief is that, if
someone's making you hurl, you should hurl ON THEM! Since they
weren't handy, I had to maintain self-control.

-Wayne in a bilious humor

[Wayne S. H]

gps wrote:

> "Wayne S. Hill" wrote:
>>
>> Oh, no, they were trying to make ME hurl.
>
> That's one of the key abdominal exercises, right?
> ps

Coming soon to an infomercial near you: The Wayne Hill <note
to self: investigate name change> Office Ventilation Allergy
Weight Loss and Ab Program. GUARANTEED RESULTS!

-Wayne (yes, that's what my mystery illness was/is)

[Bryce]

Wa
> No. Being transfixed and all, I would have had to hurl on
> myself. Now, I wasn't about to do that: my belief is that,
> if someone's making you hurl, you should hurl ON THEM! Since
> they weren't handy, I had to maintain self-control.

Yes, that is the "better them than you" thinking which is
crass and rude but very very useful and tends to lead to all
the best earthly rewards.

--
Bryce http://home.attbi.com/~joandbryce/power.htm

[J . Thiess]

In article <Xns92A7D87AB7B0C8ch@130.133.1.4>, Wayne S.
Hill wrote:
> gps wrote:
>
>> "Wayne S. Hill" wrote:
>>>
>>> Oh, no, they were trying to make ME hurl.
>>
>> That's one of the key abdominal exercises, right?
>> ps
>
> Coming soon to an infomercial near you: The Wayne Hill <note
> to self: investigate name change> Office Ventilation Allergy
> Weight Loss and Ab Program. GUARANTEED RESULTS!
>
> -Wayne (yes, that's what my mystery illness was/is)

That SUCKS! You have my sympathy. So is your employer getting
the problem fixed?

Recently we moved into a rental house with new carpet. Both my
wife and I had sore/raw throats for the first couple of
months. Fortunately either we or the carpet adjusted.

J.

[Wayne S. H]

J. Thiessen wrote:

> Wayne S. Hill wrote:
>> gps wrote:
>>> "Wayne S. Hill" wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Oh, no, they were trying to make ME hurl.
>>>
>>> That's one of the key abdominal exercises, right? ps
>>
>> Coming soon to an infomercial near you: The Wayne Hill
>> <note to self: investigate name change> Office Ventilation
>> Allergy Weight Loss and Ab Program. GUARANTEED RESULTS!
>>
>> -Wayne (yes, that's what my mystery illness was/is)
>
> That SUCKS! You have my sympathy. So is your employer
> getting the problem fixed?

We shall see. It was actually suggested that it was my car's
ventilation system, not the company air. I shot that argument
down, and am awaiting their next pathetic attempt.

> Recently we moved into a rental house with new carpet. Both
> my wife and I had sore/raw throats for the first couple of
> months. Fortunately either we or the carpet adjusted.

Carpet finishes are a classic for this. Usually, the finish
outgases over time, so the problem ultimately goes away (with
the duration dependent on outgasing rate and individual
sensitivity). This problem could kill someone, so this is not
just a petty annoyance. Why the hell they haven't done
anything about this is beyond me. Given that this is a known
problem, I'd think liability would be well established.

-Wayne

[Seth Breid]

In article <0mpjqusqqf95c5a4tqs0huogcok6u7jgji@4ax.com>, Lucas
Buck <eriptide@earthlink.NOSPAM.net> wrote:
>On 13 Oct 2002 13:49:41 -0400, sethb@panix.com (Seth
>Breidbart) wrote:
>>In article <wbrink-1309021139450001@bstnma1-ar1-4-64-205-13-
>>8.bstnma1.elnk.dsl.genuity.net>, William Brink
>><wbrink@*remove*earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>In article <20020912193441.12717.00003060@mb-fa.aol.com>,
>>>syborg47@aol.com (Syborg47) wrote:
>>>
>>>> Anyone try this style of workout?
>>>
>>>Its a silly outdated fad marketing ploy. Go onto gym, pick
>>>up heavy stuff, get results. It just aint that complicated.
>>
>>Geez, Will, you left out half the steps.
>>
>>Eat Rest
>
>Putting the heavy stuff back DOWN at some point is
>advisable as well.

If you're a bodybuilder, yes. If you're an Olympic lifter,
that part can be skipped.

Seth
--
Who cares? Shut up and lift. -- Watson (the pencil neck) Davis

[Seth Breid]

In article <aodv0u$rhtl$1@midnight.cs.hut.fi>, Marcus E
Engdahl <mengdahl@cc.hut.fi> wrote:
>In article <aocbjp$cfk$1@panix5.panix.com>, Seth Breidbart
><sethb@panix.com> wrote:
>>In article <alv8q4$iuul$1@midnight.cs.hut.fi>, Marcus E
>>Engdahl <mengdahl@cc.hut.fi> wrote:
>
>>>Why couldn't I significantly stretch after puberty?
>>>Experience tells me otherwise.
>>Define "stretch".
>Very much increased mobility in the muscles without any
>damage to ligaments or tendons.

What is "increased mobility in the muscles"? (I measure
mobility at the joints.)

>>You can certainly increase your flexibility (or, more
>>easily, joint laxity).
>Maybe, if you are dumb enough to stretch without a teacher.

Or, if you pick the wrong teacher (almost all of them).

>>You can't make the muscles longer.
>References, please? Anyway, one can make the connective
>tissue in muscles much more elastic, so the muscles will
>stretch more.

References, please?

Anyway, I've never found myself unable to stretch to some
position because any muscle itself was too short. The limiting
factor is always something else: joint configuration and
reflexes are the most common.

Seth
--
Oh well, never mind. I have the electrodes and the conductive
gel and a serviceable familiarity with sendmail.cf -- Tanuki
the Raccoon-dog

[Marcus E E]

In article <ap4ma9$gn3$1@panix5.panix.com>, Seth Breidbart
<sethb@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <aodv0u$rhtl$1@midnight.cs.hut.fi>, Marcus E
>Engdahl <mengdahl@cc.hut.fi> wrote:
>>In article <aocbjp$cfk$1@panix5.panix.com>, Seth Breidbart
>><sethb@panix.com> wrote:
>>>In article <alv8q4$iuul$1@midnight.cs.hut.fi>, Marcus E
>>>Engdahl <mengdahl@cc.hut.fi> wrote:

>>>>Why couldn't I significantly stretch after puberty?
>>>>Experience tells me otherwise.

>>>Define "stretch".

>>Very much increased mobility in the muscles without any
>>damage to ligaments or tendons.

>What is "increased mobility in the muscles"? (I measure
>mobility at the joints.)

Same thing. When muscles don't limit flexibility, full range
of motion at the joints is possible.

>>>You can't make the muscles longer.

>>References, please? Anyway, one can make the connective
>>tissue in muscles much more elastic, so the muscles will
>>stretch more.

>References, please?

Stretching and Flexibility FAQ comes to mind.

>Anyway, I've never found myself unable to stretch to some
>position because any muscle itself was too short. The
>limiting factor is always something else: joint configuration
>and reflexes are the most common.

Joint configuration? Do you mean that you can move all your
joints through their full range of motion? Or what?

Marcus

[Seth Breid]

In article <ap77bp$sug5$1@midnight.cs.hut.fi>, Marcus E
Engdahl <mengdahl@cc.hut.fi> wrote:
>In article <ap4ma9$gn3$1@panix5.panix.com>, Seth Breidbart
><sethb@panix.com> wrote:
>>In article <aodv0u$rhtl$1@midnight.cs.hut.fi>, Marcus E
>>Engdahl <mengdahl@cc.hut.fi> wrote:
>>>In article <aocbjp$cfk$1@panix5.panix.com>, Seth Breidbart
>>><sethb@panix.com> wrote:
>>>>In article <alv8q4$iuul$1@midnight.cs.hut.fi>, Marcus E
>>>>Engdahl <mengdahl@cc.hut.fi> wrote:
>
>>>>>Why couldn't I significantly stretch after puberty?
>>>>>Experience tells me otherwise.
>>>>Define "stretch".
>>>Very much increased mobility in the muscles without any
>>>damage to ligaments or tendons.
>>What is "increased mobility in the muscles"? (I measure
>>mobility at the joints.)
>Same thing. When muscles don't limit flexibility, full range
>of motion at the joints is possible.

False. One counterexample right now is my left shoulder. The
muscles do not limit flexibility, but full range of motion
isn't there. (I'm working on it, probably just another month
or two will restore it to where it should be (albeit not where
it once was).)

>>>>You can't make the muscles longer.
>>>References, please? Anyway, one can make the connective
>>>tissue in muscles much more elastic, so the muscles will
>>>stretch more.
>>References, please?
>Stretching and Flexibility FAQ comes to mind.

Which is where, and why does it have credibility?

>>Anyway, I've never found myself unable to stretch to some
>>position because any muscle itself was too short. The
>>limiting factor is always something else: joint
>>configuration and reflexes are the most common.
>Joint configuration? Do you mean that you can move all your
>joints through their full range of motion?

Isn't that the definition of "full range of motion"?

> Or what?

Consider your shoulder. Raise your arm straight up. Now move
it back (without moving it out). How far can it go? It isn't a
muscle that's too short to let it move back, but rather the
bones don't allow that.

However, most lack-of-flexibility problems are due to
reflexes. See Pavel Tsatsouline's writings on the subject.

Seth
--
Who cares? Shut up and lift. -- Watson (the pencil neck) Davis

[Marcus E E]

In article <ap79ng$ls5$1@panix5.panix.com>, Seth Breidbart
<sethb@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <ap77bp$sug5$1@midnight.cs.hut.fi>, Marcus E
>Engdahl <mengdahl@cc.hut.fi> wrote:

>>>>References, please? Anyway, one can make the connective
>tissue in muscles
>>>>much more elastic, so the muscles will stretch more.

>>>References, please?

>>Stretching and Flexibility FAQ comes to mind.

>Which is where, and why does it have credibility?

Here:

http://www.enteract.com/~bradapp/docs/rec/stretching/

>However, most lack-of-flexibility problems are due to
>reflexes. See Pavel Tsatsouline's writings on the subject.

I have increased my flexibilty by about 500%
(stetson-estimate) by practising yoga, and I haven't been in
puberty for 15 years. Some of it might be due to reflexes, but
I have no reason to doubt that connective tissue can be
changed through stretching.

Marcus

[Marcus E E]

In article <khobman-2510020842020001@192.168.0.2>, Keith
Hobman <khobman@sasktelNOSPAM.net> wrote:
>In article <ap86iq$t6po$2@midnight.cs.hut.fi>,
>mengdahl@cc.hut.fi (Marcus

>> I have increased my flexibilty by about 500%
>> (stetson-estimate) by practising yoga, and I haven't been
>> in puberty for 15 years. Some of it might be due to
>> reflexes, but I have no reason to doubt that connective
>> tissue can be changed through stretching.

>Please explain how come a person can be very unflexible, but
>if they are unconscious they are completely flexible?

I don't believe that they are 'completely flexible'.

>I don't think you really have any understanding of human
>biomechanics or you wouldn't make some of the statements you
>do. Don't confuse ROM increases and adaptation to training
>(in this case yoga) with tissue changes.

I just know what I've read off the web. If you can present
information that stretching does not change the muscles at
all, I'd be interested in seeing
it.

Marcus

[Marcus E E]

In article <T9du9.93332$md1.18304@sccrnsc03>, Lee Michaels
<leemichaels*nada-spam*@attbi.com> wrote:
>"Marcus E Engdahl" <mengdahl@cc.hut.fi> wrote

>> I just know what I've read off the web. If you can present
>> information
>that
>> stretching does not change the muscles at all, I'd be
>> interested in seeing
>> it.

>I don't know if you really understand just how retarded
>this sounds.

>If the only thing you know is what you read off of a website,
>you are terribly misinformed.

The named FAQ can be found at many places on the web and it is
heavily referenced by other web pages. Therefore, I think it
is a resonably reliable source of information - more so than a
book by a guy with a funny name.

>You are expounding total fantasy and you want us to "prove"
>something does NOT exixt?? It's the other way around!! You
>have to prove it does exist. Got it??

No, I don't get it. I have reasons to believe that the named
FAQ is correct. If you have some other evidence available on
the web, please present it, I'd be happy to read it. A Medline
reference would be best of course....and if it is all in a
book by J.F.Rastapopoulos or something that I will never see,
forget it.

>The Pilates folks are the biggest bunch of bullshitters
>around and have presented fantasy as fact. When there are
>large numbers of people like you to beleive them, they don't
>need facts. And by the way, I have a hot new MLM nutritional
>product that will cure what ails you.

This discussion has nothing to do with Pilates. I know
practically nothing about it.

Marcus

[Marcus E E]

In article <khobman-2510020942320001@192.168.0.2>, Keith
Hobman <khobman@sasktelNOSPAM.net> wrote:

>> I don't believe that they are 'completely flexible'.

>Ask a doctor.

Is this doctor a yogini or what does he/she know about what
'completely flexible' means.

>As for the information - there are huge amounts of material.
>i'm not going to bother to do the research here for you.

Fair enough, but it cannot be too hard to post some links.

>I think your ROM is great and yoga certainly works to
>increase ROM and body control. But you are a little confused
>at what physiological adaptations are actually taking place.

Probably right.

>While it is possible to stretch connective tissue that can
>really stress joint integrity. Think about what would
>happen to your shoulders and hips if you stretched
>ligaments and tendons!

There is connective tissue inside every muscle. That tissue
can and should be stretched, not ligaments or tendons.

Marcus

[Marcus E E]

In article
<yMdu9.4160$6F4.391962@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
David Cohen <sammiesdad@earthlink.net> wrote:
>"Keith Hobman" <khobman@sasktelNOSPAM.net> wrote
>> mengdahl@cc.hut.fi (Marcus E Engdahl) wrote:

>> > I don't believe that they are 'completely flexible'.

>> Ask a doctor.

>Nah, ask a nurse/paramedic. Keith is correct.

Please give me a couple of links (google or google groups), it
cannot be too hard to find a web-page that says that the
nervous system is the only factor in flexibility. It's just
that I cannot find any.

Marcus

[Keith Hobm]

In article <ap86iq$t6po$2@midnight.cs.hut.fi>,
mengdahl@cc.hut.fi (Marcus E Engdahl) wrote:

> In article <ap79ng$ls5$1@panix5.panix.com>, Seth Breidbart
> <sethb@panix.com> wrote:
> >In article <ap77bp$sug5$1@midnight.cs.hut.fi>, Marcus E
> >Engdahl <mengdahl@cc.hut.fi> wrote:
>
> >>>>References, please? Anyway, one can make the connective
> >tissue in muscles
> >>>>much more elastic, so the muscles will stretch more.
>
> >>>References, please?
>
> >>Stretching and Flexibility FAQ comes to mind.
>
> >Which is where, and why does it have credibility?
>
> Here:
>
> http://www.enteract.com/~bradapp/docs/rec/stretching/
>
> >However, most lack-of-flexibility problems are due to
> >reflexes. See Pavel Tsatsouline's writings on the subject.
>
> I have increased my flexibilty by about 500%
> (stetson-estimate) by practising yoga, and I haven't been in
> puberty for 15 years. Some of it might be due to reflexes,
> but I have no reason to doubt that connective tissue can be
> changed through stretching.

Please explain how come a person can be very unflexible, but
if they are unconscious they are completely flexible?

I don't think you really have any understanding of human
biomechanics or you wouldn't make some of the statements you
do. Don't confuse ROM increases and adaptation to training (in
this case yoga) with tissue changes.

--
Keith Hobman

[Lee Michae]

"Marcus E Engdahl" <mengdahl@cc.hut.fi> wrote
>
> I just know what I've read off the web. If you can present
> information
that
> stretching does not change the muscles at all, I'd be
> interested in seeing
> it.
>
I don't know if you really understand just how retarded
this sounds.

If the only thing you know is what you read off of a website,
you are terribly misinformed. You are expounding total fantasy
and you want us to "prove" something does NOT exixt?? It's the
other way around!! You have to prove it does exist. Got it??

The Pilates folks are the biggest bunch of bullshitters around
and have presented fantasy as fact. When there are large
numbers of people like you to beleive them, they don't need
facts. And by the way, I have a hot new MLM nutritional
product that will cure what ails you.

HTH

[Keith Hobm]

In article <apbmg6$tpto$4@midnight.cs.hut.fi>,
mengdahl@cc.hut.fi (Marcus E Engdahl) wrote:

> In article <khobman-2510020842020001@192.168.0.2>, Keith
> Hobman <khobman@sasktelNOSPAM.net> wrote:
> >In article <ap86iq$t6po$2@midnight.cs.hut.fi>,
> >mengdahl@cc.hut.fi (Marcus
>
> >> I have increased my flexibilty by about 500%
> >> (stetson-estimate) by practising yoga, and I haven't been
> >> in puberty for 15 years. Some of it might be due to
> >> reflexes, but I have no reason to doubt that connective
> >> tissue can be changed through stretching.
>
> >Please explain how come a person can be very unflexible,
> >but if they are unconscious they are completely flexible?
>
> I don't believe that they are 'completely flexible'.

Ask a doctor.

As for the information - there are huge amounts of material.
i'm not going to bother to do the research here for you.

I think your ROM is great and yoga certainly works to increase
ROM and body control. But you are a little confused at what
physiological adaptations are actually taking place. While it
is possible to stretch connective tissue that can really
stress joint integrity. Think about what would happen to your
shoulders and hips if you stretched ligaments and tendons!

But - believe what you want. I've seen much of the research
and I'm not going to wade through it for you.

--
Keith Hobman

[David Cohe]

"Marcus E Engdahl" <mengdahl@cc.hut.fi> wrote
> Keith Hobman <khobman@sasktelNOSPAM.net> wrote:
>
> >> I don't believe that they are 'completely flexible'.
>
> >Ask a doctor.
>
> Is this doctor a yogini or what does he/she know about what
'completely
> flexible' means.

Strange as it may seem, human anatomy and physiology is
actually taught in medical school.
>
> >As for the information - there are huge amounts of
> >material. i'm
not going
> >to bother to do the research here for you.
>
> Fair enough, but it cannot be too hard to post some links.
>
> >I think your ROM is great and yoga certainly works to
> >increase ROM
and
> >body control. But you are a little confused at what
> >physiological adaptations are actually taking place.
>
> Probably right.
>
> >While it is possible to stretch connective tissue that can
> >really stress joint integrity. Think
about what
> >would happen to your shoulders and hips if you stretched
> >ligaments
and
> >tendons!
>
> There is connective tissue inside every muscle. That
> tissue can and
should be
> stretched, not ligaments or tendons.

I'd be interested in knowing how one goes about stretching
that "inside' connective tissue without stretching the tendons
that attach it to the bone, and the ligaments that hold the
joints together on either side of the muscle.

David

[David Cohe]

"Marcus E Engdahl" <mengdahl@cc.hut.fi> wrote in message
news:apbqcg$tu7t$3@midnight.cs.hut.fi...
> In article
> <yMdu9.4160$6F4.391962@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> David Cohen <sammiesdad@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >"Keith Hobman" <khobman@sasktelNOSPAM.net> wrote
> >> mengdahl@cc.hut.fi (Marcus E Engdahl) wrote:
>
> >> > I don't believe that they are 'completely flexible'.
>
> >> Ask a doctor.
>
> >Nah, ask a nurse/paramedic. Keith is correct.
>
> Please give me a couple of links (google or google
> groups), it
cannot be too
> hard to find a web-page that says that the nervous
> system is the
only factor
> in flexibility. It's just that I cannot find any.

Of course it's not the ONLY factor, but it is so much the
overwhelming factor, the other factors are VERY minor.

I have picked up...literally picked up...thousands of
unconscious humans. They are COMPLETELY flexible. And the 550
pound one was NOT fun.

David
>
> Marcus

[Gps]

Marcus E Engdahl wrote:
>
> In article <khobman-2510020942320001@192.168.0.2>, Keith
> Hobman <khobman@sasktelNOSPAM.net> wrote:
>
> >> I don't believe that they are 'completely flexible'.
>
> >Ask a doctor.
>
> Is this doctor a yogini or what does he/she know about what
> 'completely flexible' means.
>
> >As for the information - there are huge amounts of
> >material. i'm not going to bother to do the research here
> >for you.
>
> Fair enough, but it cannot be too hard to post some links.
>
> >I think your ROM is great and yoga certainly works to
> >increase ROM and body control. But you are a little
> >confused at what physiological adaptations are actually
> >taking place.
>
> Probably right.
>
> >While it is possible to stretch connective tissue that can
> >really stress joint integrity. Think about what would
> >happen to your shoulders and hips if you stretched
> >ligaments and tendons!
>
> There is connective tissue inside every muscle. That tissue
> can and should be stretched, not ligaments or tendons.
>
> Marcus

And what is the connective tissue inside a muscle called?
ps

[David Cohe]

"Keith Hobman" <khobman@sasktelNOSPAM.net> wrote
> mengdahl@cc.hut.fi (Marcus E Engdahl) wrote:
> > Keith Hobman <khobman@sasktelNOSPAM.net> wrote:
> > > mengdahl@cc.hut.fi (Marcus E Engdahl) wrote:

> > >> I have increased my flexibilty by about 500%
> > >> (stetson-estimate)
by
> > >> practising yoga, and I haven't been in puberty for 15
> > >> years.
Some
> > >> of it might be due to reflexes, but I have no reason to
> > >> doubt
that
> > >> connective tissue can be changed through stretching.
> >
> > >Please explain how come a person can be very unflexible,
> > >but if
they are
> > >unconscious they are completely flexible?
> >
> > I don't believe that they are 'completely flexible'.
>
> Ask a doctor.

Nah, ask a nurse/paramedic. Keith is correct.

David

[Lee Michae]

"gps" <gstyles@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3DB9737D.393913B1@ix.netcom.com...
> Marcus E Engdahl wrote:
> >
> > In article <khobman-2510020942320001@192.168.0.2>, Keith
> > Hobman <khobman@sasktelNOSPAM.net> wrote:
> >
> > >> I don't believe that they are 'completely flexible'.
> >
> > >Ask a doctor.
> >
> > Is this doctor a yogini or what does he/she know about
> > what 'completely flexible' means.
> >
> > >As for the information - there are huge amounts of
> > >material. i'm not
going
> > >to bother to do the research here for you.
> >
> > Fair enough, but it cannot be too hard to post some links.
> >
> > >I think your ROM is great and yoga certainly works to
> > >increase ROM and body control. But you are a little
> > >confused at what physiological adaptations are actually
> > >taking place.
> >
> > Probably right.
> >
> > >While it is possible to stretch connective tissue that
> > >can really stress joint integrity. Think about
what
> > >would happen to your shoulders and hips if you stretched
> > >ligaments and tendons!
> >
> > There is connective tissue inside every muscle. That
> > tissue can and
should be
> > stretched, not ligaments or tendons.
> >
> > Marcus
>
> And what is the connective tissue inside a muscle called?
> ps

It is the ICT (inner connective tissue). It is what various
new age folks get in touch with when they touch their inner
child. (Isn't that against the law?)

[Lucas Buck]

On Fri, 25 Oct 2002 09:38:21 -0700, gps
<gstyles@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>> There is connective tissue inside every muscle. That
>> tissue can and should be stretched, not ligaments or
>> tendons. Marcus
>
>And what is the connective tissue inside a muscle called?
>ps

Velcro.

[Keith Hobm]

In article
<yMdu9.4160$6F4.391962@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
"David Cohen" <sammiesdad@earthlink.net> wrote:

> "Keith Hobman" <khobman@sasktelNOSPAM.net> wrote
> > mengdahl@cc.hut.fi (Marcus E Engdahl) wrote:
> > > Keith Hobman <khobman@sasktelNOSPAM.net> wrote:
> > > > mengdahl@cc.hut.fi (Marcus E Engdahl) wrote:
>
> > > >> I have increased my flexibilty by about 500%
> > > >> (stetson-estimate)
> by
> > > >> practising yoga, and I haven't been in puberty for 15
> > > >> years.
> Some
> > > >> of it might be due to reflexes, but I have no reason
> > > >> to doubt
> that
> > > >> connective tissue can be changed through stretching.
> > >
> > > >Please explain how come a person can be very
> > > >unflexible, but if
> they are
> > > >unconscious they are completely flexible?
> > >
> > > I don't believe that they are 'completely flexible'.
> >
> > Ask a doctor.
>
> Nah, ask a nurse/paramedic.

Shoulda thought of that.

--
Keith Hobman

[Gps]

Lee Michaels wrote:
>
> "gps" <gstyles@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:3DB9737D.393913B1@ix.netcom.com...
> > Marcus E Engdahl wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <khobman-2510020942320001@192.168.0.2>, Keith
> > > Hobman <khobman@sasktelNOSPAM.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > >> I don't believe that they are 'completely flexible'.
> > >
> > > >Ask a doctor.
> > >
> > > Is this doctor a yogini or what does he/she know about
> > > what 'completely flexible' means.
> > >
> > > >As for the information - there are huge amounts of
> > > >material. i'm not
> going
> > > >to bother to do the research here for you.
> > >
> > > Fair enough, but it cannot be too hard to post some
> > > links.
> > >
> > > >I think your ROM is great and yoga certainly works to
> > > >increase ROM and body control. But you are a little
> > > >confused at what physiological adaptations are actually
> > > >taking place.
> > >
> > > Probably right.
> > >
> > > >While it is possible to stretch connective tissue that
> > > >can really stress joint integrity. Think about
> what
> > > >would happen to your shoulders and hips if you
> > > >stretched ligaments and tendons!
> > >
> > > There is connective tissue inside every muscle. That
> > > tissue can and
> should be
> > > stretched, not ligaments or tendons.
> > >
> > > Marcus
> >
> > And what is the connective tissue inside a muscle called?
> > ps
>
> It is the ICT (inner connective tissue).

Oh, thank you.

> It is what various new age folks get in touch with when they
> touch their inner child. (Isn't that against the law?)

I believe it is classed as self abuse.
ps

[Aj]

In article <Qpeu9.100543$%d2.37733@sccrnsc01>, Lee
Michaels wrote:
>
> "gps" <gstyles@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:3DB9737D.393913B1@ix.netcom.com...
>> Marcus E Engdahl wrote:
>> >
>> > In article <khobman-2510020942320001@192.168.0.2>, Keith
>> > Hobman <khobman@sasktelNOSPAM.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > >> I don't believe that they are 'completely flexible'.
>> >
>> > >Ask a doctor.
>> >
>> > Is this doctor a yogini or what does he/she know about
>> > what 'completely flexible' means.
>> >
>> > >As for the information - there are huge amounts of
>> > >material. i'm not
> going
>> > >to bother to do the research here for you.
>> >
>> > Fair enough, but it cannot be too hard to post some
>> > links.
>> >
>> > >I think your ROM is great and yoga certainly works to
>> > >increase ROM and body control. But you are a little
>> > >confused at what physiological adaptations are actually
>> > >taking place.
>> >
>> > Probably right.
>> >
>> > >While it is possible to stretch connective tissue that
>> > >can really stress joint integrity. Think about
> what
>> > >would happen to your shoulders and hips if you stretched
>> > >ligaments and tendons!
>> >
>> > There is connective tissue inside every muscle. That
>> > tissue can and
> should be
>> > stretched, not ligaments or tendons.
>> >
>> > Marcus
>>
>> And what is the connective tissue inside a muscle called?
>> ps
>
> It is the ICT (inner connective tissue). It is what various
> new age folks get in touch with when they touch their inner
> child. (Isn't that against the law?)

My inner child can beat up your honor student.

--
-aj

[Marcus E E]

In article
<N_du9.4174$6F4.393295@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
David Cohen <sammiesdad@earthlink.net> wrote:
>"Marcus E Engdahl" <mengdahl@cc.hut.fi> wrote

>> There is connective tissue inside every muscle. That tissue
>> can and
>should be
>> stretched, not ligaments or tendons.

>I'd be interested in knowing how one goes about stretching
>that "inside' connective tissue without stretching the
>tendons that attach it to the bone, and the ligaments that
>hold the joints together on either side of the muscle.

The stretch is done slowly and conservatively so that the
muscle will stretch (because it is softer) and the tendons and
ligaments do not.

Marcus

[Marcus E E]

In article
<o4eu9.4179$6F4.395806@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
David Cohen <sammiesdad@earthlink.net> wrote:

>Of course it's not the ONLY factor, but it is so much the
>overwhelming factor, the other factors are VERY minor.

Maybe, but can you find something on the web that says that?

>I have picked up...literally picked up...thousands of
>unconscious humans. They are COMPLETELY flexible. And the 550
>pound one was NOT fun.

Completely? You could stick their heads in their asses or
what?

Marcus

[Marcus E E]

In article
<JDyu9.6252$Fj6.551700@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
David Cohen <sammiesdad@earthlink.net> wrote:
>"Marcus E Engdahl" <mengdahl@cc.hut.fi> wrote

>> Completely? You could stick their heads in their asses
>> or what?

>Are you defining "completely flexible" as "if the body was
>made of soft rubber"? If so, I'll leave the absurd
>discussion now.

>If by "completely flexible", you mean flexible within the
>constraints of the skeletal system, yes, they were completely
>flexible.

I'm not saying that I don't believe you, I'd just like to know
what you did to these people (or, on second thoughts, maybe
not). So they could do the splits easily both ways? Cross both
feet behind head? Make a full bridge with straight arms and
legs? Lotus position was not a problem? What exatly could
their bodies do?

>Now take YOUR head out of your ass, you completely
>flexible Finn :)

Gimme some links, dude.

Marcus

[Marcus E E]

In article <Xns92B38872393AC8ch@130.133.1.4>, Wayne S. Hill
<hillw4@asme.org> wrote:
>Marcus E Engdahl wrote:

>>>I'd be interested in knowing how one goes about stretching
>>>that "inside' connective tissue without stretching the
>>>tendons that attach it to the bone, and the ligaments that
>>>hold the joints together on either side of the muscle.

>> The stretch is done slowly and conservatively so that the
>> muscle will stretch (because it is softer) and the tendons
>> and ligaments do not.

>The connective tissue is more likely to permanently deform in
>this situation than the muscle.

Why, because muscles don't deform permanently unless they
tear? Well, isn't that the case also when you use muscles? Now
the thread has deteriorated to a level where we have proved
that both strething and using muscles is baaad, since the
connective tissue in more likely to deform permanently? Or am
I missing something?

Marcus

[David Cohe]

"Marcus E Engdahl" <mengdahl@cc.hut.fi> wrote
> David Cohen <sammiesdad@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >Of course it's not the ONLY factor, but it is so much the
overwhelming
> >factor, the other factors are VERY minor.
>
> Maybe, but can you find something on the web that says that?
>
> >I have picked up...literally picked up...thousands of
> >unconscious humans. They are COMPLETELY flexible. And the
> >550 pound one was NOT fun.
>
> Completely? You could stick their heads in their asses
> or what?

Are you defining "completely flexible" as "if the body was
made of soft rubber"? If so, I'll leave the absurd
discussion now.

If by "completely flexible", you mean flexible within the
constraints of the skeletal system, yes, they were
completely flexible.

Now take YOUR head out of your ass, you completely
flexible Finn :)

David

[Wayne S. H]

Marcus E Engdahl wrote:

> In article
> <N_du9.4174$6F4.393295@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> David Cohen <sammiesdad@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>"Marcus E Engdahl" <mengdahl@cc.hut.fi> wrote
>
>>> There is connective tissue inside every muscle. That
>>> tissue can and should be stretched, not ligaments or
>>> tendons.
>
>>I'd be interested in knowing how one goes about stretching
>>that "inside' connective tissue without stretching the
>>tendons that attach it to the bone, and the ligaments that
>>hold the joints together on either side of the muscle.
>
> The stretch is done slowly and conservatively so that the
> muscle will stretch (because it is softer) and the tendons
> and ligaments do not.

The connective tissue is more likely to permanently deform in
this situation than the muscle.

-Wayne

[Keith Hobm]

In article <apehm9$tvhk$1@midnight.cs.hut.fi>,
mengdahl@cc.hut.fi (Marcus E Engdahl) wrote:

> In article
> <JDyu9.6252$Fj6.551700@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> David Cohen <sammiesdad@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >"Marcus E Engdahl" <mengdahl@cc.hut.fi> wrote
>
> >> Completely? You could stick their heads in their asses or
> >> what?
>
> >Are you defining "completely flexible" as "if the body was
> >made of soft rubber"? If so, I'll leave the absurd
> >discussion now.
>
> >If by "completely flexible", you mean flexible within the
> >constraints of the skeletal system, yes, they were
> >completely flexible.
>
> I'm not saying that I don't believe you, I'd just like to
> know what you did to these people (or, on second thoughts,
> maybe not). So they could do the splits easily both ways?
> Cross both feet behind head? Make a full bridge with
> straight arms and legs? Lotus position was not a problem?
> What exatly could their bodies do?

Any of those things. Easily.

--
Keith Hobman

[Keith Hobm]

In article <apeldr$tvhk$2@midnight.cs.hut.fi>,
mengdahl@cc.hut.fi (Marcus E Engdahl) wrote:

> In article <Xns92B38872393AC8ch@130.133.1.4>, Wayne S. Hill
> <hillw4@asme.org> wrote:
> >Marcus E Engdahl wrote:
>
> >>>I'd be interested in knowing how one goes about
> >>>stretching that "inside' connective tissue without
> >>>stretching the tendons that attach it to the bone, and
> >>>the ligaments that hold the joints together on either
> >>>side of the muscle.
>
> >> The stretch is done slowly and conservatively so that the
> >> muscle will stretch (because it is softer) and the
> >> tendons and ligaments do not.
>
> >The connective tissue is more likely to permanently deform
> >in this situation than the muscle.
>
> Why, because muscles don't deform permanently unless they
> tear? Well, isn't that the case also when you use muscles?
> Now the thread has deteriorated to a level where we have
> proved that both strething and using muscles is baaad, since
> the connective tissue in more likely to deform permanently?
> Or am I missing something?

Yeah.

Undergrad Biology. You don't have a clue about basic biology.

--
Keith Hobman

[Marcus E E]

In article <khobman-2610021221320001@192.168.0.2>, Keith
Hobman <khobman@sasktelNOSPAM.net> wrote:
>mengdahl@cc.hut.fi (Marcus E Engdahl) wrote:

>> I'm not saying that I don't believe you, I'd just like
>> to know
>what you
>> did to these people (or, on second thoughts, maybe not). So
>they could do
>> the splits easily both ways? Cross both feet behind head?
>> Make a full bridge with straight arms and legs? Lotus
>> position was not a
>problem? What
>> exatly could their bodies do?

>Any of those things. Easily.

Really? Could you please provide some links?

Marcus

[Lucas Buck]

On Sat, 26 Oct 2002 15:36:09 GMT, "David Cohen"
<sammiesdad@earthlink.net> wrote:

>
>"Marcus E Engdahl" <mengdahl@cc.hut.fi> wrote
>> David Cohen <sammiesdad@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Of course it's not the ONLY factor, but it is so much the
>overwhelming
>> >factor, the other factors are VERY minor.
>>
>> Maybe, but can you find something on the web that
>> says that?
>>
>> >I have picked up...literally picked up...thousands of
>> >unconscious humans. They are COMPLETELY flexible. And the
>> >550 pound one was NOT fun.
>>
>> Completely? You could stick their heads in their asses
>> or what?
>
>Are you defining "completely flexible" as "if the body was
>made of soft rubber"? If so, I'll leave the absurd
>discussion now.
>
>If by "completely flexible", you mean flexible within the
>constraints of the skeletal system, yes, they were completely
>flexible.
>
>Now take YOUR head out of your ass, you completely
>flexible Finn :)

By the accent, he sounds more like he's an ethnic Swede,
living in Finland.

Which would still make him smarter than Bjorn.

>David

[Keith Hobm]

In article <apff8h$u0d3$1@midnight.cs.hut.fi>,
mengdahl@cc.hut.fi (Marcus E Engdahl) wrote:

> In article <khobman-2610021221320001@192.168.0.2>, Keith
> Hobman <khobman@sasktelNOSPAM.net> wrote:
> >mengdahl@cc.hut.fi (Marcus E Engdahl) wrote:
>
> >> I'm not saying that I don't believe you, I'd just like
> >> to know
> >what you
> >> did to these people (or, on second thoughts, maybe
> >> not). So
> >they could do
> >> the splits easily both ways? Cross both feet behind head?
> >> Make a full bridge with straight arms and legs? Lotus
> >> position was not a
> >problem? What
> >> exatly could their bodies do?
>
> >Any of those things. Easily.
>
> Really? Could you please provide some links?

Already told you. I'm not doing the work for you. This isn't
radical stuff.

Tell you what. Go find a buddy and get him drunk. Passed out
drunk. Then grab his belt and try lifting him by the belt when
he is unconscious. Watch what happens.

--
Keith Hobman

We who are about to squat salute you! (Lyle McDonald)

[Marcus E E]

In article <khobman-2610022328550001@192.168.1.100>, Keith
Hobman <khobman@sk.sympaticoNOSPAM.ca> wrote:
>In article <apff8h$u0d3$1@midnight.cs.hut.fi>,
>mengdahl@cc.hut.fi (Marcus E Engdahl) wrote:

>> Really? Could you please provide some links?

>Already told you. I'm not doing the work for you. This isn't
>radical stuff.

It's radical enough that I cannot find any suitable links
about it, and I'm a Google-Guru. Couldn't find anything in the
Merck Manual either. The best source is still the Stretching
and Flexibility FAQ by Brad Appleton:

http://www.enteract.com/~bradapp/docs/rec/stretching/

Marcus

[Wayne S. H]

Marcus E Engdahl wrote:

> It's radical enough that I cannot find any suitable links
> about it, and I'm a Google-Guru. Couldn't find anything in
> the Merck Manual either. The best source is still the
> Stretching and Flexibility FAQ by Brad Appleton:
>
> http://www.enteract.com/~bradapp/docs/rec/stretching/

Just scanning this page (in which he disclaims any medical
training or knowledge about fitness training, and instead
relies on the books he's read), I happened across the
following in Factors Limiting Flexibility (attributed to
Gummerson):

- "the elasticity of tendons and ligaments (ligaments do not
stretch much and tendons should not stretch at all)"

This is rong ($1 to KH). If tendons didn't stretch at all, you
could hardly run or jump or kick or throw a ball. The
visco-elastic properties of tendons are very important to your
performance in all athletic endeavors, and adapt to the
training regimen: different types of athletes have different
connective tissue properties.

You will note, BTW, that there is no mention in this section
of the length of a muscle limiting the flexibility of a joint.
Instead, it says:

- "the ability of a muscle to relax and contract to achieve
the greatest range of movement"

-Wayne

[Seth Breid]

In article <ap86iq$t6po$2@midnight.cs.hut.fi>, Marcus E
Engdahl <mengdahl@cc.hut.fi> wrote:

>I have increased my flexibilty by about 500%
>(stetson-estimate) by practising yoga,

I don't know what that 500% figure means.

> and I haven't been in puberty for 15 years. Some of it might
> be due to reflexes, but I have no reason to doubt that
> connective tissue can be changed through stretching.

It certainly can. Nobody (sensible) would argue against the
possibility of tissue damage.

Seth
--
Who cares? Shut up and lift. -- Watson (the pencil neck) Davis

[Seth Breid]

In article <apbpqf$tu7t$1@midnight.cs.hut.fi>, Marcus E
Engdahl <mengdahl@cc.hut.fi> wrote:

>The named FAQ can be found at many places on the web and it
>is heavily referenced by other web pages.

And besides, they wouldn't be allowed to post it if it weren't
true, right?

> Therefore, I think it is a resonably reliable source
> of information - more so than a book by a guy with a
> funny name.

Now that's a logic disputation, fully worthy of lysis.

>No, I don't get it. I have reasons to believe that the named
>FAQ is correct. If you have some other evidence available on
>the web, please present it, I'd be happy to read it. A
>Medline reference would be best of course....and if it is all
>in a book by J.F.Rastapopoulos or something that I will never
>see, forget it.

Now just where is your medline reference for your FAQ?

Seth
--
Of course, common logic fails to hold up here on mfw, as a
general rule of thumb. -- Lyle McDonald

[Marcus E E]

In article <aphmpv$n34$1@panix5.panix.com>, Seth Breidbart
<sethb@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <ap86iq$t6po$2@midnight.cs.hut.fi>, Marcus E
>Engdahl <mengdahl@cc.hut.fi> wrote:

>>I have increased my flexibilty by about 500%
>>(stetson-estimate) by practising yoga,

>I don't know what that 500% figure means.

It's obvious that you are not familiar with stetson estimates.
They are pulled out of large hats.

>> and I haven't been in puberty for 15 years. Some of it
>> might be due to reflexes, but I have no reason to doubt
>> that connective tissue can be changed through stretching.

>It certainly can. Nobody (sensible) would argue against the
>possibility of tissue damage.

I have no clue what is or is not argued in this thread. Does
somebody have a problem with stretching? Why?

Marcus

[Marcus E E]

In article <aphmsh$n4q$1@panix5.panix.com>, Seth Breidbart
<sethb@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <apbpqf$tu7t$1@midnight.cs.hut.fi>, Marcus E
>Engdahl <mengdahl@cc.hut.fi> wrote:

>>The named FAQ can be found at many places on the web and it
>>is heavily referenced by other web pages.

>And besides, they wouldn't be allowed to post it if it
>weren't true, right?

>> Therefore, I think it is a resonably reliable source
>> of information - more so than a book by a guy with a
>> funny name.

>Now that's a logic disputation, fully worthy of lysis.

Well, if you have to estimate the validity of a web-page
by using only other web-pages, it is necessary to see who
has linked to it. That's how pages are ranked in Google
for example.

>>No, I don't get it. I have reasons to believe that the named
>>FAQ is correct. If you have some other evidence available on
>>the web, please present it, I'd be happy to read it. A
>>Medline reference would be best of course....and if it is
>>all in a book by J.F.Rastapopoulos or something that I will
>>never see, forget it.

>Now just where is your medline reference for your FAQ?

Guys, if you have better informati