Second, ad hominems are valid when they address the credibility of someone.
Two strikes. One more and you\\\'re out.
That statement is an open renunciation of logic. You just loudly and arrogantly announced your refusal to think rationally.
Second, ad hominems are valid when they address the credibility of someone.
Two strikes. One more and you\\\'re out.
That statement is an open renunciation of logic. You just loudly and arrogantly announced your refusal to think rationally.
My gosh he is a horrible writer.
I agree that "core" is a vague term. His point about training the entire body is accurate (I would include training for power and not just strength for a golfer). Heck at the end he even admits that training the "core" is a good idea just not at the expense of the whole body.
runnerwhoprofesses wrote:
If one can hoist the Sunday paper and take out the garbage, one is fine.
That's a pretty low bar. I have a 400-pound neighbor who can do that, and he's not fine.
Brian Gates wrote:
Unbalanced wrote:Not okay, Brian. Where is your substantiation of your mere assertions? You've failed to lift your assertions to the level of argumentation due to lack of supporting evidence. Goodness, I've long thought that an emphasis on "core" is misplaced, so we agree there. But please give some evidence that balance and dynamic activities are ~"gimmicks, totally worthless."
The evidence is eloquently stated by a Registered Dietician in this short video:
http://youtu.be/oHg5SJYRHA0
Don't follow that link unless you wish to be Rick-Rolled. You are quite short on evidence, Brian.
Friend, I think we have different understandings of the meaning of the word "eloquent".
What exercise engages the core muscles in a way that is most relevant in the context of running? It is running itself.
If you want to improve your core strength in order to run faster, just run more.