|
k.l.k
May 1, 2008, 5:57 PM
Post #176 of 213
(7590 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 9, 2007
Posts: 1190
|
Some of the Austrian sportsmeds have apparently been seeing lots of capsule injuries. They're recommending that you avoid bone-hanging even on routes, at least when training or doing easier stuff. And yeah, keep the shoulder girdle depressed when doing dead hangs or one-arms.
|
|
|
|
|
pijh
May 1, 2008, 6:09 PM
Post #177 of 213
(7570 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 8, 2008
Posts: 14
|
So let me get this straight -
Your saying the opinion of yourself and gabor are sound and well-founded? Do you even know what sound means?
In reply to: Scientists test the validity (truth value) of claims as a matter of routine, using randomized experiments.
Yes! They are testing the truth of the conclusion, and the validity of the claim. Not the validity of the conclusion.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
May 1, 2008, 6:16 PM
Post #178 of 213
(7558 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
pijh wrote: In reply to: Scientists test the validity (truth value) of claims as a matter of routine, using randomized experiments. Yes! They are testing the truth of the conclusion, and the validity of the claim. Not the validity of the conclusion.
Huh?
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
pijh
May 1, 2008, 6:21 PM
Post #179 of 213
(7552 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 8, 2008
Posts: 14
|
Nevermind... just continue calling opinions valid and saying things like my opinion is more valid than yours. I will just laugh.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
May 1, 2008, 6:26 PM
Post #180 of 213
(7539 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
pijh wrote: Nevermind... just continue calling opinions valid and saying things like my opinion is more valid than yours. I will just laugh.
Except that while you are laughing at me, the rest of are laughing at you. Besides I really want to know what the fuck you meant in that last statement, where I responded "Huh?"
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
wanderlustmd
May 1, 2008, 6:31 PM
Post #181 of 213
(7560 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 24, 2006
Posts: 8150
|
pijh wrote: So let me get this straight - Y our saying the opinion of yourself and gabor are sound and well-founded? Do you even know what sound means? In reply to: Scientists test the validity (truth value) of claims as a matter of routine, using randomized experiments. Yes! They are testing the truth of the conclusion, and the validity of the claim. Not the validity of the conclusion.
Jay maybe salty, but he also tends to be right a lot. SCC is a pretty good resource.
OTOH pullups have improved my upper body strength and have helped my climbing in some areas, but PUs are also far from an end all. I'm not an exercise expert, so I'll leave my opinion at that. Whatever works for you....
(This post was edited by wanderlustmd on May 1, 2008, 6:31 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
onceahardman
May 1, 2008, 7:11 PM
Post #182 of 213
(7522 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2007
Posts: 2493
|
In reply to: Would it then be best to train deadhangs in a slightly flexed aspect? Just enough to put the stress into the muscle and not into the joint?
In my opinion, yes. I was a recurrent shoulder dislocator for years. Pure dead hangs remain painful and scary to this day, and I wouldn't even attempt a single arm dead hang. Biomechanically, if you train dead hangs for contact strength, it probably doesn't matter whether your elbows are flexed or not.
I like Joe Friel's assertion, as well. The only caveat I'd add is, it depends a bit on the muscle groups, and the definition of "several" days. If you are an NFL lineman, training quads, hams, and glutes via deadlifts, squats, stiff leg deads, etc., that might take 5-7 days to recover enough to do the same workout.
|
|
|
|
|
onceahardman
May 1, 2008, 7:18 PM
Post #183 of 213
(7515 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2007
Posts: 2493
|
In reply to: Jay maybe salty, but he also tends to be right a lot. SCC is a pretty good resource.
I agree. In fact, in most cases, I tend to agree with him on the science.
Personality-wise, I'd have some other words rather than "salty", but when I insult someone, I do it to his face.
|
|
|
|
|
pijh
May 1, 2008, 7:28 PM
Post #184 of 213
(7501 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 8, 2008
Posts: 14
|
In reply to: Except that while you are laughing at me, the rest of are laughing at you. Besides I really want to know what the fuck you meant in that last statement, where I responded "Huh?"
What I am trying to get across to you is that your definition of validity is wrong. Truth is not the same as validity. Because you corrected someone else by replacing "important" with "valid", i felt compelled to correct you on your incorrect usage of "valid".
By the way, it is impossible for your argument against pull ups to be sound - that would require the evidence (that even you admit is nonexistent) supporting pull ups being detrimental to climbing ability. Of course, you must know this... being that you assert that your opinions are sound and well-founded.
(This post was edited by pijh on May 1, 2008, 7:29 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
onceahardman
May 1, 2008, 7:49 PM
Post #185 of 213
(7476 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2007
Posts: 2493
|
In reply to: He wasn't doing pull-ups, at least not normal pull-ups, at least not what I was referring to as pull-ups.
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
May 1, 2008, 8:05 PM
Post #186 of 213
(7445 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
pijh wrote: In reply to: Except that while you are laughing at me, the rest of are laughing at you. Besides I really want to know what the fuck you meant in that last statement, where I responded "Huh?" What I am trying to get across to you is that your definition of validity is wrong. Truth is not the same as validity. Because you corrected someone else by replacing "important" with "valid", i felt compelled to correct you on your incorrect usage of "valid". By the way, it is impossible for your argument against pull ups to be sound - that would require the evidence (that even you admit is nonexistent) supporting pull ups being detrimental to climbing ability. Of course, you must know this... being that you assert that your opinions are sound and well-founded.
Who was responsible for brainwashing you into believing that the only valid use of the term "valid" is in logic? Take a look at the field of psychometrics, for instance. They have more kinds of validity than Eskimos have words for "snow."
In statistics, validity is a measure of how close to the truth something is (that's a simplified definition, of course). If the truth is that Training Regimen X is best, and Mr. 5.14's training recommendations are closer to Regimen X than Mr. 5.13's are, then Mr. 5.14's training recommendations (ie, his opinion) are more valid. We can even do a study to estimate the validity of Mr. 5.14's recommendations vs. those of Mr. 5.13. We can even quantify the validity of each training regimen using a quantity called the validity coefficient (r), which ranges from 0 to 1; 0 means that the thing being tested has no relation to the truth, 1 means that it is a perfect representation of the truth; values in between are less than perfect, but still valid to some extent. If Mr. 5.14's r is greater than Mr. 5.13's, then Mr. 5.14's opinion is more valid. Sorry if that doesn't go along with what you were taught in Logic 101. Next time try Statistics 501, or more simply, reread the definitions of "validity" from dictionary.com that I have posted twice.
Jay
(This post was edited by jt512 on May 1, 2008, 8:18 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
May 1, 2008, 8:20 PM
Post #187 of 213
(7433 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
onceahardman wrote: In reply to: He wasn't doing pull-ups, at least not normal pull-ups, at least not what I was referring to as pull-ups. 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.' 'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
This, from the guy who decided that campusing is pull-ups.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
onceahardman
May 1, 2008, 8:38 PM
Post #188 of 213
(7417 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2007
Posts: 2493
|
In reply to: In statistics, validity is a measure of how close to the truth something is (that's a simplified definition, of course).
You took stats 501? You think THAT is statistical validity?
"Truth" exists in philosophy and religion.
"statistics" are numbers calculated on sample data that quantifies a characteristic of tha sample. Statistics may be descriptive (regression, correlation) or inferential.(power, ANOVA, etc.)
Stats are not about truth, but about probability. Even at p=.0001, one in ten thousand (on average) will be an outlier.
(This post was edited by onceahardman on May 1, 2008, 8:45 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
onceahardman
May 1, 2008, 8:44 PM
Post #189 of 213
(7413 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2007
Posts: 2493
|
In reply to: This, from the guy who decided that campusing is pull-ups.
another fine straw man. I never said that.
|
|
|
|
|
Johnny_Fang
May 1, 2008, 8:54 PM
Post #190 of 213
(7400 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 19, 2006
Posts: 289
|
i like cheese.
|
|
|
|
|
pijh
May 1, 2008, 9:11 PM
Post #191 of 213
(7389 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 8, 2008
Posts: 14
|
In reply to: Who was responsible for brainwashing you into believing that the only valid use of the term "valid" is in logic?
When put into the context of arguments... like pull ups help climbing. I think it fits. Also, it goes along with what you posted as your "internet definition" of validity (5) of an ARGUMENT:
In reply to: 5. Logic. (of an argument) so constructed that if the premises are jointly asserted, the conclusion cannot be denied without contradiction.
Also,
In reply to: In statistics, validity is a measure of how close to the truth something is (that's a simplified definition, of course). If the truth is that Training Regimen X is best, and Mr. 5.14's training recommendations are closer to Regimen X than Mr. 5.13's are, then Mr. 5.14's training recommendations (ie, his opinion) are more valid. We can even do a study to estimate the validity of Mr. 5.14's recommendations vs. those of Mr. 5.13.
So what you are saying is... when you replaced "important" with "valid" you were referring to the study conducted on your opinion vs his that revealed an r coefficient of 1 for yours and 0 for his? Of course! That would allow you to then say your opinion is more "valid" than his, however, I don't think that was your intent... as it is obvious you have not conducted such a study. So you then scoured the internet looking for a definition of "valid" that would fit with what you said... even if it then made you contradict your previous words.
Your opinion (and mine) is still false, statistically invalid, whatever you prefer to call it. I like: untested.
Perhaps to end this debate we should collect a sample of the people on rc.com and test the statistical validity of pull ups predicting climbing grade? Or simply test the Granger causality?... I bet it would be significant both ways!
|
|
|
|
|
onceahardman
May 1, 2008, 9:13 PM
Post #192 of 213
(7387 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2007
Posts: 2493
|
Sorry, everybody, about getting caught up in this argument again. I've had enough. I'm still happy to answer questions if anybody has any, though.
Cheers!
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
May 1, 2008, 9:34 PM
Post #193 of 213
(7365 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
onceahardman wrote: In reply to: In statistics, validity is a measure of how close to the truth something is (that's a simplified definition, of course). You took stats 501? You think THAT is statistical validity? "Truth" exists in philosophy and religion. "statistics" are numbers calculated on sample data that quantifies a characteristic of tha sample. Statistics may be descriptive (regression, correlation) or inferential.(power, ANOVA, etc.) Stats are not about truth, but about probability. Even at p=.0001, one in ten thousand (on average) will be an outlier.
You are such a fucking idiot. Such a fucking idiot.
(This post was edited by jt512 on May 1, 2008, 9:44 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
May 1, 2008, 9:35 PM
Post #194 of 213
(7360 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
pijh wrote: In reply to: Who was responsible for brainwashing you into believing that the only valid use of the term "valid" is in logic? When put into the context of arguments... like pull ups help climbing. I think it fits. Also, it goes along with what you posted as your "internet definition" of validity (5) of an ARGUMENT: In reply to: 5. Logic. (of an argument) so constructed that if the premises are jointly asserted, the conclusion cannot be denied without contradiction. Also, In reply to: In statistics, validity is a measure of how close to the truth something is (that's a simplified definition, of course). If the truth is that Training Regimen X is best, and Mr. 5.14's training recommendations are closer to Regimen X than Mr. 5.13's are, then Mr. 5.14's training recommendations (ie, his opinion) are more valid. We can even do a study to estimate the validity of Mr. 5.14's recommendations vs. those of Mr. 5.13. So what you are saying is... when you replaced "important" with "valid" you were referring to the study conducted on your opinion vs his that revealed an r coefficient of 1 for yours and 0 for his? Of course! That would allow you to then say your opinion is more "valid" than his, however, I don't think that was your intent... as it is obvious you have not conducted such a study. So you then scoured the internet looking for a definition of "valid" that would fit with what you said... even if it then made you contradict your previous words. Your opinion (and mine) is still false, statistically invalid, whatever you prefer to call it. I like: untested. Perhaps to end this debate we should collect a sample of the people on rc.com and test the statistical validity of pull ups predicting climbing grade? Or simply test the Granger causality?... I bet it would be significant both ways!
Why, when I post to this website, do I still expect not to be surrounded by morons?
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
Adrian_Falcus
May 1, 2008, 9:51 PM
Post #195 of 213
(7337 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 16, 2007
Posts: 31
|
I cannot believe this thread is still alive, or that I have continued to read it from the start. I think the only definitive conclusion reached thus far is that jt has the ability to crumble brick walls by arguing with them.
|
|
|
|
|
gunkiemike
May 1, 2008, 11:18 PM
Post #196 of 213
(7291 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 1, 2002
Posts: 2266
|
onceahardman wrote: "Truth" exists in philosophy and religion. "statistics" are numbers calculated on sample data that quantifies a characteristic of tha sample. Statistics may be descriptive (regression, correlation) or inferential.(power, ANOVA, etc.) Stats are not about truth, but about probability. Even at p=.0001, one in ten thousand (on average) will be an outlier.
"You can't handle the truth!"
M.
|
|
|
|
|
jsunmatthews
May 1, 2008, 11:36 PM
Post #197 of 213
(7282 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 18, 2005
Posts: 89
|
Looks like amidst all this shit there's some good info for you Stagg. Dunno if this one is also on there (not going to read all 200 posts) but I do this a lot and it helps both my pull ups and my climbing. Hanging is great for shoulder and back strength. Grasp the bar with both hands straight arm. Let go with one arm and hang for 10 seconds. Then switch for ten. Go back and forth until failure. You'll find this really strengthens your shoulders and back, as well as your hand strength. All of these aid in your pull up routine, and it can serve as a nice low impact alternative to some of the other stuff on here. I also really like the pyramid routine mentioned earlier in this forum.
|
|
|
|
|
boadman
May 2, 2008, 12:35 AM
Post #198 of 213
(7263 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 7, 2003
Posts: 726
|
Campus training is most effective when focused on your fore-arms. If you're training your shoulders/biceps to failure while campusing, then you're on holds that are too big. I have a female friend who cannot do a single pull-up, and has climbed 5.13 sport and 5.12 trad. Steve McClure, one of the strongest most well rounded climbers out there can barely do 10. The majority of strong climbers would agree that they fail on difficult routes because their fingers aren't strong enough.
onceahardman wrote: In reply to: The material in SCC is based on well-established kinesiologic principles, which have been studied scientifically, motion studies of climbers, and principles of exercise physiology. Really have to watch the pea under the thimble, folks, the burden has shifted from "objectivity" to "subjectivity"... Speaking of "well-established kineologic principles", why are you unwilling to consider the moment arm of the humerus on the glenoid fossa during a pullup (which you dislike), in comparison to campusing (which you recommend)? |
|
|
|
|
curt
May 2, 2008, 2:59 AM
Post #199 of 213
(7231 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
jt512 wrote: pijh wrote: In reply to: Who was responsible for brainwashing you into believing that the only valid use of the term "valid" is in logic? When put into the context of arguments... like pull ups help climbing. I think it fits. Also, it goes along with what you posted as your "internet definition" of validity (5) of an ARGUMENT: In reply to: 5. Logic. (of an argument) so constructed that if the premises are jointly asserted, the conclusion cannot be denied without contradiction. Also, In reply to: In statistics, validity is a measure of how close to the truth something is (that's a simplified definition, of course). If the truth is that Training Regimen X is best, and Mr. 5.14's training recommendations are closer to Regimen X than Mr. 5.13's are, then Mr. 5.14's training recommendations (ie, his opinion) are more valid. We can even do a study to estimate the validity of Mr. 5.14's recommendations vs. those of Mr. 5.13. So what you are saying is... when you replaced "important" with "valid" you were referring to the study conducted on your opinion vs his that revealed an r coefficient of 1 for yours and 0 for his? Of course! That would allow you to then say your opinion is more "valid" than his, however, I don't think that was your intent... as it is obvious you have not conducted such a study. So you then scoured the internet looking for a definition of "valid" that would fit with what you said... even if it then made you contradict your previous words. Your opinion (and mine) is still false, statistically invalid, whatever you prefer to call it. I like: untested. Perhaps to end this debate we should collect a sample of the people on rc.com and test the statistical validity of pull ups predicting climbing grade? Or simply test the Granger causality?... I bet it would be significant both ways! Why, when I post to this website, do I still expect not to be surrounded by morons? Jay
Well, they do claim that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and still expecting a different outcome.
Curt
(This post was edited by curt on May 2, 2008, 3:00 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
May 2, 2008, 3:03 AM
Post #200 of 213
(7228 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
curt wrote: jt512 wrote: pijh wrote: In reply to: Who was responsible for brainwashing you into believing that the only valid use of the term "valid" is in logic? When put into the context of arguments... like pull ups help climbing. I think it fits. Also, it goes along with what you posted as your "internet definition" of validity (5) of an ARGUMENT: In reply to: 5. Logic. (of an argument) so constructed that if the premises are jointly asserted, the conclusion cannot be denied without contradiction. Also, In reply to: In statistics, validity is a measure of how close to the truth something is (that's a simplified definition, of course). If the truth is that Training Regimen X is best, and Mr. 5.14's training recommendations are closer to Regimen X than Mr. 5.13's are, then Mr. 5.14's training recommendations (ie, his opinion) are more valid. We can even do a study to estimate the validity of Mr. 5.14's recommendations vs. those of Mr. 5.13. So what you are saying is... when you replaced "important" with "valid" you were referring to the study conducted on your opinion vs his that revealed an r coefficient of 1 for yours and 0 for his? Of course! That would allow you to then say your opinion is more "valid" than his, however, I don't think that was your intent... as it is obvious you have not conducted such a study. So you then scoured the internet looking for a definition of "valid" that would fit with what you said... even if it then made you contradict your previous words. Your opinion (and mine) is still false, statistically invalid, whatever you prefer to call it. I like: untested. Perhaps to end this debate we should collect a sample of the people on rc.com and test the statistical validity of pull ups predicting climbing grade? Or simply test the Granger causality?... I bet it would be significant both ways! Why, when I post to this website, do I still expect not to be surrounded by morons? Jay Well, they do claim that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and still expecting different outcome. Curt
That's it then. This site has finally driven me mad.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: [angry] pullups
[
