> This has nothing at all to do with strength training.
Their first criteria for exercise selection was to "promote strength development for all major muscle groups of the body".
As for developing short term fatigue resistance (as opposed to straight up endurance), kettlebells are excellent. My favourite tool for such a job: compact, widely available, and evil.
> And I don't see why you would argue against increasing strength at the joint angle. It's very important for people with the potential for joint pain or injury to strengthen supporting muscles around the joint.
Because joints move through, and must support load, at a variety of angles. Being really really good at a particular 10 degree band is not very useful for most folk.
> It seems like everything i've seen concerning athletic performance is based on cherry-picked ideas distributed by non-scientists.
Well in their defence, sports science sucks. Like software engineering research and for the same reasons: small and biased samples, poor experiment design and not much funding to fix either.
Yep. So does nutritional science and anything else that involves measuring humans over long periods of time. It's expensive and we make lousy lab rats.
>>Because joints move through, and must support load, at a variety of angles. Being really really good at a particular 10 degree band is not very useful for most folk.
This is so true it bears repeating. A lot of people who focus on limited joint angle strength end up injured when they work their muscles beyond the angles that they are trained for.
A lot of people don't ever get a trainer to show them the right way to do things and get hurt. The people who do learn the right way will find benefit in isometric training. Telling everyone to ignore it benefits neither group.
It's certainly important to exercise muscles with a full range of motion, but even people who don't do isometrics hardly ever train to their full range. Watching people at gyms do push-ups, pull-ups, squats, lunges, hell even lat raises with only a specific range of motion is sad.
Isometrics are a specialist tool, they don't make much sense for the general case. Turning to them first is like saying "gee, our web server is a bit slow. Let's tinker with making cron run faster".
>Because joints move through, and must support load, at a variety of angles. Being really really good at a particular 10 degree band is not very useful for most folk.
And this is part of why you see bulgy weightlifting types at the rock climbing gym getting shown up by skinny "DYEL" types.
Their first criteria for exercise selection was to "promote strength development for all major muscle groups of the body".
As for developing short term fatigue resistance (as opposed to straight up endurance), kettlebells are excellent. My favourite tool for such a job: compact, widely available, and evil.
> And I don't see why you would argue against increasing strength at the joint angle. It's very important for people with the potential for joint pain or injury to strengthen supporting muscles around the joint.
Because joints move through, and must support load, at a variety of angles. Being really really good at a particular 10 degree band is not very useful for most folk.
> It seems like everything i've seen concerning athletic performance is based on cherry-picked ideas distributed by non-scientists.
Well in their defence, sports science sucks. Like software engineering research and for the same reasons: small and biased samples, poor experiment design and not much funding to fix either.