Professional Soldiers ® - View Single Post

Blitzzz (RIP) · 05-13-2010, 23:10

Sadly, What your statements say aren't related to Blitzing.

"How does Blitzing "increase strength while maintaining velocity" when your starting weights are only 33% of 1RM? I quote my third paragraph: "neural innervation by the CNS and recruitment of muscle fibers is best achieved at 50-60% of 1RM."This is statement some other system of exercise. Your system isn't presenting the required stimulus for CNS innervation, at least not until an athlete's weights are increased to 50% of 1RM. This is an uninformed assumption, what do you base this assumption on.That could take a very long time, given your preoccupation with maintaining velocity.In this statement you suggest it taking a long time, again you couldn't know.

I have provided actual scientific critisms, based off of facts (College-level textbooks, even), of your program, which you refuse to address.Here you've provided nothing but criticims of this program. Of course, it's quite easy to just brush aside pesky science as being too "standard" or even "petty" and not "cutting edge" enough to provide an explanation for your system's supposed "effectiveness." Not brushing off science as petty, just pettiness.It's hard to believe in a system whose author cannot or will not provide hard, empirical evidence of its effectiveness and efficiency. I have nothing against you personally, and as I've said, I can definitely see a rehab application for your system with regards to restoring joint function, but your outlandish claims of it being "the ONLY truly new, BEST system for providing strength, power, and endurance" make me pause and take a look at the facts behind it.Hard to believe doesn't mean it doesn't work as claimed, only that you don't believe. What sort of "rehab" do you have experience to see rehab applications. While my claims may seem "outlandish" you can't provide any alternative system to deliver what I have claimed, and the best "empirical evidence" for you would be to do it for only 4 weeks to know a substantial gain. Presently tests will be run and I already know the outcomes as I have watched it unfailing in all aspect for over 18 years

It's hard to dispute a video of an athlete putting up 300lbs. in a barbell back squat 80 times in a minute. It's easy to dispute the dismissal of any and all criticisms of the system as "they just don't understand." Personally, I find that kind of attitude to be condescending and insulting, especially given my displayed understanding of multiple aspects of exercise science. Instead of calling us simpletons "knuckle draggers" and leaving it at that, show us something we CAN understand, like a video. Or a peer-reviewed study. Or... anything, really. You seem to be the only "we" making bold accusations and indicating me a liar.

This is likely to be the last time I bother to waste time on your nah saying. Post what you wish maybe some of it will actually address this system of exercise.

My apologies to the remainder of persons involved with this thread this is the last of my involvement with this pissing contest. Major unproductive time.

05-13-2010, 23:10	#264
Blitzzz (RIP) Quiet Professional Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Nashville Posts: 956	Sadly, What your statements say aren't related to Blitzing. "How does Blitzing "increase strength while maintaining velocity" when your starting weights are only 33% of 1RM? I quote my third paragraph: "neural innervation by the CNS and recruitment of muscle fibers is best achieved at 50-60% of 1RM."This is statement some other system of exercise. Your system isn't presenting the required stimulus for CNS innervation, at least not until an athlete's weights are increased to 50% of 1RM. This is an uninformed assumption, what do you base this assumption on.That could take a very long time, given your preoccupation with maintaining velocity.In this statement you suggest it taking a long time, again you couldn't know. I have provided actual scientific critisms, based off of facts (College-level textbooks, even), of your program, which you refuse to address.Here you've provided nothing but criticims of this program. Of course, it's quite easy to just brush aside pesky science as being too "standard" or even "petty" and not "cutting edge" enough to provide an explanation for your system's supposed "effectiveness." Not brushing off science as petty, just pettiness.It's hard to believe in a system whose author cannot or will not provide hard, empirical evidence of its effectiveness and efficiency. I have nothing against you personally, and as I've said, I can definitely see a rehab application for your system with regards to restoring joint function, but your outlandish claims of it being "the ONLY truly new, BEST system for providing strength, power, and endurance" make me pause and take a look at the facts behind it.Hard to believe doesn't mean it doesn't work as claimed, only that you don't believe. What sort of "rehab" do you have experience to see rehab applications. While my claims may seem "outlandish" you can't provide any alternative system to deliver what I have claimed, and the best "empirical evidence" for you would be to do it for only 4 weeks to know a substantial gain. Presently tests will be run and I already know the outcomes as I have watched it unfailing in all aspect for over 18 years It's hard to dispute a video of an athlete putting up 300lbs. in a barbell back squat 80 times in a minute. It's easy to dispute the dismissal of any and all criticisms of the system as "they just don't understand." Personally, I find that kind of attitude to be condescending and insulting, especially given my displayed understanding of multiple aspects of exercise science. Instead of calling us simpletons "knuckle draggers" and leaving it at that, show us something we CAN understand, like a video. Or a peer-reviewed study. Or... anything, really. You seem to be the only "we" making bold accusations and indicating me a liar. This is likely to be the last time I bother to waste time on your nah saying. Post what you wish maybe some of it will actually address this system of exercise. My apologies to the remainder of persons involved with this thread this is the last of my involvement with this pissing contest. Major unproductive time. __________________ The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. Thomas Jefferson To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical. Thomas Jefferson Last edited by Blitzzz (RIP); 05-13-2010 at 23:12.
Blitzzz (RIP) is offline