Introduction

Art S wrote:

> I just got VERY frustrated some time ago because there was one lady
who
> kept holding Nelson's books up as good examples of how to exercise.
> And I had to reply to either Lynne's post or yours. 50-50 chance.

She does at least emphasize form. And she does at least promote
exercise, and specifically strength training. And at least she isn't
promoting that "high-rep, low weights for LONG, LEAN muscles" CRAP that
makes me want to SCREAM.

But great weight lifting advice it isn't.

Lynne
 >> Stay informed about: Introduction 

Art S wrote:
> "elzinator" <elzinator.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1108647862.253960.246090@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Art S wrote:
> > >
> > > I just got VERY frustrated some time ago because there was one
lady
> > who
> > > kept holding Nelson's books up as good examples of how to
exercise.
> >
> > There are few good comprehensive exercise books for women on the
mass
> > market level. And from their base level lack of knowledge and
> > experience, I can see how they easily subscribe to the dogma of one
> > author or the other. Regardless, keep in mind it's all relative. A
> > colleague here is a very petite woman, for which a 10-lb dumbbell
*is*
> > heavy. She knows that her relative strength (or lack of) is not the
> > same for everyone. But then she's also a PhD and intelligent enough
to
> > not project her limitations on others.
> >
> > People tend to be narrow minded. It's the 'One Size Fits All'
syndrome.
> >
>
> Different definitions of "heavy." You are thinking "heavy" means
that
> the exerciser either can't lift the weight using good form for the
number
> of sets and reps desired *now*. In the book, she says not to go
higher
> than 25 lb dumbbells (I think that was for young males doing squats
and
> lunges, and it was only 10 lbs for females) due to risk of injury.
>
> Her web site leaves out a lot, but if you look at
> http://www.strongwomen.com/strong_bones/SB_essentials.asp, note that
> necessary equipment is a pair of 3 lb dumbbells, a pair of 5 lb
dumbbells,
> and 10 lb ankle weights. She hints at when to increase the weight,
without
> being explicit, and calls 5 - 8 lb dumbbells indicitive of exercising
"hard".
> This implies that there is no reason to go beyond 8 lbs - the
equipment isn't
> needed and the exercise being done is "hard", so why make it more
difficult?
>
> How many women do you know that have a valid lifetime maximum safe
> weight of 8 lb dumbbells?

That *is* pretty wimpy. I suppose that there may be some very frail
people who will never manage more. But they are probably already 95 an
weigh 87 pounds.

I no longer have the book, but I notice that her site doesn't even have
the "Stay Young" program. Interesting that, as I recall, the equipment
was 5, 10 and 15 pound dumbbells and 20 pound ankle weights. In fact, I
remember her cautioning against buying 10 pound ankle weights because
you would outgrow them too quickly. She said 3 pound dbs if you really
needed them (as I recall -- I may be wrong). I never looked at strong
bones, but how could you need LESS for strong bones? She does seem to
be contradicting herself.

She convinced me that I needed weight training. Even that actually
being strong was an attainable goal. But I did move on and find other
sources of information. And I do have a functioning BS meter.

Lynne
 >> Stay informed about: Introduction 

Art S wrote:
> "elzinator" <elzinator DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1108647862.253960.246090@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Art S wrote:
> > >
> > > I just got VERY frustrated some time ago because there was one
lady
> > who
> > > kept holding Nelson's books up as good examples of how to
exercise.
> >
> > There are few good comprehensive exercise books for women on the
mass
> > market level. And from their base level lack of knowledge and
> > experience, I can see how they easily subscribe to the dogma of one
> > author or the other. Regardless, keep in mind it's all relative. A
> > colleague here is a very petite woman, for which a 10-lb dumbbell
*is*
> > heavy. She knows that her relative strength (or lack of) is not the
> > same for everyone. But then she's also a PhD and intelligent enough
to
> > not project her limitations on others.
> >
> > People tend to be narrow minded. It's the 'One Size Fits All'
syndrome.
> >
>
> Different definitions of "heavy." You are thinking "heavy" means
that
> the exerciser either can't lift the weight using good form for the
number
> of sets and reps desired *now*. In the book, she says not to go
higher
> than 25 lb dumbbells (I think that was for young males doing squats
and
> lunges, and it was only 10 lbs for females) due to risk of injury.

That's moronic.

> Her web site leaves out a lot, but if you look at
> http://www.strongwomen.com/strong_bones/SB_essentials.asp, note that
> necessary equipment is a pair of 3 lb dumbbells, a pair of 5 lb
dumbbells,
> and 10 lb ankle weights. She hints at when to increase the weight,
without
> being explicit, and calls 5 - 8 lb dumbbells indicitive of exercising
"hard".
> This implies that there is no reason to go beyond 8 lbs - the
equipment isn't
> needed and the exercise being done is "hard", so why make it more
difficult?

Okay, that's just plain ignorant and stupid.
 >> Stay informed about: Introduction 

"elzinator" <elzinator.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1108647862.253960.246090@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Art S wrote:
> >
> > I just got VERY frustrated some time ago because there was one lady
> who
> > kept holding Nelson's books up as good examples of how to exercise.
>
> There are few good comprehensive exercise books for women on the mass
> market level. And from their base level lack of knowledge and
> experience, I can see how they easily subscribe to the dogma of one
> author or the other. Regardless, keep in mind it's all relative. A
> colleague here is a very petite woman, for which a 10-lb dumbbell *is*
> heavy. She knows that her relative strength (or lack of) is not the
> same for everyone. But then she's also a PhD and intelligent enough to
> not project her limitations on others.
>
> People tend to be narrow minded. It's the 'One Size Fits All' syndrome.
>

Different definitions of "heavy." You are thinking "heavy" means that
the exerciser either can't lift the weight using good form for the number
of sets and reps desired *now*. In the book, she says not to go higher
than 25 lb dumbbells (I think that was for young males doing squats and
lunges, and it was only 10 lbs for females) due to risk of injury.

Her web site leaves out a lot, but if you look at
http://www.strongwomen.com/strong_bones/SB_essentials.asp, note that
necessary equipment is a pair of 3 lb dumbbells, a pair of 5 lb dumbbells,
and 10 lb ankle weights. She hints at when to increase the weight, without
being explicit, and calls 5 - 8 lb dumbbells indicitive of exercising "hard".
This implies that there is no reason to go beyond 8 lbs - the equipment isn't
needed and the exercise being done is "hard", so why make it more difficult?

How many women do you know that have a valid lifetime maximum safe
weight of 8 lb dumbbells?

Art
 >> Stay informed about: Introduction 

"Lynne" <ilynne.DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1108660140.602571.74000@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> Art S wrote:
> >
> > How many women do you know that have a valid lifetime maximum safe
> > weight of 8 lb dumbbells?
>
> That *is* pretty wimpy. I suppose that there may be some very frail
> people who will never manage more. But they are probably already 95 an
> weigh 87 pounds.
>
> I no longer have the book, but I notice that her site doesn't even have
> the "Stay Young" program. Interesting that, as I recall, the equipment
> was 5, 10 and 15 pound dumbbells and 20 pound ankle weights. In fact, I
> remember her cautioning against buying 10 pound ankle weights because
> you would outgrow them too quickly. She said 3 pound dbs if you really
> needed them (as I recall -- I may be wrong). I never looked at strong
> bones, but how could you need LESS for strong bones? She does seem to
> be contradicting herself.
>
> She convinced me that I needed weight training. Even that actually
> being strong was an attainable goal. But I did move on and find other
> sources of information. And I do have a functioning BS meter.

If she claimed her routines were for beginners, or gave more explicit
information about how and when to increase the weight without providing
the limit she does, I would have far less objections to her web site and
books.

Glad to hear that you progressed beyond her recommendations.

>
> Lynne
>

Art
 >> Stay informed about: Introduction 

"elzinator" <elzinator.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1108662170.195579.300630@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Art S wrote:
> > "elzinator" <elzinator.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1108647862.253960.246090@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > Art S wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I just got VERY frustrated some time ago because there was one
> lady
> > > who
> > > > kept holding Nelson's books up as good examples of how to
> exercise.
> > >
> > > There are few good comprehensive exercise books for women on the
> mass
> > > market level. And from their base level lack of knowledge and
> > > experience, I can see how they easily subscribe to the dogma of one
> > > author or the other. Regardless, keep in mind it's all relative. A
> > > colleague here is a very petite woman, for which a 10-lb dumbbell
> *is*
> > > heavy. She knows that her relative strength (or lack of) is not the
> > > same for everyone. But then she's also a PhD and intelligent enough
> to
> > > not project her limitations on others.
> > >
> > > People tend to be narrow minded. It's the 'One Size Fits All'
> syndrome.
> > >
> >
> > Different definitions of "heavy." You are thinking "heavy" means
> that
> > the exerciser either can't lift the weight using good form for the
> number
> > of sets and reps desired *now*. In the book, she says not to go
> higher
> > than 25 lb dumbbells (I think that was for young males doing squats
> and
> > lunges, and it was only 10 lbs for females) due to risk of injury.
>
> That's moronic.

Unh-hunh.

The impression I got when I read her book is that she took some of
the standard exercises done during aerobics back in the 80's and some of
the rehab exercises done at home by older people (sit down, stand up, sit
down, stand up. You can do that? Good. Do it again, with a 1 lb. dumbbell.)
and oriented them towards out-of-shape older women (60 - 80 years old) who
wouldn't go to the gym or buy much in the way of gym equipment, and then
tried to apply the same information to everybody to increase her target audience.
(At least that is the only way I could come up with some of the exercises she
promotes.)

And, unfortunately, she never considered the assumptions she was keeping when
she changed her target audience.

>
> > Her web site leaves out a lot, but if you look at
> > http://www.strongwomen.com/strong_bones/SB_essentials.asp, note that
> > necessary equipment is a pair of 3 lb dumbbells, a pair of 5 lb
> dumbbells,
> > and 10 lb ankle weights. She hints at when to increase the weight,
> without
> > being explicit, and calls 5 - 8 lb dumbbells indicitive of exercising
> "hard".
> > This implies that there is no reason to go beyond 8 lbs - the
> equipment isn't
> > needed and the exercise being done is "hard", so why make it more
> difficult?
>
> Okay, that's just plain ignorant and stupid.
>

And THAT is why I react to her books the way I do.

Art
 >> Stay informed about: Introduction 

Art S wrote:
> "elzinator" <elzinator.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> > Okay, that's just plain ignorant and stupid.
> >
>
> And THAT is why I react to her books the way I do.

Ditto.
 >> Stay informed about: Introduction 

Art S wrote:
> The impression I got when I read her book is that she took some of
> the standard exercises done during aerobics back in the 80's and some
of
> the rehab exercises done at home by older people (sit down, stand up,
sit
> down, stand up. You can do that? Good. Do it again, with a 1 lb.
dumbbell.)
> and oriented them towards out-of-shape older women (60 - 80 years
old) who
> wouldn't go to the gym or buy much in the way of gym equipment, and
then
> tried to apply the same information to everybody to increase her
target audience.
> (At least that is the only way I could come up with some of the
exercises she
> promotes.)
>
> And, unfortunately, she never considered the assumptions she was
keeping when
> she changed her target audience.

She is a *nutritionist*, which should explain a lot.

Most people (in the US, anyway) don't exercise AT ALL. When I say "I
have to go to the gym first," a frequent response is: "You don't have
to go EVERY DAY, you know." I don't. I go 6 days a week. *Most* of my
co-workers are fat and out of shape. And I work at a university that
only offers sports-related degrees. We can barely get a couple of
people to dust off their bicycles and ride a few miles.

If she gets some people to do SOMETHING and a few of them (like me)
actually move on, then she's not evil. She did a damn good job of
convincing me that I needed strength training. But no WAY am I going to
hold up her wimpy workouts as good examples of weight lifting. I only
read the one book, sounds like her other workouts got worse.
 >> Stay informed about: Introduction