- Active Posts:
- 1,114 (0.34 per day)
- Most Active In:
- The Lounge (742 posts)
- 01-February 05
- Profile Views:
- Last Active:
- Feb 16 2012 10:08 PM
- Member Title:
- 26 years old
- June 18, 1987
Posts I've Made
18 January 2010 - 05:40 PMi kno i can tell a difference when i wear crappy shoes as opposed to my main runnin shoes. thats what the gel layer in asics does, spreads the shock threw out the shoe instead of hittin a hard surface and havin it jar up into your leg. granted it wont take all of it away, but some is better than none.
Really? Cause studies show that runners with more expensive shoes are 123% more likely to be injured. (Source)
Don't rely on your shoes to prevent knee and foot injuries, because they won't. Work on form.
But does the study correlate with beginners who are seeking to drop top dollar on brand name running shoes in hope of performance or runners as a whole? One man's runner is another man's weekend walker. The injury can also be that people have crappy training and abuse themselves. Also just about every runner has been injured. I stopped "running" after I was in a car accident and could no longer keep up my 100 mile weeks, but even before this incident, I would be in and out of injury loops due to a multitude of injury and having worked with athletic trainers in the past for research, they'd see just about every runner on the team in the training room at least once during a season for check ups & maintenance... Since they would not call it injury to miss time. PLUS you'd have "beginners" getting "injuries" when they're just aches and pains.
Not to mention on a typical road race or marathon you have people showing up unprepared and untrained and expect to be in the same piece afterward, but this is a different rant.
My personal belief? Before I was ended as a competitive runner I was hardcore about minimalism. I trained in racing flats (and 90% of my usual injuries disappeared, and these were the ones that ENDED seasons) and also trained smarter and longer. Most of the guys on my team called me crazy for doing the mileage I did in flats, but with all the research read and all the research I've done, flats are the way to go and having studied kinesiology you get a better appreciation for things.
BUT for beginner runners with no strength training and no toughness under their belt I would suggest brand name running shoes or to get fitted at a running store (sure they're salesmen but most are competitive runners themselves) AND THEN when they are more of a runner and start to know their body, go down towards a more minimal approach to shoes. When I was in the later stages of my career during warmer months I would do almost all my mileage on a golf course barefooted and racing flats for speedwork and when I couldn't get on a nice golf course. (I've been kicked off several) If a beginner or a casual runner goes to minimalist approach, they'll be done because of injury so fast they wouldn't know what hit them.
08 November 2009 - 08:29 PMThe Tac-8 needs at least 3 mags to be truly effective on the field.
Disagree. For walk on games I'm lucky to even get to my second mag and there's enough down time during scenarios to reload mags that with enough practice and skill 2 mags is all you need. The 3rd is just for piece of mind at times... The last time I brought my 4th mag on the field was the first time I went pistol only for a 24hr scenario and kept thinking I was going to go through all 4 within the first hour. Never did. I don't even remember getting to 4th (extreme reserve) magazine.
Rant about 8+ mag owners
Barrel tags, stealth, and speed are all that's needed. People who complain about the mag prices for Tiberius shouldn't be playing pistol only anyway; you're not going out on the field to carry paint, you're on the field to challenge yourself and not rely on ammo. IMO, the Tiberius markers are about minimalism on the field since everything is on the mag. I hate it when I see guys walk out on the field with a chest full of Tiberius Magazines and one pistol (or two) and then complain about the magazine prices & having to buy toolless quickchangers.
Pistol only is about style and skill, it's more an art form if anything. Adding mag after mag just changes it's form into a blunt hammer. If you want a hammer out on the field, just go with a regular marker. 16 paintballs is more than enough to walk on. 24 paintball give you sound of mind if for some reason you don't feel like barrel tagging.
So pick up a T8.1, extra mag, and Special Ops paintball holster, and get ready for some fun!
26 October 2009 - 04:37 PMNow, the most recent form of change in the human species that i can tell, is hieght. Look at a boat from the colonial era and look at a doorway today. Look how much difference between the two.
Genetic drift and selection for certain traits could have an impact. We don't have access to genetic material or typical phenotypic characteristics of populations but if you examine certain situations, you'd see that within the human genome, there's selection and preference for certain traits that modern medicine cannot dictate terms for.
Not to mention depending on which theory of how Homo Sapiens evolved, you'd have humans who were central and then spread out or evolution of different species into Homo Sapiens (such as Asians, Europeans, Africans, etc) and then we spread out. With modern globalization and it's increasing interdependence, what this means for evolution is unknown. Selection can go all over the place in a global world as different stresses are seen.
But I'm still falling back on that natural selection (and sexual selection) can do almost anything that we cannot accurately measure "evolution" unless we want to enter everyone's genetic info into a database and track it through the ages.
To which has been answered: nutrition.
That is not 100% certain.
Sexual selection could have a profound affect on human height. Nutrition just means you're able to fully reach your genetic potential, but genes & nutrition have a profound affect on height. There's been a couple of studies if I can recall my undergrad psych classes where a in town before WW2 had increased rates of marriage and children with taller men, demonstration a preference for females to marry tall individuals but post-WW2 where many men were killed off, all heights were married equally. Of course the average height of the village was taller than outside villages where there was no difference in marriages, but this is a situation where it is difficult to say height is entirely genetic as height is a difficult trait to measure due to gene penetration, nutrition, and loci location. However, simply wrapping it up as "nutrition" or "genetics" is not accurate.
26 October 2009 - 09:18 AMTo believe in something that cannot be proven conclusively is faith. Now why would I bring this into a "scientific" discussion? Because your "science" is laughable. As I said before, though no one wants to accept, there has been plenty of FORGERY on this particular subject. Nebraska Man is my go-to example. BS made up to "prove" evolution. Sorry. Credibility amongst scientists is CRAP. It has become more about PROVING THEMSELVES RIGHT than any real science. I find the concept of evolution just as radical and religious as any other "faith". Despite people constantly shouting about "proof".
Evolution is and has been able to be demonstrated. Nebraska Man is nothing more than what people falsified as an evolutionary link. I think I've said this again and again that there is debate in the scientific community on what evolves into what rather than scientists falsifying data to prove evolution is real. There is no need to falsify data when we are surrounded by multiple observational examples. People have instead chosen to misinterpret data rather that look at what is coming out of the scientific community. "Faith" in evolution is on the same level with how electrons or cell signaling works. It's not faith, just science. I hardly consider evolution a religion, rather a tool used in my daily work as a research scientist. Except for today, today is my day off.
As far as forgery is concerned, it does not prove evolution wrong. It just gives you a good excuse to not follow logical arguments and give yourself a way out of "believing" evolution because you think it is faith rather than science.
Again, you, and the "Scientific Community" cannot PROVE evolution, you can only point at the possibility. You have an answer that seems to fit the facts. And yet, there ARE other possibilities. You're just not open to them.
Fine then. Show me what possibilities there are besides evolution.
25 October 2009 - 09:14 AMSo dont read to much into the H1n1 announcement. All it means is that the government recognizes that there is a new, nasty flu virus going around that is going to need some extra money to deal with.
With good reason too:
Typical flu largely kills those collecting social security.
That's a chart of the data put out by the CDC on swine flu. I believe the media has blow it way out of proportion as the media views anything as the end of the world crisis for ratings, but H1N1 isn't something that should be taken too lightly in my opinion. And if anyone here knows anything about viruses, they'd know that with increased rates of transmission and host to host contact, there's an increasingly greater chance of mutation for a very deadly virus.
SubMiler hasn't added any friends yet.