watch the doc then come and argueGenevieve wrote:Thing is, it doesn't make sense. It's like saying that 20% of the population won't improve at all at playing piano after they do it every day for a month or that not everyone's fingers build up callous when they use their hands a lot. Building muscle is your body responding to the damage done to them and improving them to cope with that damage in the future. It's a very basic property of your body. Like building up tolerance to stimulants after prolonged use. Some people may be more apt genetically at building muscle than others, but giving no response at all is highly unlikely.noam wrote:no i mean they just dont respond to it
watch the video i posted up
if you fall in that bottom 20% it appears at the moment you are destined to just be pretty rubbish at sports/exercise etc.
no. physiological. benefit. that covers everything right? said this like 4 times now lol
I'll watch it later, but from reading about this on a number of fitness forums, this only covers aerobic exercise which is general cardiovasciular exercise like, FOR EXAMPLE, long distancer running as opposed to short distance sprinting which is anaerobic. And it's said to present the facts in a rather simplified and misleading manner. As I said, though. I'm going by what other people say, but it simply does not make any physical sense either. But thanks for the link.
Edit: What I'm saying is. What you would be arguing is that if someone were to be paralyzed from the waist down for 5 years and lost the necessary strength to walk and if they were suddenly cured, it would be impossible for them regain the capabiliy to ever walk again if they fall in that '20%'. And that's simply put absolute bullcrap.
im saying what im saying because thats whats in the doc
im inclined to agree with you since thats what i thought also, but yeh, their results seem to tell a different story, could simply be aerobic results they are on about, i watched it a while ago
but also think about the amount of people who train just as hard as professional athletes and essentially are exactly the same as any one of us, you reach a certain potential and cannot surpass it, for some people that potential is just very low, to the point of negligibiity
hypothetical examples in this instance are entirely meaningless since real life results seem to show evidence for the contrary - which imo makes perfect sense; if there's only a top 20% who can become 'the best', there is a likely to be a bottom percentile who make up 'the worst'
Although I can attribute that to my awful routine which I'm pretty sure then leads me to have a small appetite. 
.
) ... at the moment it just gives me the excuse to spend an hour in the shower exfoliating every now and again. I 
