|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
 Posted: Mon May 29, 2006 5:08 am Post subject: Pat Robertson and the leg press |
 |
|
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/26/national/main1662789.shtml
Pat Robertson seems to be claiming he leg presses 2,000 lbs, breaking the record by a large margin. Slate has a rather good analysis:
http://www.slate.com/id/2142567/
Seriously, are there Christians on this board that view Pat Robertson as some right and proper moral teacher and a spokesman for their faith? Or is he just a power and money hungry nut duping the weak minded? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
sjrm
Joined: 27 Jul 2005
|
| Posted: Mon May 29, 2006 5:20 am Post subject: Re: Pat Robertson and the leg press |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/26/national/main1662789.shtml
Pat Robertson seems to be claiming he leg presses 2,000 lbs, breaking the record by a large margin. Slate has a rather good analysis:
http://www.slate.com/id/2142567/
Seriously, are there Christians on this board that view Pat Robertson as some right and proper moral teacher and a spokesman for their faith? Or is he just a power and money hungry nut duping the weak minded? |
he's quite the superman. but if anyone questioned him to do it on live on tv or anything, i'm sure rove, bush, cheney, and friends would have them knocked off and cover that up also. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Mon May 29, 2006 5:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
Slate DOES have a pretty good analysis, but just to critique a few of their points. The 1000 vs. the 940? The sled itself makes up the extra 60 pounds.
As for the leg press at 400 equaling a 225 squat there is no way to make that kind of comparison. Different machines have different angles of leverage.
Lastly if you are leg pressing 400 lbs on a machine there is NO way in Hades that you are only pressing 200 lbs. A machine BALANCES the weight for you, it does not lift it. The heavier the weight the more strength you require to balance it (as opposed to lifting it) unless it is on a machine, in which case you can devote your entire strength to simply pushing or pressing it.
That said, Robertson's ROM on the leg press is pathetic. What is that... all of 2 inches? It's pretty good for someone of his age...but given the ROM and the fact that it IS a machine it's not earth-shattering or even newsworthy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thunndarr
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Mon May 29, 2006 6:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
Slate DOES have a pretty good analysis, but just to critique a few of their points. The 1000 vs. the 940? The sled itself makes up the extra 60 pounds.
As for the leg press at 400 equaling a 225 squat there is no way to make that kind of comparison. Different machines have different angles of leverage.
Lastly if you are leg pressing 400 lbs on a machine there is NO way in Hades that you are only pressing 200 lbs. A machine BALANCES the weight for you, it does not lift it. The heavier the weight the more strength you require to balance it (as opposed to lifting it) unless it is on a machine, in which case you can devote your entire strength to simply pushing or pressing it.
That said, Robertson's ROM on the leg press is pathetic. What is that... all of 2 inches? It's pretty good for someone of his age...but given the ROM and the fact that it IS a machine it's not earth-shattering or even newsworthy. |
I'm sensing that someone does a lot of leg-pressing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Mon May 29, 2006 8:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Thunndarr wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
Slate DOES have a pretty good analysis, but just to critique a few of their points. The 1000 vs. the 940? The sled itself makes up the extra 60 pounds.
As for the leg press at 400 equaling a 225 squat there is no way to make that kind of comparison. Different machines have different angles of leverage.
Lastly if you are leg pressing 400 lbs on a machine there is NO way in Hades that you are only pressing 200 lbs. A machine BALANCES the weight for you, it does not lift it. The heavier the weight the more strength you require to balance it (as opposed to lifting it) unless it is on a machine, in which case you can devote your entire strength to simply pushing or pressing it.
That said, Robertson's ROM on the leg press is pathetic. What is that... all of 2 inches? It's pretty good for someone of his age...but given the ROM and the fact that it IS a machine it's not earth-shattering or even newsworthy. |
I'm sensing that someone does a lot of leg-pressing. |
Let me tell you, nothing I find more impressive about myself is the fact I can leg press on the machine at the highest weight setting. But if this means Pat Robertson looks like an idiot, I'm willing to believe a machine leg press ain't nuthin'. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Tue May 30, 2006 1:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Thunndarr wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
Slate DOES have a pretty good analysis, but just to critique a few of their points. The 1000 vs. the 940? The sled itself makes up the extra 60 pounds.
As for the leg press at 400 equaling a 225 squat there is no way to make that kind of comparison. Different machines have different angles of leverage.
Lastly if you are leg pressing 400 lbs on a machine there is NO way in Hades that you are only pressing 200 lbs. A machine BALANCES the weight for you, it does not lift it. The heavier the weight the more strength you require to balance it (as opposed to lifting it) unless it is on a machine, in which case you can devote your entire strength to simply pushing or pressing it.
That said, Robertson's ROM on the leg press is pathetic. What is that... all of 2 inches? It's pretty good for someone of his age...but given the ROM and the fact that it IS a machine it's not earth-shattering or even newsworthy. |
I'm sensing that someone does a lot of leg-pressing. |
You're sensing wrong. I do more squatting than leg-pressing. But having been lifting for more than 16 years, I know a thing or two about the Iron Game. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thunndarr
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Tue May 30, 2006 10:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| You're sensing wrong. I do more squatting than leg-pressing. But having been lifting for more than 16 years, I know a thing or two about the Iron Game. |
Sloppy reasoning. "I don't do a lot of leg presses because I do a lot of squats." It's not like doing a lot of one precludes you from doing a lot of the other. But, whatever. Robertson's still an ass for bragging about his world-record breaking leg-press. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Wed May 31, 2006 3:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Thunndarr wrote: |
| Quote: |
| You're sensing wrong. I do more squatting than leg-pressing. But having been lifting for more than 16 years, I know a thing or two about the Iron Game. |
Sloppy reasoning. "I don't do a lot of leg presses because I do a lot of squats." It's not like doing a lot of one precludes you from doing a lot of the other. But, whatever. Robertson's still an ass for bragging about his world-record breaking leg-press. |
Two things and then I will let this rest. First who are you quoting? I never said that. And I don't know about you, but after an intense squatting session my legs are too fried to leg press. Doing a lot of one DOES physically preclude you from doing the other (unless you are training lightly or genetically gifted)
Second I agree with your view on Robertson. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thunndarr
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Wed May 31, 2006 4:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Thunndarr wrote: |
| Quote: |
| You're sensing wrong. I do more squatting than leg-pressing. But having been lifting for more than 16 years, I know a thing or two about the Iron Game. |
Sloppy reasoning. "I don't do a lot of leg presses because I do a lot of squats." It's not like doing a lot of one precludes you from doing a lot of the other. But, whatever. Robertson's still an ass for bragging about his world-record breaking leg-press. |
Two things and then I will let this rest. First who are you quoting? I never said that.
It's a summation of your argument.
And I don't know about you, but after an intense squatting session my legs are too fried to leg press. Doing a lot of one DOES physically preclude you from doing the other (unless you are training lightly or genetically gifted)
Disingenuous, because I'm sure you are aware that there are a million different ways to train legs, some of which incorporate both squats and leg presses. There are a lot of ways you could have qualified your statement, like saying "Squatting precludes ME from doing leg presses." But, you didn't, hence, disingenuous, argumentative, or wrong.
Second I agree with your view on Robertson. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed May 31, 2006 7:00 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Doing a lot of one DOES physically preclude you from doing the other |
How about a day or 2 later? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 01, 2006 7:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Thunndarr wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Thunndarr wrote: |
| Quote: |
| You're sensing wrong. I do more squatting than leg-pressing. But having been lifting for more than 16 years, I know a thing or two about the Iron Game. |
Sloppy reasoning. "I don't do a lot of leg presses because I do a lot of squats." It's not like doing a lot of one precludes you from doing a lot of the other. But, whatever. Robertson's still an ass for bragging about his world-record breaking leg-press. |
Two things and then I will let this rest. First who are you quoting? I never said that.
It's a summation of your argument.
And I don't know about you, but after an intense squatting session my legs are too fried to leg press. Doing a lot of one DOES physically preclude you from doing the other (unless you are training lightly or genetically gifted)
Disingenuous, because I'm sure you are aware that there are a million different ways to train legs, some of which incorporate both squats and leg presses. There are a lot of ways you could have qualified your statement, like saying "Squatting precludes ME from doing leg presses." But, you didn't, hence, disingenuous, argumentative, or wrong.
Second I agree with your view on Robertson. |
|
I wasn't going to post again, but I had to respond to this.
The only one being disingenuous here is you, pal.
Let's recap. I said "I do more squatting than leg pressing"
You said: "Sloppy reasoning "I don't do a lot of leg presses because I do a lot of squats" It's not like doing a lot of one precludes you from doing a lot of the other."
I said "And I don't know about you, but after an intense squatting session MY legs are too fried to leg press. (Capitals are mine)
You said. "There are a lot of ways you could have qualified your statement, like saying "squatting precludes ME from doing leg presses". But you didn't..." (only I did. See above. I qualifed the statement by saying that I didn't know about you (thus including the possibility that you might be able to) and then added MY personal experience which qualifed the statement. And then I added two more qualifiers on the end of that statement)
Try doing 10 ATF sets of squats (a lot) with a heavy weight. Then try to do 10 sets of leg presses(again a lot) with a heavy weight. All with a full ROM. I don't know anyone who can do that. And I know some very strong people including competive powerlifters.
Last edited by TheUrbanMyth on Thu Jun 01, 2006 7:56 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 01, 2006 7:53 pm Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Doing a lot of one DOES physically preclude you from doing the other |
How about a day or 2 later? |
Depends on a number of variables such as: number of squats, weight used, general level of physical fitness, other exercises used, duration of said exercise period, number of training days per week/month...
That said, it takes about 4-5 days for my legs to recover from a squatting session.
Sure if the weight was not too taxing you could squat 2 days later...but why bother? I'd rather get in one intense workout that lasts the week. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thunndarr
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 01, 2006 8:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Thunndarr wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Thunndarr wrote: |
| Quote: |
| You're sensing wrong. I do more squatting than leg-pressing. But having been lifting for more than 16 years, I know a thing or two about the Iron Game. |
Sloppy reasoning. "I don't do a lot of leg presses because I do a lot of squats." It's not like doing a lot of one precludes you from doing a lot of the other. But, whatever. Robertson's still an ass for bragging about his world-record breaking leg-press. |
Two things and then I will let this rest. First who are you quoting? I never said that.
It's a summation of your argument.
And I don't know about you, but after an intense squatting session my legs are too fried to leg press. Doing a lot of one DOES physically preclude you from doing the other (unless you are training lightly or genetically gifted)
Disingenuous, because I'm sure you are aware that there are a million different ways to train legs, some of which incorporate both squats and leg presses. There are a lot of ways you could have qualified your statement, like saying "Squatting precludes ME from doing leg presses." But, you didn't, hence, disingenuous, argumentative, or wrong.
Second I agree with your view on Robertson. |
|
I wasn't going to post again, but I had to respond to this.
The only one being disingenuous here is you, pal.
Let's recap. I said "I do more squatting than leg pressing"
This was in response to the allegation that you did a lot of leg-presses. That statement alone refutes nothing, hence my next comment.
You said: "Sloppy reasoning "I don't do a lot of leg presses because I do a lot of squats" It's not like doing a lot of one precludes you from doing a lot of the other."
I said "And I don't know about you, but after an intense squatting session MY legs are too fried to leg press. (Capitals are mine)
You said. "There are a lot of ways you could have qualified your statement, like saying "squatting precludes ME from doing leg presses". But you didn't..." (only I did. See above.
Well, actually, you said, "Doing a lot of one DOES physically preclude you from doing the other (unless you are training lightly or genetically gifted)"
Do you often refer to yourself with the pronoun 'you?' You see, most people use it when they are addressing a particular person (which in this discussion would be me) OR in a more general sense, meaning, people in general. Now, reading that claim, again with either of those two meanings in mind, then, no, you were not referring to yourself. Unless you're inventing a brand-new usage for the word.
I qualifed the statement by saying that I didn't know about you (thus including the possibility that you might be able to) and then added MY personal experience which qualifed the statement. And then I added two more qualifiers on the end of that statement)
And once again, you are now claiming that when you write a sentence, and use the pronoun 'you' in it, you are actually referring to yourself? Nice work!!!
Try doing 10 ATF sets of squats (a lot) with a heavy weight. Then try to do 10 sets of leg presses(again a lot) with a heavy weight. All with a full ROM. I don't know anyone who can do that. And I know some very strong people including competive powerlifters.
Irrelevant. I'm not interested in debating what, exactly, 'a lot' means to you. By which I mean me. Or people in general. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hollywoodaction
Joined: 02 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 03, 2006 8:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Obviously, someone 'confused' kilograms with pounds.
I haven't been training with weights since February (the yellow dust really messed me up this year). But, when I do, I routinely do sets of up to 500 kg (6 to 10 reps) on the leg press machine, thanks to 15 years of weight training and genetics (I've got a big ass  ). To do this, I have to convince the two burliest guys in the gym to sit on the machine because I can't stack more than 300kg on it. Very few gyms have machines that can support more weight than that. A machine that can hold 900kg would be huge. What gym would want to waste the space?
Sure, some machines can provide that much resistance with hydrolics. But, these aren't very popular. Besides, I know I would be crushed if I tried to leg press 900kg. So, I'm pretty sure Pat Roberston would, too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
