View Single Post
Old 01-24-2012, 11:51 AM   #18
Tannhauser
Senior Member
Max Brawn
 
Tannhauser's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 3,427
Training Exp: 30+
Training Type: Other
Fav Exercise: Anything overhead
Fav Supp: Creatine. C'est tout.
Reputation: 432558
Tannhauser is one with Crom!Tannhauser is one with Crom!Tannhauser is one with Crom!Tannhauser is one with Crom!Tannhauser is one with Crom!Tannhauser is one with Crom!Tannhauser is one with Crom!Tannhauser is one with Crom!Tannhauser is one with Crom!Tannhauser is one with Crom!Tannhauser is one with Crom!
Default

My first thought was 'I wonder if that's doing her spine any good?' I don't know what the evidence is either way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 5kgLifter View Post
When did children stop lifting heavy weights? There would have been a time, in our past, where even children lifted heavy; an adult age (for work purposes) was considered 15y/o in 1972, 12y/o in 1930 (based on hubby's father) and then the individual was expected to go and take on a full-time manual labour job...with many prior to the age of 12y/o doing heavy farm work.
True, but just because they had to do it doesn't mean it was good for them - bone wise, I mean - lots of other health benefits for kids lifting things.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Off Road View Post
I think it's a safe enough endevour. I mean the streeses from squats are probably duplicated in many thing kids do already; like jumping, gymnastics, wrestling, etc.
Do you think? I suppose some ballistic movements generate terrific forces on the body. I wonder if they are equivalent to having 200+ on your skeletal structure. I think kids can certainly bear a lot of robust activity, but wonder about that sort of loading.

I have mixed feelings about the enterprise.
__________________
230 strict press @ 220; bodyweight+187 X 4 dips @ 180; 403 front squat @ 210; 10 000 push-ups.

Ignoring irrelevant credentials since I was 17.
Tannhauser is online now   Reply With Quote