Think that the guys in the lab took note and interest, after the 1st tests. When it was found that with the same cardiac output the silly thing produced 35% more lactic, than overground running that got their attention.
What on earth do kettlebells have to do with the FMS? The relevance of the FMS is with very beginner athletes and addressing certain issues, it's got nothing to do with physically developing athletes, it's screening ffs. And it's validity to anything is hotly debated. Again, why are you mentioning things and talking about things you don't have the first clue about? And why on earth am I still wasting seconds responding to you?
I've heard you say that before, that literally means nothing. Are you saying this vertical treadmill is meant to be replacing weightlifting or is it just a conditioning tool? It was hard typing that with a straight face.
If you bothered to take a look at the website, you would find that the majority of the corrective exercises and movement specific exercises are kettlebell exercises. Why would anyone listen to you, when they can find far better resources on the internet from well known trainers with a great track record? What exactly have you done?
So you think it's beneficial to push yourself into a state of glycolysis? Explain why, because that's what those Metcon workouts do. I would argue that you want to avoid glycolysis as much as possible.
Why don't you explain what you mean by this? You didn't say anything noteworthy in this statement. How is a hex bar deadlift different than a barbell squat, and why is that important? Why must an athlete perform a squat with a bar on their back rather than lifting it from the ground if the same muscles are activated? Explain in great detail what you mean by how one doesn't transfer to performance. You can't. You're full of ****. People, don't spend your time listening to this imbecile. He's stubborn and dogmatic and he's also proven to be quite the hypocrite recently. We've been arguing for years, and it was years ago where he argued that maximal weight lifted was what mattered the most, while I argued that movement was more important. As you can see, he did a 180 and now he's arguing that movement is more important than maximal weight. If you listen to this guy, you are a making a mistake. There are plenty of credible guys to listen to that have a myriad of experience. Just be cautious and listen to people who have statistical evidence to back up their claims and engage in healthy debates in order to justify their claims. Don't listen to dogmatic idiots like dealt with who are more concerned with winning an argument than being right. The guy claims to be an S and C expert, yet he didn't know anything about Maffetone's heart rate formula that is used by endurance athletes to obtain an aerobic base. When I brought this up, he didn't have any idea what I was talking about. This is not my expertise. I am not a strength and conditioning guy, so it's sad when I know about things than a guy who's job it is to know about these things. And this isn't exactly obscure knowledge. The former trainer of Lance Armstrong for example, used Maffetone's formula to establish an aerobic base for Lance Armstrong. The guy advocates barbell squatting, but when I show him evidence that a hex bar squat essentially works the same muscles to practically the same degree with much less risk, he offers no explanation to how it's inferior to a barbell squat. Why exactly does a boxer need to worry about using a barbell squat when he can get the same benefit by using a safer exercise? If the marginal cost exceeds the marginal benefit, you enter something called the law of diminishing marginal productivity. I'll patiently await an explanation on how one exercise is vastly superior to the other.
So there isn't the slightest bit of difference on your central nervous system if you do either HexBar Deads or Barbell Squats? Oh boy!