Candidature LST Chimie et Génie des Matériaux FST Beni Mellal 2013

OK, this book has some things going for it that help set it apart from other esircexe books out there. There are some decent footnotes and the main points all have some scientific backing behind them. It also gets bonus points for pointing out that super levels of fitness, low body fat, and big muscles do not actually equal high levels of health, longevity, and well-being. There is also truth to the author’s assertion that there is a quality of life issue involved in the time spent working out when you could be doing other things. There are a lot of other good points, too, but they are all pretty general and common sense. For example, The Big Five (or Big Three ) has been esircexe 101 for over a century because of one simple reason: there are really only 5 natural movements that the human body can reasonably perform with weights: Overhead pressing, pulling/pushing down with the lats, pushing out from the chest, pulling into the chest, and standing up to extend the legs. It’s also been long understood that the three pillars of weight training are training, diet, and rest: if you’re struggling to make gains, you should look at all three instead of just training harder, which can be potentially counterproductive. Again, this should be common sense, but it must be said nonetheless. However, for a book that’s supposed to be so predicated on science, the science that’s presented is often poorly understood or perhaps even deliberately confused to support the author’s own selling points and shortcomings of their training system. Example #1: There is no scientific evidence supporting Max Contraction, just John Little’s marketing. None. The authors’ emphasis on doing reps very slowly and counting the time spent under stress are also scientifically dubious with mixed support in the literature. Example #2: There is no scientific evidence that says old Nautilus machines are conclusively better for fitness than free weights or other manufacturors, but the authors own a gym that specializes in this equipment so it’s cited as being the ultimate in training. There is some truth to machine-based workouts being easier on certain joints, and they get bonus points in HIT because they allow you to safely go to failure without a spotter, but the authors barely reference those key points. Example #3: The studies that are cited are often sort of thrown together. Some will involve elderly or extremely out of shape clients who would have benefited greatly from the introduction of just about any physical activity. The authors point this out when the studies in question apply to aerobic esircexe as a reason not to trust those studies, but fail to keep this in mind when studies on similar parameters agree with their own conclusion. Example #4: If you look up pictures of John Little and most of his clients, you’ll mostly find a group of fairly average looking men with very few impressive physical specimens. You’d be hard pressed to tell if some of them work out at all, and I think most people at least want noticable gains from their gym experience. Little asserts time and again that success in sports and bodybuilding is mostly because of genetics and that less than 2.5% of men have the genetic potential to build large muscles. However, if you go to just about any gym with a reasonably large clientelle, you’ll see several amateur bodybuilders who show that the genetics necessary for this kind of size are not so rare, if in fact they have any special genetics at all. Little’s 12 minutes a week of max contraction disciples tend to look absolutely puny by comparison. That’s what I found most disturbing about this book: the misrepresentation of science in the book’s emphasis on genetic potential, particularly the role of genetically determined levels of myostatin as the holy grail, when it comes to building muscle. While myostatin inhibition does help produce large muscles with little bodyfat, the science simply does not say what the authors assert it does. That section is badly written, poorly researched, and misleading. For examples, the book says that professional bodybuilders refused to be tested for myostatin levels because it may harm their endorsement deals, when in fact many (such as the FREAKISH Ron Coleman, who bags millions in endorsements) were tested for a variety of genetic differences and the results usually came back that they were, in fact, fairly average. Only a couple of examples of genetic irregularities were found and those came from lesser known bodybuilders most famously, Flex Wheeler, who has extra muscle fibers. The science just didn’t find that bodybuilders are necessarily genetic freaks when looking for the things that it expected to find. But the myostatin discussion gets worse when discussing myostatin inhibition in racing whippets (and the rare, super

Maju,Thanks for the links, I will give this some more thought. Again, notinhg personal, I just need something more convincing than what I have read, to date.The Kurgan hypothesis just sounds so improbably, to me. Most people think there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the (pre-Kurgan) central-European agricultural revolution did not replace the original population. Same is then even more true about any semi-nomadic steppe people entering Central Europe (CE). Why would these people, who by sustenance and also by today’s genetic evidence clearly could not outnumber local agriculturalists, and whose methods of transportation initially were horribly ill-adapted to the muddy, soft, wet and densely forested CE, provide these people with a new language? Why would such people have a superior language to that of a very entrepreneurial new local culture, in the first place? I don’t deny Kurgan expansion – I just think that these same people originally derived from or were heavily influenced by the adjacent (west and southwestern) agriculturalists who already spoke an early form of IE. Kurgans then just would be (partially) responsible for spreading the Satem shift.Replacing almost all prior languages in Europe is a tough thought even if it took place during the advent of agriculture (thus my thought that it was helped by being seeded on a receptive stratum – in a well-populated region that already happened to speak similar dialects) – but without that? Unimaginable.Giving just Kurgans an already existing IE is a much simpler explanation, IMO.Again, I agree I need to read more!