GaryPinC

They wouldn't have to worry about their legs because they'd have back problems.

great topic. Can't say I prefer just one beer though with so many great ones available. A partial list of my fondest: Most Belgian beers, these guys really know how to make good beer. Delerium tremens, Chimay, Duvel, etc. German Heffeweizens-Franziskaner, etc. Samuel Smith's Taddy Porter. It's from England but if it's not skunked it's simply the best porter IMO. Bell's Two-Hearted Ale (Kalamazoo, MI) -Probably the most unique pale ale I've ever had. Damn good too. Great Lakes Brewery here in Cleveland brews a fantastic Red for those who love hops called Nosferatu. Their Christmas ale is pretty good also.

I was wondering the same thing. Got to be their fault somehow.

Here, read this and be sure to check out his qualifications and that of the Doctor whose info he borrows: http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/drsquat12.htm "Squats can be bad for your knees. Period. But they're good for everything else." "Among bodybuilders who have knee problems, however, squatting is the only culprit. In both cases, squatting properly can reduce, prevent or ameliorate many, many of the common knee problems inherent in sports. That they will make you a better bodybuilder or athlete is an unquestioned fact." While proper form is essential, even these guys acknowledge knee problems will still happen. Funny how they don't discuss lower back problems.

Thanks for all the good points. Sorry to hear about your back troubles. Once the damage is done it gets especially difficult because you'd like to strengthen the muscles to help support the frame but it's difficult to do without pain or further damaging your spine. In my 20's I used to work a job clearing trees and we had to hand carry 6-10 foot sections up to 12" in diameter over to the chipper for grinding. I'd put in an exhausting 10 hour day and then head to the gym to workout for a couple hours. Definitely lucky to have avoided troubles like yours.

You should be able to leg press almost twice as much as you squat because of the 45° angle of the machine. You're not working directly against gravity with the leg press. I will never argue that the squat is not a great all around exercise, simply that it can be hard on your back and knees and there are alternatives. Leg press, abducter and adducter leg machine, leg curls, leg extensions, back extensions, and sit-ups when done together can all be a pretty good substitue for squat without putting as much strain on your back in particular. I did find one paper that compared squat vs leg press by recording electrical activity (EMG) at selected muscles of the leg and lower back. Realize that this paper has a number of major shortfalls. Besides being poorly written and the data poorly explained/presented, they failed to account for the fact that the leg muscles were doing much less work at the leg press because they failed to increase the weight to account for the angle of the machine. Also, their standard deviations are monstrous, in the normal group some SDs are larger than the mean! How the hell they claim some of their P values is beyond me, I can tell you as someone who works as a researcher that when your standard deviations overlap the means of your comparitor groups there is no statistical significance unless you're manipulating your data. Bottom line is that even though they show substantial differences between squat and leg press the huge variability in the data means there may be little or no difference between any of them. Anyways, my point is that this paper does show that squat works the muscle more than leg press, but that leg press does work many of the same muscles as squat, including the gluts and lower back muscles. If they had weight compensated the leg press machine I would bet that those EMG #s would be much higher. Here's a link to the paper: http://www.med.und.edu/depts/pt/PT%20Websi...ressvsSquat.htm And here's another site where this woman does a decent job of comparing squat and leg press and also suggesting leg press + partial deadlifts as a squat substitute which I thought was an interesting idea. http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/shannon1.htm BTW, I played soccer until sophmore year of high school. I weighed around 185 pounds but everyone thought I weighed 135 because I had no upper body. I made the switch to football and started weight lifting for the first time. Our lifting coach grouped us according to how much weight we could lift. Pretty quickly I was squatting with the linemen, but all my upper body work was with the younger quarterbacks/receivers. Took me most of the way through college to correct that imbalance.

My point of my lengthy post is that squats CAN be very bad for the knees and back even when using good form. I didn't say it had to be so, simply that it depends on a number of factors, some of which I discussed in my lengthy post. If you refuse to recognize that variations in the inflammatory pathways, bones, cartilage, tendons, ligaments, or overall joint structure will not allow some healthy people to properly perform this lift without incurring injury, I'm sorry I find that ignorant.

There's no debate, I agree with you completely and they're all very good points. My attitude about machines is that they're a great finisher after a free weight workout. But no matter how conservative or how much prep work you do, you can look at a given lift and find someone whose body can't handle the movement involved very well.

Incredibly ignorant statement. Just to clarify, I greatly prefer free weights to work out. I do believe in doing core exercises such as bench and squat. I was also strictly taught form and always being in control of the weights, 1003 count on the negatives, explode through the positives, never lock out knees and elbows. I had proper depth of squats hammered into me. I don't worry about the weight, I simply worry about form, control, and high intensity. Increases in weight or reps then take care of themselves. Putting hundreds of pounds on your back has the potential to be VERY bad for your back, knees. Oh, I know. With proper form your back is fine. Maybe, maybe not. Even with perfect form, you are still compressing your vertebrae, because that's what happens when your body physically has to support hundreds of pounds to allow your muscles to exercise. After you're done maybe your spine decompresses on it's own. Maybe it doesn't. If it doesn't, you've just increased your chances at a pinched nerve or herniated disc. And maybe you don't injure it while squatting but it weakens the area and then you injure it the next day doing something completely different. There are 2 components to weight lifting: the ability of your muscles to lift the weight, and the ability of your bones, joints, tendons, and ligaments to handle the load of the weight. And as you get older, (I'm 40) there's this little thing called inflammation that you scarcely knew existed in your teens and 20's starts to creep in to your joints even with perfect form . Also, your cartiliage can wear down, your tendons and ligaments lose some strength and elasticity. I still squat, but if I've not done it awhile I need to do leg extensions, leg curls, and leg press to make sure I can handle the weight and the movement without injuring something or overstretching my ligaments. Just as an example, I gave up deadlifting at the end of high school. I am 6'2" and have fairly long legs but arms are not that long. While deadlifting, the bar was always knocking my knees on the way up. Taking an extra wide stance to clear the bar hurt my knee joint, leaning out a little farther hurt my back. Ended up leaning out a little farther but decided to give the lift up. Shorter guys who don't have to bend their knees as much probably never have this issue. Everyone is constructed differently. I mean alignment of muscles, joints, tendons, ligaments, nerves can all have subtle alignment differences which can influence the ability to perform a lift (even with perfect form). The length of the arms, legs, the way someone stands, all of this. There is more than one way to skin a cat. While I agree that core lifts are best, some people's bodies can't handle certain types of lifts even when using perfect form. If that's the case you adjust for core lifts with a series of isolated ones that try to hit all the same muscle groups (and don't completely make up for a good core lift like a squat) but save wear and tear and increase your strength. That's the crux of Ross Tucker's article (tailoring the workout to the individual) and I obviously agree with him. Those who believe that squats won't or can't hurt your back/knees, well that might be true for some of you but the rest will see the truth in time. As for Allaire's crew, I can allow them to substitue core lifts for a series of others to save wear and tear on the back, knees, elbows. It's completely unacceptable that they'd allow the players to cheat their workouts.

"Some guys haven't squatted since they left college," Whitner said. "My max was 405 [pounds] and that was three or four reps and I haven't done that since college. The way that they do it, you're not skipping a rep. They stand there and watch you. Every rep that you take they tell you what to put on there and if you can't do it, you go down a little." I think this last part of the quote bothers me more. Without getting into a philosophical debate, squatting and cleans can be hard on the back and knees. There are alternatives, such as leg press, and some S&T coaches may prefer to utilize alternatives. Regardless of what exercises the players are told to do, Donte's quote implies that the S&T coaches really didn't keep tabs on the QUALITY of the player's workouts and that is simply unacceptable.

tomtraubersblues, no worries. I am neither a physician nor a med student/resident. I don't work directly in the medical profession, I am certainly not a genius and there are countless other people who know more about medicine than I do. You, however, are not one of them. Not by a long shot. Best of luck with your quest to dispense medical knowledge, unfortunately I won't be taking you up on your offer.

Toradol is an NSAID. "ANSAID" is the trade name of flurbiprofin, also an NSAID. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=...em4LHmWLTxRoULQ Various internet sources cite renal colic pain as originating in the lateral, upper middle back and eminating anteriorly to the groin area. Can't see how an ER doc would confuse severe stomach cramps with this type of pain and diagnose kidney stones.

Toradol and the other NSAIDS are indeed painkillers. I've heard toradol is especially effective for deep bone pain but haven't seen any hard evidence (haven't really looked either). NSAIDS basically block prostaglandin synthesis which will reduce fever, pain perception and inflammation. In certain situations it can be more effective pain management than lower dose ranges of morphine. It has some pretty significant GI side effects (much more than ibuprofin) and generally is not used for more than 5 days. The rest of what you and birddog1960 said is correct. And I agree that the article sounds suspicious. On the other hand, I wouldn't expect most football players to have a firm knowledge of all these drugs and maybe he's confused about the names but the rest of the article may have some merit. Who knows.

I kind of wonder if Brohm is more devoted to partying and trying to hook up with hot chicks than becoming a starting NFL quarterback.

Great analysis Gabe. It certainly worries me, but on the whole I thought they had a decent draft for 2009. Even with the Maybin pick. At a minimum they managed to draft 2 promising O-lineman and a safety who showed it in their rookie year. Shawn Nelson, Nic Harris, and Lankster may be solid players also. But given the ineptitude of this franchise to draft decent linemen over the last 8 years or so, I have to admit getting Wood and Levitre have at least given me hope our current talent evaluators (with Buddy) may actually be able to do their jobs properly.

Because it has a low addiction potential.

Most laws are regulatory behavior legislation. Murder is illegal, yet people do it everyday. Does this mean the law doesn't work and that it's ineffective? Laws aren't solely meant to prevent behaviors.

Well, I never been stoned and will never willingly get stoned. Been known to get drunk, especially in my 20's but generally I prefer dealing with reality. Getting laid is certainly more challenging because I have two young children and the wife and I both work, but I'll go get right on that. Thanks for your suggestions. Please feel free to escape into your pot-induced stupor since you must be incapable of facing the real world without it.

Marijuana is illegal because it is addictive and a psychoactive (mind altering) drug. That gives it a high abuse potential and lands it on the DEA's list of scheduled drugs. Since it has no accepted medical use that lands it in the schedule I category. Look, I don't mind or care if you or anyone else enjoys smoking pot regularly. That's your business, and that's fine with me. But when people want to characterize marijuana as "harmless" and that it should be legalized because so many people have tried it, well that's just plain ignorant. I have never done it, would never do it and I know many people who are the same way. I also know many people who have tried it (like my wife for one) and would never do it again. And having known a couple of intelligent people in high school who got addicted to it and threw their life in the crapper because of it, I will certainly step forward to voice my opinion when all the pot smokers try and pretend it's harmless. You can do what you want, but this is a forum on opinions and now you know mine. I fully realize marijuana has a great tox profile but that does not make it "harmless" and meriting legalization. BTW, I am not a socialist and am not a proponnent of socialized medicine.

Yea, well looks like you fit at least one of the stereotypes perfectly. Long live the conspiracy.

http://www.drugabuse.gov/infofacts/marijuana.html Always laugh at the pot heads who think it's harmless, that everybody does it, and therefore it should be legal. Hey, whatever floats your boat. Go smoke another one, touch your saggy b*tch t*ts and keep trying to convince the rest of the world you got it all figured out. It's a conspiracy, man!

I have to respectfully disagree with your opinion. I live in Cleveland and watch most of the Browns games because the wife is a big fan (and the Bills are almost never on). Quinn's certainly looked like crap quite a bit but he's still very inexperienced. He's also had 2 new head coaches and at least 2 OC's in his time there. He's also had pretty crappy protection pretty much his entire short career there. And he's gotten jerked around because of Derek Anderson being there. Last year the offense struggled adjusting to the new OC for 1/2 the year. The last 2 or 3 games Brady played in before getting hurt, I thought he was finally starting to "get" how to read the D and get the ball to his receivers. His accuracy was still a bit off but I think he was rushing things, especially because his protection is so suspect. But he was making good decisions. Will he be a good NFL quarterback? I don't know but I think he may be on the verge of becoming one. I would take a chance on him over Trent Edwards immediately. I think Edwards has absorbed too many hits and either needs to go to a team with a good O-line or he's simply done. JMO.

Yes, lets start chucking some money out there and see if we can lure in the next Derrick Dockery or Langston Walker. Seriously, what top shelf free agents are going to want to come to Buffalo? This franchise is a muddled mess and next year is about seeing if a foundation can be laid for future success. Once they do that then maybe go after some free agents. I'm sorry to say this franchise is almost completely irrelevant to the NFL until they can turn things around.

Derek Anderson has a very strong arm and is generally very accurate throwing downfield. He can really throw some strikes. His problem is he has little or no touch on the short passes and is prone to "oopsie" passes where he throws right to a defender. Average ability shown to read defenses. Great speed for a tall, white guy. Some talk about a fragile psyche. Never really given a long term commitment to be "the man" in Cleveland. Could have significant upside with more playing time and coaching. Could also be about as good as he's ever going to be. My opinion about Trent Edwards is that he's done. PTSD from constant hits have ruined his ability to make aggressive decisions downfield. From that perspective I'd sooner take a chance on Anderson and get rid of Edwards if the price is right. DA has shown some ability to deal with bad offensive lines in front of him. All this being said I think the 2010 Bills will be a mess for most of the season. Put Fitz back there (at least he knows how to play even if the athletic ability is lacking) and draft your franchise QB to learn the ropes.

West bank of the flats is still there. East bank, not so much. There's plenty of other areas to go. I've lived in Cleveland, Buffalo, Pittsburgh. People/lifestyles are pretty much the same in all these towns. I live in Cleveland now and like living here. Rankings like this are just plain stupid. Also, I would easily rather live in Cleveland over Columbus, but that's just me.