I've had the luck of meeting a lot of the people in these disussions including Chris Hein. We're not all talking about the same things, though the topic is broad enough to encompass all these point of views. It s is not a waste of time to discuss these matters, and you have to admit there are very good questions that cant be summarily dismissed with a you'd have to be there.
There are undoubtedly more depths than all of us are aware of here. That's cool isn't it?
i agreed. personally, i am not dismiss chris idea at all. i believed there is advantage in understanding what sport science has to offer. we need to be analytical about what we do, how we do it, and why we do it. we can't just accept things just because folks said so. damn, i started to sound like sigman. i need to fajin myself a couple of times to get that out.
with sport science and medicine, we knew how to make folks stronger, faster, more endurance, and so on. we can produce incredible atheletes that are almost superhuman. however, there are so many things we still don't know about. just look at the topics on fascia which only got a bit of attention recent years and aren't readily accepted by sport science yet. yet, the ancients knew and used it. take accupunture, for example, the ancients had map out the human neural network and came up a way to reprogram it by sticking needles at various network nodes, sort of sticking the needle =1, not sticking the needle = 0 or vice versa; sort of binary code reprograming a computer network. even today medical science, we still have no clue on how to deal with the human neural network. but medical science knew how signals transmit though the neural network, what chemical would affect it, and so on.
ok. i'll stop rambling now. please resume the discussion on IP.