|
Post by fatjake on Nov 2, 2017 12:47:45 GMT
When you call a "thing" something and give it a name, that name is not an adjective, its a noun. It's just a name, so there are no "correct" adjectives to use. It's a name not an adjective nor an oxymoron. Lots of exercise names don't really make much sense and would be impossible to figure out without more information, that's why we have descriptions with adjectives and diagrams. It's impossible to describe most exercises effectively in two words, especially in this case when they essentially combine two different modes of exercise. But two words seems to be the norm for exercise names, so which two words would you use to describe an exercise which is both moving and static? dynamic isometrics - an exercise which combines an isometric element with a dynamic movement, seems OK to me. I wouldn't know what it meant without the description, but I could say the same about many other exercise names, so I get it. In any case, even if we were to use both the words "dynamic" and "isometric" as adjectives, they would be perfectly correct, as this exercise is both. ] They are both performed during the exercise session, but if you're doing one, you're automatically excluding the other. By definition of the words, they never occur simultaneously. So, the complete exercise session incorporates both individual types of tensing, it isn't itself both. You're doing two very different, mutually exclusive efforts during the exercise session. yes as I said above you are combining two forms of exercise so its always going to be difficult to name it in the conventional way, but it's still just a name at the end of the day. I'm going with Cedric on this as he was the first one to demonstrate that exercise (that I seen doing it anyway) and it makes sense to me. But isometric efforts and dynamic movements DO occur simultaneously all the time with many if not most exercises.
|
|
|
Post by mr potatohead on Nov 2, 2017 16:25:28 GMT
They are both performed during the exercise session, but if you're doing one, you're automatically excluding the other. By definition of the words, they never occur simultaneously. So, the complete exercise session incorporates both individual types of tensing, it isn't itself both. You're doing two very different, mutually exclusive efforts during the exercise session. yes as I said above you are combining two forms of exercise so its always going to be difficult to name it in the conventional way, but it's still just a name at the end of the day. I'm going with Cedric on this as he was the first one to demonstrate that exercise (that I seen doing it anyway) and it makes sense to me. But isometric efforts and dynamic movements DO occur simultaneously all the time with many if not most exercises..... never occur simultaneously at the same joint, m8, I forgot to add that, but I was thinking that, so shoot me.
|
|
|
Post by BigBruvOfEnglandUK on Nov 2, 2017 18:47:11 GMT
Jake, you may as well be trying to argue that black is white. The definitions of these words have already been defined are in dictionaries the world over so it's an argument you can't possibly win, m8
|
|
|
Post by fatjake on Nov 2, 2017 20:39:14 GMT
Jake, you may as well be trying to argue that black is white. The definitions of these words have already been defined are in dictionaries the world over so it's an argument you can't possibly win, m8 Stop being silly bruv, there is no argument about the definition of the words at all m8, everybody knows what "dynamic" means and I'm sure we all know what "isometric" means - luckily the definitions have already been defined and are in dictionaries the world over so we can see that both are good words to describe an exercise with both static and moving parts. You are just getting your panties in a bunch because you don't like the name, but you have conspicuously avoided coming up with anything better to describe an exercise that is isometric and dynamic, just suck it up m8, nobody really carfs, it's just a name, call it what you like. Maybe the "Bruv Iso-Adjective"? Whatever you call it there will likely be some sort of contradiction or confusion at first, unless you lengthen the name to essentially be a full description, which would be silly and kind of defeats the purpose of having a name in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by gruntbrain on Nov 2, 2017 21:14:15 GMT
Use the Bill Clinton dictionary to get the definition of sex
|
|
|
Post by BigBruvOfEnglandUK on Nov 3, 2017 6:28:21 GMT
you have conspicuously avoided coming up with anything better to describe an exercise that is isometric and dynamic, I don't need to come up with something. Hager (Who the exercise has now been named after) gave a very clear explanation of how to do it. I'm not getting my panties in a bunch. I'm not the one that has to keep thinking of different ways to try to win the argument that you already lost as soon as somebody posted the dictionary definitions.
|
|
|
Post by fatjake on Nov 3, 2017 10:36:01 GMT
you have conspicuously avoided coming up with anything better to describe an exercise that is isometric and dynamic, I'm not the one that has to keep thinking of different ways to try to win the argument no, you just keep repeating the same silly objection over and over again, despite being clearly proved wrong, like a child, or a politician
|
|
|
Post by BigBruvOfEnglandUK on Nov 4, 2017 19:14:03 GMT
My objection is the correct one so I don't need to keep changing it. Look in the dictionary. You are like the Black Knight in the Monty Python video that TexasRanger posted on AMM yesterday. The exercise is not a long hold isometric exercise. All of us here know the difference between long hold and short hold. 8-10 seconds is not long hold. Give it up.
|
|
|
Post by fatjake on Nov 4, 2017 20:41:26 GMT
My objection is the correct one so I don't need to keep changing it. Look in the dictionary. You are like the Black Knight in the Monty Python video that TexasRanger posted on AMM yesterday. The exercise is not a long hold isometric exercise. All of us here know the difference between long hold and short hold. 8-10 seconds is not long hold. Give it up. actually, I was wrong, you do keep changing your objection, you have to. first you were banging on about using the right adjectives, even though everyone else was talking about a name (aka noun) then you finally dropped that and started banging on about irrelevant dictionary definitions for everything apart from the actual name we were discussing, now you are going on about the difference between short and long holds, which I have never even mentioned? whats next, maybe you go back to the beginning and start trying to pretend a noun is an adjective again? Or go back getting confused between a name and a description?
|
|
|
Post by BigBruvOfEnglandUK on Nov 4, 2017 20:44:24 GMT
Hager said "dynamic long hold isometrics". That is what the argument is about. If you think the argument is about something else then you must be in the wrong thread, m8
|
|
|
Post by BigBruvOfEnglandUK on Nov 4, 2017 20:48:45 GMT
I didn't drop anything. We already established that dynamic and isometric are adjectives so there was no need to repeat it but here we are again. isometric. adjective dynamic. adjective.
|
|
|
Post by fatjake on Nov 4, 2017 20:51:00 GMT
Hager said "dynamic long hold isometrics". That is what the argument is about. If you think the argument is about something else then you must be in the wrong thread, m8 well if that is really what the argument is about, you have made an awful lot of completely off topic posts in this thread m8, as almost all of them don't mention the length of hold at all, just lots of stupid and irrelevant bollocks about adjectives and the like. But I definitely see why you would drop all that and start going on about the hold times, as that at least makes some sense.
|
|
|
Post by fatjake on Nov 4, 2017 20:55:55 GMT
I didn't drop anything. We already established that dynamic and isometric are adjectives so there was no need to repeat it but here we are again. isometric. adjective dynamic. adjective. nobody is discussing or disputing the definitions of the word dynamic or the word isometrics, what we are discussing is the name "dynamic isometrics", which is a noun, a name, not an adjective, its simple really.
|
|
|
Post by BigBruvOfEnglandUK on Nov 4, 2017 23:18:40 GMT
It's an oxymoron. We already established that days ago.
|
|
|
Post by BigBruvOfEnglandUK on Nov 4, 2017 23:24:22 GMT
In fact the whole argument was about the name "Dynamic long hold isometrics" and not just the two words dynamic and isometrics. We have established what dynamic and isometrics mean and also that the isometric holds are not long holds. That pretty much covers it. We can safely say it's a bodyweight exercise if anyone wants to pigeonhole it
|
|