Re: Why Pistols?
- From: "Existential Angst" <fitcat@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 6 May 2011 02:54:31 -0400
"Jim Janney" <jjanney@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
Jason Earl <jearl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
On Thu, May 05 2011, Steve Freides wrote:
Not much for me to add. If you want to be stronger without weights,
and becoming more mobile, and correct side-to-side imbalances of
strength and mobility at the same time, here's your exercise, complete
with why to do it and a progression for how to get better at it.
It is hard to argue against pistols.
Pistols are interesting for the skills you acquire while learning to do
them. I don't know that I'd advocate working them hard after you've
accomplished that. I suspect that most people would be better off doing
barbell squats with a full range of motion.
I agree. Plus you get more out of squats.
Pistols are indeed an intense exercise, but few people need that level of
But for those who can do them, they are a good exercise.
Bear in mind, that walking/running are already a very small range of motion
pistol, as is hopping on one foot.
One could argue that everyone would benefit by increasing this range of
motion as far as is safe/tolerable, and for some this will result in an
ass-on-heel pistol. 'sall good.
Imo, full pistols are for people like Friedes and this skinny half-necked
russian fitness twit that dominates half the videos on youtube, who need all
the attention they can get.
- Prev by Date: Re: Why Pistols?
- Next by Date: Re: Why Pistols?
- Previous by thread: Re: Why Pistols?
- Next by thread: Re: Why Pistols?