starting strength involves perhaps 30 minutes of active exercise in a week with most time in the gym sent recovering between sets. that is simply not enough to develop any sort of cardiovascular fitness unless you have an abnormally strong response to training.
your links in support of the injury prevention and mass building benefits refer to startingstrength.com and Practical Programming. That book is health cult literature, not a reliable scientific resource. The linked article links to evidence that resistance training can aid health (in elderly subjects). This does not support the idea of high intensity barbell training as a magic injury prevention tool.
Everyone who lifts for mass does a lot more higher rep volume than Starting Strength. Lots of guys have strong physiques yet use mostly "inferior" bodyweight exercises and machines. Take a look around you in the gym next time you're there and you might be a little surprised :).
Weight gain is a problem. Most people have no health reason to gain mass rapidly (or at all), yet many trainees struggle to progress without eating a large calorific surplus. This is a pretty good reason why such a training program should not be your default recommendation!
Strength is absolutely not that basis of all fitness. Many extremely fit endurance athletes never lift any weights. Even if this rather bizarre statement was true, it does not explain why powerlifting training of this sort is ideal for everyone. I note that you didn't dispute that it will interfere with other physical activity -- one of the most compelling reasons why the average person should not do Starting Strength and why it is most definitely a powerlifting specific training regime.
You may have had a great experience with Starting Strength. But other people will often have a very different response to training and health goals. Ask yourself also how much real evidence you have for your incredibly strong and dogmatic opinions on training.
strength training 3x a week will with no other exercise will leave the average person with extremely poor cardiovascular fitness. if you lack the strength to carry out household tasks you would be better off with basic bodyweight exercises. the average western person is sedentary and does not exercise enough, so it makes little sense to recommend 3 hours a week of training that consists of mainly of recovering between sets.
there is also no evidence for the preventative benefits of heavy lifting. for the average person who starts lifting to feel and look better, starting strength makes no sense: it is sub optimal for increasing mass, is hard and not that enjoyable compared to less intense weightlifting routines, increases the length of workouts, interferes with training for other sports, is incompatible with serious participation in sports (outside of powerlifting), requires rapid and unhealthy weight gain for progression for many trainees...
even if you don't agree with all my points, at least ask yourself if it makes sense to recommend a highly specific sports training routine to everyone looking for basic fitness advice.
heavy lifting is inherently risky. there is little evidence that "correct" form will protect you from potential injury. there is also no real reason to do a strength focused routine if your reason for going to the gym is to improve your health and/or body. don't listen to the starting strength cultists!
how will this make any difference? if you're a non urm who doesn't already know that top colleges provide very generous financial aid, it's highly unlikely that you will have developed the right all round profile to get a place at stanford.
what new technological advances in back end web development have occurred in the last five years? why should senior developers spend their spare time learning new ways of doing exactly the same thing?
competency based interviews are standard for junior positions with large companies in the UK. however, this approach often turns interviews into a bullshitting competition.
why would the bmj take such a strong stance when they simply don't have the evidence to back it up? the linked study does not show that moderate consumption is harmful or demonstrate that previous results are exaggerated...
"In summary, the study is grossly underpowered to convincingly prove a plausible protection, and they have committed the cardinal sin of saying that non-significance is the same as 'no effect' in a study lacking sufficient events, in this case, deaths in non-drinkers. Maybe epidemiological studies should include power calculations, which make sure there is a reasonable chance of detecting a plausible effect, and which became standard in clinical trials after too-small studies were being used to claim that drugs did not work."
i didn't say anything about screening kids out at that age -- i'm not sure where that came from?! i was simply pointing out that there is another very important factor in explaining success at cognitively demanding tasks like programming .
your links in support of the injury prevention and mass building benefits refer to startingstrength.com and Practical Programming. That book is health cult literature, not a reliable scientific resource. The linked article links to evidence that resistance training can aid health (in elderly subjects). This does not support the idea of high intensity barbell training as a magic injury prevention tool.
Everyone who lifts for mass does a lot more higher rep volume than Starting Strength. Lots of guys have strong physiques yet use mostly "inferior" bodyweight exercises and machines. Take a look around you in the gym next time you're there and you might be a little surprised :).
Weight gain is a problem. Most people have no health reason to gain mass rapidly (or at all), yet many trainees struggle to progress without eating a large calorific surplus. This is a pretty good reason why such a training program should not be your default recommendation!
Strength is absolutely not that basis of all fitness. Many extremely fit endurance athletes never lift any weights. Even if this rather bizarre statement was true, it does not explain why powerlifting training of this sort is ideal for everyone. I note that you didn't dispute that it will interfere with other physical activity -- one of the most compelling reasons why the average person should not do Starting Strength and why it is most definitely a powerlifting specific training regime.
You may have had a great experience with Starting Strength. But other people will often have a very different response to training and health goals. Ask yourself also how much real evidence you have for your incredibly strong and dogmatic opinions on training.