JFIFC    $ &%# #"(-90(*6+"#2D26;=@@@&0FKE>J9?@=C  =)#)==================================================!" }!1AQa"q2#BR$3br %&'()*456789:CDEFGHIJSTUVWXYZcdefghijstuvwxyz w!1AQaq"2B #3Rbr $4%&'()*56789:CDEFGHIJSTUVWXYZcdefghijstuvwxyz ?=zf95 G#":@jr}i5"r(88>ԠdhÞ/ocP9(J:)Cqґ۠;M$iq)c792 ({tsM4{Sj"o^ a dty' @sL#jB?#>@zbc'1zq^3@P vyh?O4mN)PRg4hiJ ($^y ťMņ1 ={֚Wv6u^Lv͞|/ +?Hour"-,{yrOHG3gбȒƲDrӺW|9W:=-lDZ̊"sPՍ"#qL'SH*F43L=FE;$p;HLb2ҟi@ 8!M4 ?:(8O#s iAPp})Қzҩ>€i`b9s@Zp1Yl=i^IKO \j{-f[yJ_85׼wk%Y qzs޹1W#ޭG<ǩj`A!yv'îyvX0\lsYBPpK ^w^Kh|#59j*vg׺1GUd7r*5͋t0ɂTS] Bps|?5̦Lգym8E'J=;66"|1+з|Tg5IN͡ iSϽ4hcޜx4yL:&##0Lc:#0ɤ2"yQN zb`N ӳ1M'#qց^(HPp}(ÎҚF*hZlM]BW ة ͉.?:s=$y'gX5 ntvڳJ ܐ7 7''@Tr1R@L' # \m iMٙhj؝ɜzgz;jJz\+A Xq&O_˵=_EH'Jy Uq(HNJ2njP"BA݌\_5 ?E_Bb@8 eGwG6:} 7wQJǖw`g \8 qH*3BOZ HSO L@(9H8VrVfpDIޮgm19ֹ|G}`nr"V{]lO=n-4b'ܞO$uoecoMN 06: 4 B4SF$[9M#ғw\}i qL7848$PA篽!=,7siKn=%7GСܺH9Qʉa{O,9lm1q "A#ykr@< haiܟ 88"B$ )8Eqs:!jU*O(攷jbI!ZLMF 'Ɲ0A4XH돥;>p2Ho31{".O.jt=2Ja巒#hXMB/TqxO6 $paC |͹tUd 6zI~fǤF!c u]uۑ^f6p :ӧm>X :C=$LoZ>*ҊAN9RP4?!V|`j20OCXH$6 FnDfjXg(=1XG:P|g~=J,Mc(>"՘TRrOZrh:?ӮNO5+߅WG5H2G=i^GQ❆#]^~ tO2J~jH?LOP,2vNd0z>1 ʊC~QO1!g(b!et9Җ;Qӯu?Vk3顕aSiԪtr32{'^yekSL[F@'iWA'@'lϷަ~6'J)9.8ѧsQdOf#]/-1"F;rF} _=l^9VuS;` Fr4RɕGJ(yێJLI<F20{gϵL$a?Ƨj)@"9?Lx NOUB4o9#S2+L(:93AV~OzѼ;>PA wE.=qBvw2P&{wg?VŔO qɍ0q?JA֛h O R(PyT&˞ƈ2k yWE'eDc@r\TF48ʣhI1ސ&94RzzP"oCQS2){=ip94F@`A< €#RIS(l.>( s?*P `G3@lžj4uhgR Ҁ'Ri$~ sd)9$zR{M^iy1߭ >F84};U4g9w>i3@9`8?Lc* ӁҶ%A`S {Տ?4ןƺ 4"<{T7ңrOZa^0std14P"X6pM8)'=SA$Ԛz@?*xU4J@E(u'?g@ crP izZ7?ZB ަ[3|2h>1sϥ/zm)4q{ў2i4?(ϻ rx0TcdIE)֔'wz Q*38A˓'JfI=?"A3'/ףbv?QQI?4F3==hoScl}c@cI?SQ LUq`LRi?=yǭDɸ8"r;9`zRdD'#UeU=O94YA9T][#;L ƎE">н( >P(袘Oi%E ~T PƊ) r4'oSZ(E)}(i_Ɗ()ng this subject is Mel Siff, Ph.D., an exercise scientist whose doctorate thesis examined the biomechanics of soft tissues. <br> It has never been shown scientifically or clinically that the periodic imposition of large forces by weight training on the growing body causes damage to the epiphysial plates, says Siff, in his book Facts and Fallacies of Fitness.  It is extremely misleading to focus on the alleged risks of weight training on children when biomechanical research shows that simple daily activities such as running, jumping, striking or catching can impose far greater forces on the musculoskeletal system than very heavy weight training. <br>To illustrate his point, Siff compared the stress of squatting with running.  Suppose that one child runs a few hundred meters a day in some sporting or recreational activities. This can easily involve several thousand foot strikes in which the reaction force imposed on the body can easily exceed 4 times bodyweight with every stride. Now let another child do a typical average weight training session with 3-5 sets of squats (say, with 10 reps, 8, 6 and 4 reps), with bodyweight or more for the last set. That bodyweight is divided between the two legs, so that, even taking acceleration into account, the loading per leg is bodyweight or a little more, while the spine is subjected to the full load on the bar. In other words, the legs and spine in controlled squatting are exposed to significantly less force than in running and jumping. Normally, exercises such as squatting will be done no more than twice a week for a total of about 60 repetitions, while the running child will run every day and subject the body to those many thousands of impulsive foot strikes. <br> It does not require much scientific knowledge or computational genius to see that the cumulative loading imposed by simple running activities on the lower extremities and the spine is far greater than the cumulative load of two or three times a week of weight training. Does this now mean that we are justified in recommending that children not be allowed to run, jump, throw or catch because biomechanical research definitely shows that such activities can produce very large forces on many parts of the growing body? <br>It should be obvious then that there is nothing wrong with running and other normal activities of childhood, and therefore no reason to disallow activities of lesser impact, such as carefully structured programs of weight training.<br>Siff also notes that bone density scans have proven that youngsters who do competitive weightlifting (i.e., the snatch and the clean and jerk) have higher bone densities than children who do not use weights, and that clinical research has not shown any correlation between weight training and epiphysial damage. Further, an extensive Russian study on young athletes, published in a book entitled School of Height, concluded that heavy lifting tends to stimulate bone growth in young athletes rather than inhibit it.<br>Two possible reasons for the fear that weight training could stunt growth are that weightlifters tend to possess more muscle mass than other athletes and that smaller athletes are attracted to the sport. In gymnastics, the average height of elite athletes has steadily declined in the past several Olympics because shorter athletes tend to be more successful in this sport. But saying that weightlifting makes you shorter because many elite weightlifters are short would be like saying that basketball makes you taller because most professional basket