JFIFC    $ &%# #"(-90(*6+"#2D26;=@@@&0FKE>J9?@=C  =)#)==================================================" }!1AQa"q2#BR$3br %&'()*456789:CDEFGHIJSTUVWXYZcdefghijstuvwxyz w!1AQaq"2B #3Rbr $4%&'()*56789:CDEFGHIJSTUVWXYZcdefghijstuvwxyz ?{RGҕFOntҚ9OxP;q@ccv /CJT\RxC&8:T 85,eFRn )8*/k^$]CmSy8ʖc_ .4jHX zSYG {]Jyd-#(QV0OˡPܜi*n*{(8F8*RʛhfDW;S#*2(SS\`gp1@=7¤#(6ǥ0JE5) )Q@a҅ґGny4O#t/SJrHN^x%k?okr{5WgzRſŝs+)c5U,̖:y\G[f|Amu tmu=ALgMҢa_Z {E3.3 @È3Q\n/+F¼[)b/6uf>b1ӷZ {M aViBS^Oɮo4!RXNFs4KEggf-GG(0 j#I3A OqXCsh 60wskF!Pa/c\e(1JW,03H)5p0<.#+`LpF)N:I9vtI'@~j;8j(V)2Gzp:4£u=$mЎ1Gjq_0!uO֊{J(g^zqQpHȤ2Ar0E=H})tqkMbĺqi[[ >#'k>0"(W^kj#Q,&]vE/N6kfN|c1R\䥷08F^z`r8 9mH@4fGR@Z}­Жe[ľ ]ʬKg'o]j3E¶TʒfЬ֌Jz\lpߗz7Q_Z=$W9mx#{iDl=8?Qm&L6cr>/zhTtgc ڢx.H˽euVڜG? z|W0acUE'5y8P.UL1\ͤ%#6qz`JFƹ[dek)0^6a\bIƤ/xv Am{{WV>SE3s] p]]<-f6ЖeFt3]$br/'5 oJYs l1.[g>) w246AǒNO[ͭ_S@jNqڒ[)2UKig1on>l.qu~~+Ѷ`+5=Zd):A֧۩e;`U]G<: TTғW2^d+-V#?S^WoqKhn2;PxN"g!~1ck}2!^9ȡ2C 6:j !?>keqec= :׋h"+ȌrtK_\/c޵K>SOrI2`|֨PrpFI[otjluż-0z']lKy4$8 D~oST' \/5+-yDa@k3w" rg {=rHuf(#+SdDڣ=`x52. '_sgIE1 I9籮g=J7ib)8~Ҽv$WN|@QN=٣Q̊:0#WxFyW<`>u*Gs^x[Fe3^XDҞFo:V>Ѵ;EWr\4@ 9-YumE I&3dv͇8VrIj&vۖ`ZLlT!Oo¥Cג= ΅BpdF$kհE=L E(JL Pr{tC* };Us*D$Kdygmozj|AvaxZYǁ/.v) ,ΧBq')5I " @RGcoKQN*M3Eaٰ23^WҼwẟNl)>afӥ0"+2*r/n>_oM"an{SFG'*r)>DÊF3ҡhBh  g֪}i .^(ǴX^o~ Ѹ'Wȭ9"d皍?HTpzc_JQrŷ?d~(mrbGJk%H9ET;fv 3|ct wn8OvY12y%Nzu\}i0$'RN-/F8֠ʞ1Pgj9  >TI0N2mx+L"V䑎ނ?JͰbn)7(ݙՊ3SwuҐ0'˜qN1@Ǩ4QӧJ~qS@3 QrW:GZ?:b܎ߕq +"b(1?j Ue [lҀ}*AiݳRhGO—CRcڤ?k ?ձq\`T |2*۹Qu@09Jwiԟvz6\0["hdy-<ҡ"H35i7x #ؚ ڱmKE+$ w)@:֊gz ^ԹUD\yHsVJxl`ҵ;OҴ=JomŮC$F}o4_^qꬩjk?|HD*^xu:)CڰtEn=+Ynr+nm8&eFrsҮl;J6l~bcdX 4ZdU{S%>ե4R2ӛd_diE$ϥ)Ml5 ' $QFCz+~AHQ`&e؀?J tp*ŜX 9QYv{u(\UsqSHoeC\ZzDQ6?֝rQDW8DZt-"NI|ǽ CS7LXeQ G|TGIaPrUyXw5h21Yb2)VJ^ewuRy54B*qo9TR4L)%۳3J< 8N u6ؽnT4_8׷%ȹNjU%n0Ƅ3IN6M=XGzMe|0Gҳ+|і=iX r) Ҟ0t\sǧ@<$OZ6>q=G_AFn~tFs֢#'}) }OHd$p) L Rn ~=E)w 0{S c֏><NJc^B(VF`9!Ac_0EF)hŅ pAݳYQ6qށfp\`/չ R ~#J,4 gڕ.< 'h O4H0EJù4f+gW$1y%ŘpI?P:tTle{{uFCSVƱIDhՔ^G Uݶ0A!Pq %X[hnRIH`+r=G.Xɢ{&p !(QVa$ud7/W Ã0i^b$w7S3r="$¦X@) ̥A‘q1V|i}TӸ@# HgՓ?*BGN\ Fh*BФ7 €!h~TQLE' d 9*Sb~?oƤfnA-Sя7vTž-zS3 #*2=N0 Iuǧq@e#b2OL0֘U۟; C1M&9XKfgp1]9Uo~5"֯ra+ w˵=qddOd(_ 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 weightlif