JFIFC    $ &%# #"(-90(*6+"#2D26;=@@@&0FKE>J9?@=C  =)#)==================================================aK" }!1AQa"q2#BR$3br %&'()*456789:CDEFGHIJSTUVWXYZcdefghijstuvwxyz w!1AQaq"2B #3Rbr $4%&'()*56789:CDEFGHIJSTUVWXYZcdefghijstuvwxyz ?.<O.`?Z&,FYKq^+{mN[KW} ͟ZYlNȻ97kKhdHcm'UF+=.kU\n!.{}[<})--]'%I *=22mIIbjw=h KQU5i-J&OiG:F" CGrI{ڝ)is2t\%Ud 4r:ᑛ!ƹ}mu4"$.xl{=*3/J(s6WsZ+į]%:XP\ 6/;, jz؄TCB˓[j_heNp\~#q-eh` 靛['񭨮LƇ˞5a K&HǜA?>BvLǃd+qFՉc-mo$&çkln6aM/.ȈFkJ.ۤp{'tø5ĂC"kJ#܍ 1FӜ ]kx;#0ݔ֚j.uO#xR{ BEHXF r+Эcdi]pn8S޽X)JE`(E:=br; g-!⹏ ݷdYtYel=k{͑Yh#\#ASFnWr-zƧsyᔖ"y^m1z[%\zb<#WW#q5ЦtrH#.IZkbgCw&+DDO0*k3Qъ7A|iAjz2nFs4RNFI䗲ڨMmش:cg8149}5TxGQ]nYHUThH i])=}+ʴ:[;>ק#~S  ٯ[ʢF kI3m'simԡrh \{Uay} I荾tI{RxzuLZ8ܞXК#Q޽:凒JG^j~ ,5~!mIQ\^!4R\I\$bM,}Yu'ٝ ǎ$'7OEgM⋙O&F}du5"kgG%%.{w3x5H}5Yrf .DVxOծn$,}+bV'q[M VTکg}" ̥S;%wqmL *WI.<' gw\#s:uIfE٤3u5v&AsޥHTwCޣCSʑD$zM׆t(Pu㩯<`C֭ ZH:RSqA׊Mqw4).*]07ȤgUKSFHc{K9N+*'(3T:vi4YDd' 7]4#3sf~UH?u~+i:sk⧵eTpzu)0US$= ݾlcg*+l'X/kRn cɆi?$M&.Q#R1"u ݙs;rO=}526w)nAq4=IsP{O_ |W[6zd<*֖ۺ{$F*uI"E 퇲eo6=4e the same number of sets. Therefore, if you have four squat stations and four bench stations with a system of rotating from one to another you can run into challenges. Your athletes doing the bench get done with their setsbefore the athletes who are squatting. What do you do? Well, they could stretch, do a burnout set or do an auxiliary lift. So it does not need to be unproductive or a waste. However, with the one station-do it all concept, there is more efficiency. Your coaching becomes easier because everyone is doing the same lift. Your time management becomes more precise and controlled. The athletes could get more intense if a competitive atmosphere were created with everyone doing the same lift. Finally, in most cases, the one station approach can save space.<br><br>What are the disadvantages, if any? I can think of onlytwo. First, the cost. The transition from one approach to this approach costs money. Some one statio