JFIFC    $ &%# #"(-90(*6+"#2D26;=@@@&0FKE>J9?@=C  =)#)==================================================" }!1AQa"q2#BR$3br %&'()*456789:CDEFGHIJSTUVWXYZcdefghijstuvwxyz w!1AQaq"2B #3Rbr $4%&'()*56789:CDEFGHIJSTUVWXYZcdefghijstuvwxyz ?vb uʕ_dIBڤӟRj$u+x^V nv7dc>Byb5sw昖 wr0qZo]yvT=~8f$ )F@3@8$uZxnK6ZBc>v4`gw~9cGl>HaU_9nyx@p)wv;2Jb TI9ԁwfO|(MF4UU{\`v Pءȧ#!Jm'=OFց q{@>w&сR$Ojwb'+XE |>Bc>Qv@'>ޕeUv^]?~{ҋN86Ĥ 3 V}? {Y:F=*4E* 0n0F2 ;;#m z@ `C;3pI& GupMWK̞k#/0IS2y`,&uS$ Ă94R+e JӥGtSTdcӥ"#RmScҐPt0Ty=)8=:P}*6WLeP"9I۫ Efc-C\ R~N9ݡ3$]z}(V4B?wAT j);\Ў0S֪Kh7C$b2q3wO W=Dj ݱ1hGaYvKVu`3E[ :WӾl`#$ݗ0[nTInWKYUErMf@Nc=}Cc wn:?PT?9?Sh[pަjzw-.c?4k{S:UQov&H)=/1lVq3YnN]T_Sn! efJoK]?Dݕ)ǚI,H׾Z@ <]Fc?݇x "2( g#g=P}xJZ(8})ҙtNqڤI5B"#ҚÃӥKӥ~^;t-"woҰ^=h~fKb~5EMfP}k80aXn֩4ʥ1қD7-mm219/*bQn "fH9vå4&d3 l6kسwxUqwF.M|ֳɧ}A-9]' *"k1\.x'K=M'ǣ$hu"";0݆ڗ q&ꗨg[hre\tZȵn; TFwv.TUΨc9H>o!Y:牼K"[2 Uhlp|P n5. Ϳ?N2fnboDlYܩuTzՃ֭&/zu=Ī4e;vK'p sqKvKT3UiR=>fCMtZ1[ff6ѴM>:etc[c&νUqMew藓Mjvr][(3sUOc\$u浃EсnѲ NGQ]S+,l s:oaGAwֈ5 l-W9ÊRn}S[o_\ W:WRV%?ҷsbQcCh}ԚⶽV{wBd=U8X]ڰ[ȤAThI?jZ;&H&5{]j׍sv0GM969YQR"e gҔa:d$SOݶ UvLE鷰ud 1wю@*^Ojzp6Vw.?;}@Ҫ3`ߞMcQCmy޵/@A%7n%Qۀđ$M|}k-؍!FvH+׎)Y<7 =zf1>?҉V Px%8*} Q# [A+Iї5:\i PG_/[ KK6;{w h=v.3I=6<Ȫ p=Q%>w>{X!yzS$q%[Y-#;*Wi!\!R>:ޚ}q[3*K. K?cj|j%y$3 1EF2ðf9N '?@4slG Kc 89rbQ]̝&MOUO,_ҽ?]aZ"6(l\>2hƶ"$xybS4ڞImm:[&4r l%ߥwЛO_\YH§]޷5&B4V* N'=*"0~AjHeuڦ( k޴Ў6_Zt3YKB絉HQ${Wָp$!sF40'!<&{N㟕GsS$FIFQgފlvD#V̊]V$֘Ǒ.? Bc+Wh[޸h{qv0E[ubW@ vsE4+4ay""S!dgekV7ʓӰ9|jcLQj۵s9;?kq.wvǽX4);  sTs\#d~ՠG~h(akwu-0  Hqw8!ĥ8kltasچ! ǵ" TgolUBk|VxXcu#̍sNjHs5\g[:E}?z>R>k|+ e:MmoOM/, K*#|+>YpDqkY=sG/!$jO,sdE5M؉sޭZx;Uw, q$ QW17QmLskGAƇ䝼 Lf !P 襋t/@}9Mzl-ǧ?u1aOJ]JRd4hB/V4КFf5qsS4ƺR :8aܸn52#xAOҺl1|J-g 22zRjz >wdQb{`QEG&7yߐO\EAdeL%GLvDbW%I'VTHddg>-k34dS[jcAaZ\3Ze(')!Ai@=fOSL %K偏j A֬Q>f%ƑbHY}+oKm-u$M*sRi:yH#s>*yc{+ZAA9^˘e;p}*D8A6-cI.a$֜dqހ&w0l+:OZLrbpZeg`\ʩo_R.YDf A>OCI2'QZ@v?}jo6<Bx w"YhCmdG5̱ 5AE?yQޓq=C'v:VTR#{OZCܓ'jeH3y+8=bz(9Nϥ:q* -17 u$ z~u[fwMn'^9]IY.$L2qLnIrCs!>{귃5Z$&4'agbumՌҶU#WcsZ݌ҹ8.&̄SԻKd#O9j P3J;`F~W҂y~b pHTΝ?'n }) E0ORW;>xb!FI kYC8P:{9DUHG>UxG0r>̣)I΍r#-3 ȈޕcهH6WL$Gzz=1~+M8+\}id :nQp%uKrFjG9d}md1zonE9? Fr]ճEKo*XW.sL$Sgs d$Ĝw#4Q@. u=HΦ0Op3E[jabG`1@åP fړ9$l;'NQ@xy@]$˺F dqE8 }|->V#Fp(B)9c {CYvaY$֊((\D|TFcJۄ$tQ@q4a( ;p8D +*gx|vв"l%vN뚊TX)i9QE,b?wZFȬC1 0H,`,qVQ 0:QENUۘd@?袊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 attract of injury.<br><br>Shock Training in Action<br><br>According to Siff, Verkhoshansky is appalled at the amount of inaccurate information being published in the United States about shock training. Verkhoshansky attributes this to the fact that much of his material has not<br>been interpreted accurately. Siff says that the German coaches, who recognized the value of shock training and other forms of plyometrics, often had entire teams of several linguists and scientists working full time to<br>accurately analyze the writings of Verkhoshansky. In contrast, in the U.S. very few individuals translated his articles, and in many cases it might be a college student with little background in sport training. One example of poorly interpreted research is when American coaches say that Verkhoshansky recommends that athletes should be able to squat 1-1/2 times their bodyweight before performing shock training methods. In fact, Verkhoshansky says it would be unwise to wait until an athlete reaches this le