Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.
Don't forget to look at the how to guide.
Discussion in 'Physical education' started by FemaleFitnessCoach, Mar 31, 2011.
what....no sarky comment?
I give up!
The science is out there and has been for years, decades even. And I did sum it up in an earlier post.
Why does it still need repeating????
Give it up!
Some are born with the ability, some have the personality and opportinities to develop it through training, those who work hard will improve. The best will be those with the innate ability who grasp the best of opportunities...... there are many shades of grey......
Nature PLUS nurture always wins!
I'll still have a read of the book. After all, 15% of the world's population believe that bible nonsense...
That little David guy could have been a top javelin thrower. And Goliath, what a WWF find he would have been...
I agree, well put.............but!
To what extent does nature or nurture impact. Can you give a % pobble.
You are asking the impossible, MG!
Individual differences can be enormous!
Genetic predisposition is not a quantifiable 'thing'.
Determination and training are likewise not measurable determinants of success.
What can be quantified are individual physiological gains and, to some extent, potential for gain - and again they are highly individual.
An exercise physiologist will be able to tell you the maximal gains an individual could make, based on their body make up, muscle types, levers, cardiovascular and respiratory systems etc. BUT even then they would only be able to estimate the potential, not the reality as that would be based on training and individual behaviour!
If you want certainty you need to switch to mechanical engineering rather than biomechanical!
I agree, so stating that somone is a natural is never easy to back up. It is purely down to youre view of a child performing at any given time.
Go on have a go...50/50?
It is scientifically moot!
That and I understand the vaguaries of the science. So why should I try to reduce it to some silly, random number?
Sorry, MG. But I shall not because it is nonsensical to do so.
THAT is something I would never do, as it is not true.
No! It is down to quantifiable factors: higher, faster, stronger etc!
You are arguing yourself round in circles and ignoring the opinions of others.In that post you have stated as if it were agreed that a child can be ' a natural' and that observation is all! Both of which I do not agree with - and have said as much!
OK - so explain the oxyheamoglobin dissociation curve and the bohr shift and their implications for both a marathon runner and a weight lifter! Tell me about the mechanical disadvantage of levers and how it can be used to improve performance. You are most certainly reducing your own standing here with that sentence!
As for the rest of your post you have shown again that you have not understood the posts that have gone before! Your question has been aswered more than once.... that you have not understood it is not my fault!
I always thought this was 'pervert smiley'.....
Oh god I can be so naive!!!
Never crossed my mind - thanks, I think!!
Pobbs, you dimwit. I don't think the TES are in the habit of creating 'pervert smilies'. I think you are right and this one is supposed to denote a nerd (like you ).
I just think it looks like a pervert.
I can't find one that blows a raspberry!!
But you get my meaning.....