Danger said:
Oh, are you changing the subject to muscle mass? I thought we were talking about in shape, as in TONE.
I repeat again, most 17's are in better shape (TONE) than late 20 counterparts.
Its amazing how some of you guys truly believe the nonsense you speak at times.
Clearly we have a guy here who knows nothing about physical ability, athleticism or fitness. Being in shape isn’t solely about muscle tone. Muscle mass plays a large role. You need both as strength is a function of mass and tone combined. Allow me to be more clear. Earlier I should have said peak strength occurs in your mid 20s, not that only peak mass occurs. But that strength peaks in the 20s and is affected by tone and muscle mass combined. Any research data will show you this. Do you really want me to own you with PubMd studies? Ill find you the data if you like.
Again, being toned is not the only factor of being in shape. A slim 17 yr old kid with tone would be in a lot less shape than me, a 26 yr old guy with a good amount of muscle mass and tone. The average 17 yr old isnt capable of the tone and mass I am capable of. I definitely wasnt capable of the body I have no back when I was 17. I may have looked tone, but a lot of people mistaken being thin with being tone. Low body fat does not equal tone...and most teenagers dont have much muscle tone, but they dont even exercise nowadays.
Hell, a novice weight lifting in his late 20s with a huge amount of muscle mass but not a lot of tone would easily outclass most teenagers, because most teenage boys are small without much muscle mass or even tone yet. They haven’t finished growing.
And if you wanna talk about peaks, check out this
http://www.sportsci.org/encyc/agingex/agingex.html. I back up what I say with facts. And do remember, physical fighting ability is not solely about tone. Its about muscle mass, flexibility, and quickness too. If you want I have more links for you. Or are you more knowledgeable than the Encyclopedia of Sports Medicine and Science?
Nevermind the fact that testosterone is what makes muscles grow and become toned. And testosterone peaks in your mid to late 20s. And let me repeat again, muscle mass and tone contribute to overall strength. They go hand in hand. Strength is a function of tone and mass combined, and strength peaks in your mid 20s. Nothing Ive said is wrong.
Mass is a FAR cry different than tone. Most guys when they hit 22 get less and less exercise. That doesn't stop for a 17 year old who still goes to school, has no job, and plays basketball all day.
You simply have NO clue what you are talking about.
Actually Ive just highlighted that you do not know what you are talking about. And now you are acting like you know the activity levels of all teens and 20 somethings. Its been pretty well documented over the years that technology has made children and teens play outside less, but even if they were still very active, they have biological limitations that I highlighted above. The 20s is still the peak decade for physical ability and its not like all 20-somethings let themselves go to crap after 22. Most people I know have exercised more in their early to mid 20s than they ever did as a teen.
And its not like plenty of teenagers aren’t in terrible shape…we see it everyday and the First Lady has even started a crusade to get young people in better shape. So lets stop pretending that teens outclass 20-somethings so easily. You are the one who has no idea what hes talking about. Anyone who knows anything about the human body would laugh at you saying teenagers, who aren’t physically mature, are somehow more physically able than people in their 20s. Find me one source online that backs up what youre saying.
Again, strength is about tone and muscle mass, and it peaks in our mid 20s and plateus until out early or mid 30s. Every source you can find agrees with this. Find me one that doesn’t, because Im sure I can find 15 that agree with me
Oh, you now want to compare Trayvon to the average teen? And by looking at the photos of George at the time you can see he was not in shape.
I want to compare BOTH of them to average folks their age. They were BOTH little weaklings. Id destroy both of those guys in a fight. Neither had muscle tone or mass. In other words neither has much strength. Lol @ this idea that the average little 17 yr old in the world could outclass an average 20-something.
Most guys here will even tell you they were stronger, bigger, and more physically fit in their early 20s or mid twenties, than they were at freaking 17 years old.
It doesn't matter $hit what you think. I have logic on my side, all you have is emotions and butthurt.
Bias the jury how? It's just a visual representation of the defense testimony. The State could have easily done the same thing.
Lmao…now youre really wishing for something that aint there. Im butt hurt because I said we can wipe our behinds with speculation? Its true…computer simulation that don’t use actual proven facts are speculations. And because of that they are useless in a criminal case, because they are just hard reaches to bias the jury. And the state couldn’t and didn’t do the same thing because they were smart enough to know it wouldn’t be admissible as evidence. The judge ruled it could be used as a demonstrative aid in testimony, like the dummy from today. But to present it as evidence (aka a fact) would be misleading and just incorrect.
There is no logic on your side. And speculations about who struck first can be butt wiped too, because no one can establish what actually happened. Whats logical about making an assumption which has no use in a court of law. The jurors will basically have no ignore the “who started it?” arguments from either side, because neither side can establish with certainty who indeed struck first.
All probability shows that Trayvon struck first.
He initiated the confrontation with "Why you following me for".
His phone was full of texts about fighting, being in fights, and helping his brother learn to fight.
George knew the police were coming, makes little sense to start an altercation.
Everything that could help decide who threw the punch leans towards Trayvon. You may hate it, but it's the simple truth. If you weren't so invested in trying to blame George, you would realize that.
You are clearly being biased. You ignored many things that could lead people to believe Zimmerman had a probability of striking first. Even the defense lawyers blogging and talking about this case on tv admit that the prosecution makes good points about there being a probability Zimmerman struck first. And btw, those defense attorneys are folks who think Zimmerman will walk away from this.
The prosecution states that Zimmermans frustration in the 911 tapes shows a guy who didn’t wanna wait for the police and let another supposed bad guy get away. Also, if you wanna highlight Martins past, lets not forget Zimmermans record of dosmetic issues with his now wife, and assault on a police officer. And also theres his aggression towards former co workers. Why do you ignore Zimmermans past and his attitude in the 911 calls? So no, everything does not point to Martin having thrown the first punch. Theres other things that could paint a picture that he didn’t.
You just aren’t looking at this from both sides. Lord knows if there was a recording of Martin showing frustration or hostility towards Zimmermans, guys like you wouldn’t just gloss over it.