Strength and Conditioning Program

Slim80 · Post by **Slim80** » May 31st, 2021, 1:21 pm

Hey guys. What’s the good word on the new strength and conditioning program for the team? Any inside info on how the players have felt about it so far? The recent post about Calvin Knapp being a little undersized got me thinking about the program and how effective it’s gonna be in turning these players into chiseled football machines.

Post by **aggies22** » May 31st, 2021, 1:28 pm

Slim80 wrote: ↑
May 31st, 2021, 1:21 pm
Hey guys. What’s the good word on the new strength and conditioning program for the team? Any inside info on how the players have felt about it so far? The recent post about Calvin Knapp being a little undersized got me thinking about the program and how effective it’s gonna be in turning these players into chiseled football machines.

The summer strength and conditioning program starts tomorrow. The players are starting to trickle back into town this week.

BobWilson · Post by **BobWilson** » May 31st, 2021, 6:50 pm

"Undersized" for the OL usually means the player is under 300 pounds these days. But for so many about 20 pounds or more hangs out over their belts and is not muscle. I'd put a 260 - 270 Merlin Olsen or Clark Miller up against any of today's linemen. Air Force does well with linemen in that range of weight.

FromLItoLogan · Post by **FromLItoLogan** » May 31st, 2021, 8:47 pm

BobWilson wrote: ↑
May 31st, 2021, 6:50 pm
"Undersized" for the OL usually means the player is under 300 pounds these days. But for so many about 20 pounds or more hangs out over their belts and is not muscle. I'd put a 260 - 270 Merlin Olsen or Clark Miller up against any of today's linemen. Air Force does well with linemen in that range of weight.

I disagree. Air Force does well with lineman that size because their system and program requires them to have linemen that size. The triple option relies having quicker linemen that are experts at chop blocking against larger lineman which is largely a run blocking scheme. Linemen in a non triple option offense still need to be quick, but not as quick and need to have mass.You can get away with a just under 300lb quicker offensive tackle since the edge tends to use finesse moves over the bull rush but on the inside where DTs and NTs are in the 300+ range that extra 20-40lbs of even just fat can make the difference between being consistently bulldozed during a bull rush in a 4-5 second traditional pass rush.

NavyBlueAggie · Post by **NavyBlueAggie** » May 31st, 2021, 9:06 pm

There is an entry posted on this forum identifying the biggest O lines in 2020 complete with height and weight. I believe one of the major problems confronting college and professional football is the extra bulk developed on players these last two decades. Too much mass for the various skeletons, tendons, ligaments even the muscles to manage. Just look at the growing number of injuries and the extended healing time for these athletes.

Players are now faster, taller and enjoy better equipment than we had all those years ago, and that is reality. The frequency of injuries continue to grow, and I blame physics. Mass times velocity elevates the intensity of contact, and the mass increases along with the rate of injury.

El Sapo · Post by **El Sapo** » June 1st, 2021, 9:11 am

I'm surprised the program is just starting. Is there a unofficial program that our players participate in? I know they're students and not professionals, but the considering DeLaSalle High School football players train year around, and we have that great facility, I thought our guys would as well.

USU78 · Post by **USU78** » June 1st, 2021, 9:28 am

NavyBlueAggie wrote: ↑
May 31st, 2021, 9:06 pm
There is an entry posted on this forum identifying the biggest O lines in 2020 complete with height and weight. I believe one of the major problems confronting college and professional football is the extra bulk developed on players these last two decades. Too much mass for the various skeletons, tendons, ligaments even the muscles to manage. Just look at the growing number of injuries and the extended healing time for these athletes.

Players are now faster, taller and enjoy better equipment than we had all those years ago, and that is reality. The frequency of injuries continue to grow, and I blame physics. Mass times velocity elevates the intensity of contact, and the mass increases along with the rate of injury.

Bear Bryant would take a three hundred plus pounder and work him till he was down to 265, all muscle, springs for legs, able to sprint every play for the full sixty minutes.

And those 265 pounders beat the crap out of everybody.

Because Force = mass times velocity squared. If it were velocity times mass squared Bear would've languished at some JC somewhere

Post by **aggies22** » June 1st, 2021, 10:08 am

El Sapo wrote: ↑
June 1st, 2021, 9:11 am
I'm surprised the program is just starting. Is there a unofficial program that our players participate in? I know they're students and not professionals, but the considering DeLaSalle High School football players train year around, and we have that great facility, I thought our guys would as well.

Once finals are over the kids are all allowed to go home for four or five weeks.

MalAgua · Post by **MalAgua** » June 1st, 2021, 10:09 am

USU78 wrote: ↑
June 1st, 2021, 9:28 am

NavyBlueAggie wrote: ↑
May 31st, 2021, 9:06 pm
There is an entry posted on this forum identifying the biggest O lines in 2020 complete with height and weight. I believe one of the major problems confronting college and professional football is the extra bulk developed on players these last two decades. Too much mass for the various skeletons, tendons, ligaments even the muscles to manage. Just look at the growing number of injuries and the extended healing time for these athletes.

Players are now faster, taller and enjoy better equipment than we had all those years ago, and that is reality. The frequency of injuries continue to grow, and I blame physics. Mass times velocity elevates the intensity of contact, and the mass increases along with the rate of injury.
Bear Bryant would take a three hundred plus pounder and work him till he was down to 265, all muscle, springs for legs, able to sprint every play for the full sixty minutes.

And those 265 pounders beat the crap out of everybody.

Because Force = mass times velocity squared. If it were velocity times mass squared Bear would've languished at some JC somewhere

I hope you aren't a college of engineering alum...

El Sapo · Post by **El Sapo** » June 1st, 2021, 10:36 am

aggies22 wrote: ↑
June 1st, 2021, 10:08 am

El Sapo wrote: ↑
June 1st, 2021, 9:11 am
I'm surprised the program is just starting. Is there a unofficial program that our players participate in? I know they're students and not professionals, but the considering DeLaSalle High School football players train year around, and we have that great facility, I thought our guys would as well.
Once finals are over the kids are all allowed to go home for four or five weeks.

UNACEPTABLE!

Yossarian · Post by **Yossarian** » June 1st, 2021, 10:38 am

MalAgua wrote: ↑
June 1st, 2021, 10:09 am

USU78 wrote: ↑
June 1st, 2021, 9:28 am

NavyBlueAggie wrote: ↑
May 31st, 2021, 9:06 pm
There is an entry posted on this forum identifying the biggest O lines in 2020 complete with height and weight. I believe one of the major problems confronting college and professional football is the extra bulk developed on players these last two decades. Too much mass for the various skeletons, tendons, ligaments even the muscles to manage. Just look at the growing number of injuries and the extended healing time for these athletes.

Players are now faster, taller and enjoy better equipment than we had all those years ago, and that is reality. The frequency of injuries continue to grow, and I blame physics. Mass times velocity elevates the intensity of contact, and the mass increases along with the rate of injury.
Bear Bryant would take a three hundred plus pounder and work him till he was down to 265, all muscle, springs for legs, able to sprint every play for the full sixty minutes.

And those 265 pounders beat the crap out of everybody.

Because Force = mass times velocity squared. If it were velocity times mass squared Bear would've languished at some JC somewhere
I hope you aren't a college of engineering alum...

I was going to correct the equation, but I have held off.

mcaggie1 · Post by **mcaggie1** » June 1st, 2021, 1:18 pm

Yossarian wrote: ↑
June 1st, 2021, 10:38 am

MalAgua wrote: ↑
June 1st, 2021, 10:09 am

USU78 wrote: ↑
June 1st, 2021, 9:28 am

NavyBlueAggie wrote: ↑
May 31st, 2021, 9:06 pm
There is an entry posted on this forum identifying the biggest O lines in 2020 complete with height and weight. I believe one of the major problems confronting college and professional football is the extra bulk developed on players these last two decades. Too much mass for the various skeletons, tendons, ligaments even the muscles to manage. Just look at the growing number of injuries and the extended healing time for these athletes.

Players are now faster, taller and enjoy better equipment than we had all those years ago, and that is reality. The frequency of injuries continue to grow, and I blame physics. Mass times velocity elevates the intensity of contact, and the mass increases along with the rate of injury.
Bear Bryant would take a three hundred plus pounder and work him till he was down to 265, all muscle, springs for legs, able to sprint every play for the full sixty minutes.

And those 265 pounders beat the crap out of everybody.

Because Force = mass times velocity squared. If it were velocity times mass squared Bear would've languished at some JC somewhere
I hope you aren't a college of engineering alum...
I was going to correct the equation, but I have held off.

2+2=4.

USU78 · Post by **USU78** » June 1st, 2021, 5:46 pm

Yossarian wrote: ↑
June 1st, 2021, 10:38 am

MalAgua wrote: ↑
June 1st, 2021, 10:09 am

USU78 wrote: ↑
June 1st, 2021, 9:28 am

NavyBlueAggie wrote: ↑
May 31st, 2021, 9:06 pm
There is an entry posted on this forum identifying the biggest O lines in 2020 complete with height and weight. I believe one of the major problems confronting college and professional football is the extra bulk developed on players these last two decades. Too much mass for the various skeletons, tendons, ligaments even the muscles to manage. Just look at the growing number of injuries and the extended healing time for these athletes.

Players are now faster, taller and enjoy better equipment than we had all those years ago, and that is reality. The frequency of injuries continue to grow, and I blame physics. Mass times velocity elevates the intensity of contact, and the mass increases along with the rate of injury.
Bear Bryant would take a three hundred plus pounder and work him till he was down to 265, all muscle, springs for legs, able to sprint every play for the full sixty minutes.

And those 265 pounders beat the crap out of everybody.

Because Force = mass times velocity squared. If it were velocity times mass squared Bear would've languished at some JC somewhere
I hope you aren't a college of engineering alum...
I was going to correct the equation, but I have held off.

Can you explain where the 1/2 goes on mv^2*1/2? Never quite understood that. Teacher going on and on about the relationship between kinetic energy and E=mc^2 and the 1/2 disappearing ... or something.

In any event velocity is a whole lot more important than mass when big bodies collide at speeds less than the speed of light. That's why we square it. That's why AFA beats our average to bad teams so badly.

... oh, that and the illegal blocking

Yossarian · Post by **Yossarian** » June 1st, 2021, 6:32 pm

USU78 wrote: ↑
June 1st, 2021, 5:46 pm

Yossarian wrote: ↑
June 1st, 2021, 10:38 am

MalAgua wrote: ↑
June 1st, 2021, 10:09 am

USU78 wrote: ↑
June 1st, 2021, 9:28 am

NavyBlueAggie wrote: ↑
May 31st, 2021, 9:06 pm
There is an entry posted on this forum identifying the biggest O lines in 2020 complete with height and weight. I believe one of the major problems confronting college and professional football is the extra bulk developed on players these last two decades. Too much mass for the various skeletons, tendons, ligaments even the muscles to manage. Just look at the growing number of injuries and the extended healing time for these athletes.

Players are now faster, taller and enjoy better equipment than we had all those years ago, and that is reality. The frequency of injuries continue to grow, and I blame physics. Mass times velocity elevates the intensity of contact, and the mass increases along with the rate of injury.
Bear Bryant would take a three hundred plus pounder and work him till he was down to 265, all muscle, springs for legs, able to sprint every play for the full sixty minutes.

And those 265 pounders beat the crap out of everybody.

Because Force = mass times velocity squared. If it were velocity times mass squared Bear would've languished at some JC somewhere
I hope you aren't a college of engineering alum...
I was going to correct the equation, but I have held off.
Can you explain where the 1/2 goes on mv^2*1/2? Never quite understood that. Teacher going on and on about the relationship between kinetic energy and E=mc^2 and the 1/2 disappearing ... or something.

In any event velocity is a whole lot more important than mass when big bodies collide at speeds less than the speed of light. That's why we square it. That's why AFA beats our average to bad teams so badly.

... oh, that and the illegal blocking

The equation for force is mass times the acceleration (F=ma). Acceleration is the measurement of the change in velocity given in units of distance/time/time (ft/sec/sec, or ft/sec^2). An object moving at a constant velocity has no acceleration. So, to your point - a fellow of smaller mass can produce a larger force by his ability to accelerate into the hit, when compared to a larger, lumbering fellow that cannot accelerate quickly.

The equation you are giving is Einstein's equation for Energy, not force. He equates the amount of energy to the mass multiplied by the speed of light squared. This provides a relationship between two seemingly different entities - mass and energy.

As per the "1/2",

I think you may be confusing the equations for force with equations for displacement (usually denoted with "u" or "x"). A velocity is calculated by taking an initial velocity and adding acceleration over time (v = u + at). A distance traveled or displacement (s) is calculated by taking the intial velocity multiplied by time "t" and adding the acceleration (or deceleration) of the object over that same time period. This produces (s = ut + 1/2at^2). The "1/2" value comes from the integral of the velocity with respect to time. If you were to take the derivative of the displacement equation with respect to time (ds/dt), you would get the velocity equation with acceleration (u + at).

USU78 · Post by **USU78** » June 1st, 2021, 8:03 pm

Yossarian wrote: ↑
June 1st, 2021, 6:32 pm

USU78 wrote: ↑
June 1st, 2021, 5:46 pm

Yossarian wrote: ↑
June 1st, 2021, 10:38 am

MalAgua wrote: ↑
June 1st, 2021, 10:09 am

USU78 wrote: ↑
June 1st, 2021, 9:28 am

NavyBlueAggie wrote: ↑
May 31st, 2021, 9:06 pm
There is an entry posted on this forum identifying the biggest O lines in 2020 complete with height and weight. I believe one of the major problems confronting college and professional football is the extra bulk developed on players these last two decades. Too much mass for the various skeletons, tendons, ligaments even the muscles to manage. Just look at the growing number of injuries and the extended healing time for these athletes.

Players are now faster, taller and enjoy better equipment than we had all those years ago, and that is reality. The frequency of injuries continue to grow, and I blame physics. Mass times velocity elevates the intensity of contact, and the mass increases along with the rate of injury.
Bear Bryant would take a three hundred plus pounder and work him till he was down to 265, all muscle, springs for legs, able to sprint every play for the full sixty minutes.

And those 265 pounders beat the crap out of everybody.

Because Force = mass times velocity squared. If it were velocity times mass squared Bear would've languished at some JC somewhere
I hope you aren't a college of engineering alum...
I was going to correct the equation, but I have held off.
Can you explain where the 1/2 goes on mv^2*1/2? Never quite understood that. Teacher going on and on about the relationship between kinetic energy and E=mc^2 and the 1/2 disappearing ... or something.

In any event velocity is a whole lot more important than mass when big bodies collide at speeds less than the speed of light. That's why we square it. That's why AFA beats our average to bad teams so badly.

... oh, that and the illegal blocking
The equation for force is mass times the acceleration (F=ma). Acceleration is the measurement of the change in velocity given in units of distance/time/time (ft/sec/sec, or ft/sec^2). An object moving at a constant velocity has no acceleration. So, to your point - a fellow of smaller mass can produce a larger force by his ability to accelerate into the hit, when compared to a larger, lumbering fellow that cannot accelerate quickly.

The equation you are giving is Einstein's equation for Energy, not force. He equates the amount of energy to the mass multiplied by the speed of light squared. This provides a relationship between two seemingly different entities - mass and energy.

As per the "1/2",

I think you may be confusing the equations for force with equations for displacement (usually denoted with "u" or "x"). A velocity is calculated by taking an initial velocity and adding acceleration over time (v = u + at). A distance traveled or displacement (s) is calculated by taking the intial velocity multiplied by time "t" and adding the acceleration (or deceleration) of the object over that same time period. This produces (s = ut + 1/2at^2). The "1/2" value comes from the integral of the velocity with respect to time. If you were to take the derivative of the displacement equation with respect to time (ds/dt), you would get the velocity equation with acceleration (u + at).

Thanks. It's been forty years. One gets rusty and I'm too lazy to look stuff up. Good thing I changed majors, huh?

USU78 · Post by **USU78** » June 2nd, 2021, 1:24 pm

@Yossarian , here's something I just found that agrees with my earliest memories of the issue:

In the book, “The Civil War a Narrative, Fort Sumter to Perryville” by Shelby Foot, …. on page 386 he says, “Back in March after years of failing to interest the navy in his theory – and elderly civil engineer named Charles Eller, Jr., wrote and sent to the War Department a pamphlet applying the formula f = mv2 (Force Equals Mass times Velocity Squared) to demonstrate the superiority of the ram as a naval weapon. ….”

Yossarian · Post by **Yossarian** » June 3rd, 2021, 9:36 am

USU78 wrote: ↑
June 2nd, 2021, 1:24 pm
@Yossarian , here's something I just found that agrees with my earliest memories of the issue:

In the book, “The Civil War a Narrative, Fort Sumter to Perryville” by Shelby Foot, …. on page 386 he says, “Back in March after years of failing to interest the navy in his theory – and elderly civil engineer named Charles Eller, Jr., wrote and sent to the War Department a pamphlet applying the formula f = mv2 (Force Equals Mass times Velocity Squared) to demonstrate the superiority of the ram as a naval weapon. ….”

Maybe Eller's lack of understanding of Newton's second law of motion is why he failed to interest the navy in his theory?

The force applied by an object is equivalent to its momentum per unit time. The momentum is the mass multiplied by the velocity, and the velocity is the distance per unit time. All together, F=(m*v)/t. The change in velocity per unit time is acceleration. This brings us to the F = ma equation. Force equals mass times acceleration.

USU78 · Post by **USU78** » June 3rd, 2021, 9:42 am

Yossarian wrote: ↑
June 3rd, 2021, 9:36 am

USU78 wrote: ↑
June 2nd, 2021, 1:24 pm
@Yossarian , here's something I just found that agrees with my earliest memories of the issue:

In the book, “The Civil War a Narrative, Fort Sumter to Perryville” by Shelby Foot, …. on page 386 he says, “Back in March after years of failing to interest the navy in his theory – and elderly civil engineer named Charles Eller, Jr., wrote and sent to the War Department a pamphlet applying the formula f = mv2 (Force Equals Mass times Velocity Squared) to demonstrate the superiority of the ram as a naval weapon. ….”

Maybe Eller's lack of understanding of Newton's second law of motion is why he failed to interest the navy in his theory?

Wouldn't be surprised.

Yossarian wrote: ↑
June 3rd, 2021, 9:36 am
The force applied by an object is equivalent to its momentum per unit time. The momentum is the mass multiplied by the velocity, and the velocity is the distance per unit time. All together, F=(m*v)/t. The change in velocity per unit time is acceleration. This brings us to the F = ma equation. Force equals mass times acceleration.

I wasn't citing it as evidence I was accurate in that particular, just that it's not an unknown thing. I'm blaming my HS physics teacher. His class was not AP approved. Neither was his Calculus.

Yossarian · Post by **Yossarian** » June 3rd, 2021, 9:50 am

USU78 wrote: ↑
June 3rd, 2021, 9:42 am

Yossarian wrote: ↑
June 3rd, 2021, 9:36 am

USU78 wrote: ↑
June 2nd, 2021, 1:24 pm
@Yossarian , here's something I just found that agrees with my earliest memories of the issue:

In the book, “The Civil War a Narrative, Fort Sumter to Perryville” by Shelby Foot, …. on page 386 he says, “Back in March after years of failing to interest the navy in his theory – and elderly civil engineer named Charles Eller, Jr., wrote and sent to the War Department a pamphlet applying the formula f = mv2 (Force Equals Mass times Velocity Squared) to demonstrate the superiority of the ram as a naval weapon. ….”

Maybe Eller's lack of understanding of Newton's second law of motion is why he failed to interest the navy in his theory?
Wouldn't be surprised.
Yossarian wrote: ↑
June 3rd, 2021, 9:36 am
The force applied by an object is equivalent to its momentum per unit time. The momentum is the mass multiplied by the velocity, and the velocity is the distance per unit time. All together, F=(m*v)/t. The change in velocity per unit time is acceleration. This brings us to the F = ma equation. Force equals mass times acceleration.
I wasn't citing it as evidence I was accurate in that particular, just that it's not an unknown thing. I'm blaming my HS physics teacher. His class was not AP approved. Neither was his Calculus.

Ha ha. That's funny how that information can stick in one's brain for so long (whether the information is accurate or not). I, too, was a product of an unsophisticated upbringing and school system lacking resources and instructors that were not on par with the "big city" folks. I shouldn't say that, though. I feel that my junior high and high school teachers were very good for a school of 500 kids total from grades 9-12. They even offered 3 AP classes when I was there.

Now I look back at how far we have ventured from the USU strength and conditioning program topic.

USU78 · Post by **USU78** » June 3rd, 2021, 10:06 am

Yossarian wrote: ↑
June 3rd, 2021, 9:50 am

USU78 wrote: ↑
June 3rd, 2021, 9:42 am

Yossarian wrote: ↑
June 3rd, 2021, 9:36 am

USU78 wrote: ↑
June 2nd, 2021, 1:24 pm
@Yossarian , here's something I just found that agrees with my earliest memories of the issue:

In the book, “The Civil War a Narrative, Fort Sumter to Perryville” by Shelby Foot, …. on page 386 he says, “Back in March after years of failing to interest the navy in his theory – and elderly civil engineer named Charles Eller, Jr., wrote and sent to the War Department a pamphlet applying the formula f = mv2 (Force Equals Mass times Velocity Squared) to demonstrate the superiority of the ram as a naval weapon. ….”

Maybe Eller's lack of understanding of Newton's second law of motion is why he failed to interest the navy in his theory?
Wouldn't be surprised.
Yossarian wrote: ↑
June 3rd, 2021, 9:36 am
The force applied by an object is equivalent to its momentum per unit time. The momentum is the mass multiplied by the velocity, and the velocity is the distance per unit time. All together, F=(m*v)/t. The change in velocity per unit time is acceleration. This brings us to the F = ma equation. Force equals mass times acceleration.
I wasn't citing it as evidence I was accurate in that particular, just that it's not an unknown thing. I'm blaming my HS physics teacher. His class was not AP approved. Neither was his Calculus.
Ha ha. That's funny how that information can stick in one's brain for so long (whether the information is accurate or not). I, too, was a product of an unsophisticated upbringing and school system lacking resources and instructors that were not on par with the "big city" folks. I shouldn't say that, though. I feel that my junior high and high school teachers were very good for a school of 500 kids total from grades 9-12. They even offered 3 AP classes when I was there.

Now I look back at how far we have ventured from the USU strength and conditioning program topic.

We old geeks whose slide rules are long gone, who, like me, listened to people like my HS teacher and my WWI and II Field Artillery Lt Colonel Grandfather (who caused a whole lot of damage in France and the Philippines) could probably, using the inaccurate but useful F=mv^2, still put some pretty big holes in yBu's defensive line, wouldn't you think?

MalAgua · Post by **MalAgua** » June 3rd, 2021, 11:15 am

Yossarian wrote: ↑
June 3rd, 2021, 9:50 am

USU78 wrote: ↑
June 3rd, 2021, 9:42 am

Yossarian wrote: ↑
June 3rd, 2021, 9:36 am

USU78 wrote: ↑
June 2nd, 2021, 1:24 pm
@Yossarian , here's something I just found that agrees with my earliest memories of the issue:

In the book, “The Civil War a Narrative, Fort Sumter to Perryville” by Shelby Foot, …. on page 386 he says, “Back in March after years of failing to interest the navy in his theory – and elderly civil engineer named Charles Eller, Jr., wrote and sent to the War Department a pamphlet applying the formula f = mv2 (Force Equals Mass times Velocity Squared) to demonstrate the superiority of the ram as a naval weapon. ….”

Maybe Eller's lack of understanding of Newton's second law of motion is why he failed to interest the navy in his theory?
Wouldn't be surprised.
Yossarian wrote: ↑
June 3rd, 2021, 9:36 am
The force applied by an object is equivalent to its momentum per unit time. The momentum is the mass multiplied by the velocity, and the velocity is the distance per unit time. All together, F=(m*v)/t. The change in velocity per unit time is acceleration. This brings us to the F = ma equation. Force equals mass times acceleration.
I wasn't citing it as evidence I was accurate in that particular, just that it's not an unknown thing. I'm blaming my HS physics teacher. His class was not AP approved. Neither was his Calculus.
Ha ha. That's funny how that information can stick in one's brain for so long (whether the information is accurate or not). I, too, was a product of an unsophisticated upbringing and school system lacking resources and instructors that were not on par with the "big city" folks. I shouldn't say that, though. I feel that my junior high and high school teachers were very good for a school of 500 kids total from grades 9-12. They even offered 3 AP classes when I was there.

Now I look back at how far we have ventured from the USU strength and conditioning program topic.

To determine how far off-topic we've gone, one must simply integrate how quickly the conversation diverged over the time it took to get here. Although, we must ensure sufficient step sizes to account for the highly variable rate of divergence caused by comments like this.

mcaggie1 · Post by **mcaggie1** » June 3rd, 2021, 11:34 am

My dad was a USU grad in Math and Physics, and was a HS Physics teacher for a couple of years. He also spent 2 years in the Army infantry. One of the first to cross the Rhine River. Fought in Battle of the Bulge. Helped free concentration camp he and his squad discovered. Awarded a Silver Star, 2 Bronze Stars , and a Purple Heart.
He knew all the formulas. A few years before he died I asked him what was the primary reason the American troops won the War. Strategy? Weaponry? Superior numbers? Luck? Some kind of formulas?

He looked at me and said, “Steve, we won because we (the Americans) had a sense of humor. It kept us going.”

Yossarian · Post by **Yossarian** » June 3rd, 2021, 12:05 pm

mcaggie1 wrote: ↑
June 3rd, 2021, 11:34 am
My dad was a USU grad in Math and Physics, and was a HS Physics teacher for a couple of years. He also spent 2 years in the Army infantry. One of the first to cross the Rhine River. Fought in Battle of the Bulge. Helped free concentration camp he and his squad discovered. Awarded a Silver Star, 2 Bronze Stars , and a Purple Heart.
He knew all the formulas. A few years before he died I asked him what was the primary reason the American troops won the War. Strategy? Weaponry? Superior numbers? Luck? Some kind of formulas?

He looked at me and said, “Steve, we won because we (the Americans) had a sense of humor. It kept us going.”

I like your dad.

Yossarian · Post by **Yossarian** » June 3rd, 2021, 12:09 pm

MalAgua wrote: ↑
June 3rd, 2021, 11:15 am

Yossarian wrote: ↑
June 3rd, 2021, 9:50 am

USU78 wrote: ↑
June 3rd, 2021, 9:42 am

Yossarian wrote: ↑
June 3rd, 2021, 9:36 am

USU78 wrote: ↑
June 2nd, 2021, 1:24 pm
@Yossarian , here's something I just found that agrees with my earliest memories of the issue:

In the book, “The Civil War a Narrative, Fort Sumter to Perryville” by Shelby Foot, …. on page 386 he says, “Back in March after years of failing to interest the navy in his theory – and elderly civil engineer named Charles Eller, Jr., wrote and sent to the War Department a pamphlet applying the formula f = mv2 (Force Equals Mass times Velocity Squared) to demonstrate the superiority of the ram as a naval weapon. ….”

Maybe Eller's lack of understanding of Newton's second law of motion is why he failed to interest the navy in his theory?
Wouldn't be surprised.
Yossarian wrote: ↑
June 3rd, 2021, 9:36 am
The force applied by an object is equivalent to its momentum per unit time. The momentum is the mass multiplied by the velocity, and the velocity is the distance per unit time. All together, F=(m*v)/t. The change in velocity per unit time is acceleration. This brings us to the F = ma equation. Force equals mass times acceleration.
I wasn't citing it as evidence I was accurate in that particular, just that it's not an unknown thing. I'm blaming my HS physics teacher. His class was not AP approved. Neither was his Calculus.
Ha ha. That's funny how that information can stick in one's brain for so long (whether the information is accurate or not). I, too, was a product of an unsophisticated upbringing and school system lacking resources and instructors that were not on par with the "big city" folks. I shouldn't say that, though. I feel that my junior high and high school teachers were very good for a school of 500 kids total from grades 9-12. They even offered 3 AP classes when I was there.

Now I look back at how far we have ventured from the USU strength and conditioning program topic.
To determine how far off-topic we've gone, one must simply integrate how quickly the conversation diverged over the time it took to get here. Although, we must ensure sufficient step sizes to account for the highly variable rate of divergence caused by comments like this.

If we take the Reimann sum of the area under the curve describing deviation from original topic on the y-axis and time on the x-axis and we break up the time into small enough segments, we can get a very close approximation of the amount of energy and effort wasted in this thread.

Sometimes I find that the wanderings off the original topic path can be more interesting than the topic itself.

sam tingey · Post by **sam tingey** » June 3rd, 2021, 12:14 pm

I come for weights and gains and I get math and physics. Bunch o' nerds around here. Bicep Curls!

MalAgua · Post by **MalAgua** » June 3rd, 2021, 12:44 pm

sam tingey wrote: ↑
June 3rd, 2021, 12:14 pm
I come for weights and gains and I get math and physics. Bunch o' nerds around here. Bicep Curls!

We could talk about the torques induced by the contracting bicep muscles and the long-term stresses associated with the jerk on the interfaces between muscles and bones...

Yossarian · Post by **Yossarian** » June 3rd, 2021, 12:50 pm

MalAgua wrote: ↑
June 3rd, 2021, 12:44 pm

sam tingey wrote: ↑
June 3rd, 2021, 12:14 pm
I come for weights and gains and I get math and physics. Bunch o' nerds around here. Bicep Curls!
We could talk about the torques induced by the contracting bicep muscles and the long-term stresses associated with the jerk on the interfaces between muscles and bones...

Or take it further into discussions of flexor and extensor muscle groups and how they function both in synchrony and opposition along with the Krebb's cycle role in muscle contraction.

sam tingey · Post by **sam tingey** » June 3rd, 2021, 12:54 pm

Yossarian wrote: ↑
June 3rd, 2021, 12:50 pm

MalAgua wrote: ↑
June 3rd, 2021, 12:44 pm

sam tingey wrote: ↑
June 3rd, 2021, 12:14 pm
I come for weights and gains and I get math and physics. Bunch o' nerds around here. Bicep Curls!
We could talk about the torques induced by the contracting bicep muscles and the long-term stresses associated with the jerk on the interfaces between muscles and bones...
Or take it further into discussions of flexor and extensor muscle groups and how they function both in synchrony and opposition along with the Krebb's cycle role in muscle contraction.

just as long as you aren't doing half reps or not reracking your weights, you can talk about these sciency things. Overhead Press!

BigBlueDart · Post by **BigBlueDart** » June 3rd, 2021, 2:19 pm

MalAgua wrote: ↑
June 3rd, 2021, 11:15 am
To determine how far off-topic we've gone, one must simply integrate how quickly the conversation diverged over the time it took to get here. Although, we must ensure sufficient step sizes to account for the highly variable rate of divergence caused by comments like this.

Okay, so rather than doing a direct mathematical integration you're proposing that we take a discretized numerical approach? We can likely minimize the error from step size by using a more advanced method, like Runge-Kutta. Of course, that's going to increase our computational requirements. I suppose we could talk to folks at USU about using one of their clusters, and I could research some parallelized algorithms to use. Probably some existing libraries out there, so no need to re-invent the wheel, right?

sam tingey · Post by **sam tingey** » June 3rd, 2021, 2:30 pm

BigBlueDart wrote: ↑
June 3rd, 2021, 2:19 pm

MalAgua wrote: ↑
June 3rd, 2021, 11:15 am
To determine how far off-topic we've gone, one must simply integrate how quickly the conversation diverged over the time it took to get here. Although, we must ensure sufficient step sizes to account for the highly variable rate of divergence caused by comments like this.
Okay, so rather than doing a direct mathematical integration you're proposing that we take a discretized numerical approach? We can likely minimize the error from step size by using a more advanced method, like Runge-Kutta. Of course, that's going to increase our computational requirements. I suppose we could talk to folks at USU about using one of their clusters, and I could research some parallelized algorithms to use. Probably some existing libraries out there, so no need to re-invent the wheel, right?

I find that i am sad that I understand everything you just said BBD. Bench Press!

Yossarian · Post by **Yossarian** » June 3rd, 2021, 2:45 pm

BigBlueDart wrote: ↑
June 3rd, 2021, 2:19 pm

MalAgua wrote: ↑
June 3rd, 2021, 11:15 am
To determine how far off-topic we've gone, one must simply integrate how quickly the conversation diverged over the time it took to get here. Although, we must ensure sufficient step sizes to account for the highly variable rate of divergence caused by comments like this.
Okay, so rather than doing a direct mathematical integration you're proposing that we take a discretized numerical approach? We can likely minimize the error from step size by using a more advanced method, like Runge-Kutta. Of course, that's going to increase our computational requirements. I suppose we could talk to folks at USU about using one of their clusters, and I could research some parallelized algorithms to use. Probably some existing libraries out there, so no need to re-invent the wheel, right?

Exactly. I do not plan on evaluating by allowing the time increment go to infinity. I don't see a reason for that level of accuracy in our calculation.

JSHarvey · Post by **JSHarvey** » June 3rd, 2021, 4:29 pm

ROTFLOL

I'll be interested to hear the feedback (second hand) as the players get into the new program.

mcaggie1 · Post by **mcaggie1** » June 4th, 2021, 4:16 pm

Yossarian wrote: ↑
June 3rd, 2021, 9:36 am

USU78 wrote: ↑
June 2nd, 2021, 1:24 pm
@Yossarian , here's something I just found that agrees with my earliest memories of the issue:

In the book, “The Civil War a Narrative, Fort Sumter to Perryville” by Shelby Foot, …. on page 386 he says, “Back in March after years of failing to interest the navy in his theory – and elderly civil engineer named Charles Eller, Jr., wrote and sent to the War Department a pamphlet applying the formula f = mv2 (Force Equals Mass times Velocity Squared) to demonstrate the superiority of the ram as a naval weapon. ….”

Maybe Eller's lack of understanding of Newton's second law of motion is why he failed to interest the navy in his theory?

The force applied by an object is equivalent to its momentum per unit time. The momentum is the mass multiplied by the velocity, and the velocity is the distance per unit time. All together, F=(m*v)/t. The change in velocity per unit time is acceleration. This brings us to the F = ma equation. Force equals mass times acceleration.

Ellers inability to convince the Union Navy probably had nothing to do with Newton’s second law of motion, and everything to do with Farragut’s gigantic ego. He wanted to call all the shots, and sometimes that cost him. Best example was Vicksburg before Grant got there. Btw.....love Shelby Foote.

Upcoming Events

Event Results