Again, you largely agree with Romeo Stevens on the facts of exercise.
As to the consequences of the advice, I think you are very wrong. The fact that you misread his advice is a bad sign about his advice. It is probably evidence that everyone will misread it, but I am skeptical that they will misread it the same way you do.
As a general rule, giving vague advice attacking specific advice causes people to do nothing. It is your post that is dangerous.
Another issue is that “endurance training” is extremely misleading. The obvious interpretation of it is probably less effective for all purposes than obvious interpretation of “strength training.”
Again, you largely agree with Romeo Stevens on the facts of exercise.
As to the consequences of the advice, I think you are very wrong. The fact that you misread his advice is a bad sign about his advice. It is probably evidence that everyone will misread it, but I am skeptical that they will misread it the same way you do.
As a general rule, giving vague advice attacking specific advice causes people to do nothing. It is your post that is dangerous.
The crude way I understood these posts:
When you’re not very fit, maximum strength training is most rewarding.
It is better for your health to also directly train endurance.
There is a tension. However:
Maximum strength training also improves endurance.
This increased endurance makes direct endurance training more rewarding.
The call to action this suggest looks like:
If you’re reasonably fit, train maximum strength and endurance.
If you’re not, start with strength alone, it’s more rewarding. Look forward to train your endurance, though.
Would that be sufficiently accurate, precise and non-dangerous?
Another issue is that “endurance training” is extremely misleading. The obvious interpretation of it is probably less effective for all purposes than obvious interpretation of “strength training.”