And if someone said that they had done yoga for flexibility a while, then taken up running for the cardio, injured themselves and done physiotherapy for a while, and then started doing weightlifting for the sake of muscle, and each of those had been exactly the right thing to do, then that wouldn’t be very suspicious either.
To clarify, at the end, are they still doing yoga and/or running and/or physiotherapy?
If so, then this doesn’t seem like a great analogy, since you mention “jumping from thing to thing”.
But if not, this seems like an overstatement. (Which, to be clear, I consider just a minor criticism that doesn’t reflect badly on the post as a whole.)
If we mentally change “exactly the right thing to do” with “a perfectly sensible thing to do” then I have no objection.
But if we take “exactly the right thing to do” at face value, then this does seem suspicious to me. Not out of the question, but implausible. I’d have questions like:
Presumably you aren’t going to maintain your levels of flexibility or cardio, now that you’ve stopped those exercises. Why were those historically the right things to exercise, but now the right thing to exercise is muscle? Are you sure there’s no wasted motion here?
Were you running with poor form, or did you just get unlucky? Or is running just something where you have a decently high chance of injury no matter how well you do it?
Why did you stop running after your injury, instead of going back to it for a time? Like, is it just a coincidence that the right time to switch to muscle was after your injury, or is there some causal relationship here? (An obvious possibility is that you may not have healed fully. If so, is that the expected outcome of running injuries; and if that’s the case, are you really sure you should have been running?)
These questions could potentially have good answers. But by default, yeah, I’d expect that “exactly the right thing to do” is an overstatement.
To clarify, at the end, are they still doing yoga and/or running and/or physiotherapy?
If so, then this doesn’t seem like a great analogy, since you mention “jumping from thing to thing”.
But if not, this seems like an overstatement. (Which, to be clear, I consider just a minor criticism that doesn’t reflect badly on the post as a whole.)
If we mentally change “exactly the right thing to do” with “a perfectly sensible thing to do” then I have no objection.
But if we take “exactly the right thing to do” at face value, then this does seem suspicious to me. Not out of the question, but implausible. I’d have questions like:
Presumably you aren’t going to maintain your levels of flexibility or cardio, now that you’ve stopped those exercises. Why were those historically the right things to exercise, but now the right thing to exercise is muscle? Are you sure there’s no wasted motion here?
Were you running with poor form, or did you just get unlucky? Or is running just something where you have a decently high chance of injury no matter how well you do it?
Why did you stop running after your injury, instead of going back to it for a time? Like, is it just a coincidence that the right time to switch to muscle was after your injury, or is there some causal relationship here? (An obvious possibility is that you may not have healed fully. If so, is that the expected outcome of running injuries; and if that’s the case, are you really sure you should have been running?)
These questions could potentially have good answers. But by default, yeah, I’d expect that “exactly the right thing to do” is an overstatement.