I'm not anti it. Look back at what I said, "try it for those that need it" or something to that effect. I just contend that it will help for people without any background as oppossed to regular hockey players. You seemed to be arguing that is wrong by bringing up randomizing as a difference in my example and the study's. But the randomizing has little to do with whether or not the program will help us.

I agree that studies need to have randomized groups to be accurate. They probably need a larger sample than 30, but I get the concept. I agree that this breathing resistence program can help some people. I think the 33% they quote is crap because they didn't have the level of particpants in it. Maybe it's in what you found and that will support whatever side, or maybe not.

And I couldn't care less about what people think of my coaching or me as a person or what I've done or not done for anyone or anything. Gave that up as a kid when my mom always used the "what will the neighbors think" line in an effort to guilt me into doing what or acting how she wanted. I just used that one example to show that you can tweak numbers to say what you want. So don't blindly believe the crap that's dished out.

Send it to me.

__________________
Just in case you weren't sure, it's official -- CMAS sucks.
Oh yeah, and now they're broke.