[HN Gopher] The Internet's Richest Fitness Resource Is a Site fr... ___________________________________________________________________ The Internet's Richest Fitness Resource Is a Site from 1999 Author : prhrb Score : 382 points Date : 2023-03-09 13:14 UTC (2 days ago) (HTM) web link (www.newyorker.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.newyorker.com) | Eupraxias wrote: | When I see sites like this, I want to give them money and support | them, whether the content is worth it or not. | | This made my day. | dbcurtis wrote: | Looks like you can. I clicked one of the "special populations" | links and the content is behind a subscription sign-up. | | Also site seems to be getting creaky - we may be pounding the | server a little hard. | pessimizer wrote: | > Also site seems to be getting creaky - we may be pounding | the server a little hard. | | Maybe the help they need is architecture/infrastructure | improvements. | sboomer wrote: | Some content is only for premium subscribers. When you try to log | in/subscribe the site throws php exception with error stack as if | it is running on dev environment. | asddubs wrote: | works for me | ale42 wrote: | Looks like too many people are on the site... "SQLSTATE[HY000] | [1040] Too many connections" | joenot443 wrote: | Was anyone else expecting bodybuilding.com? Not that I spend much | time there, but I've always liked the forums. One of the few old | 2000s style forums left complete with avatars, quote text, shared | shibboleth. and a healthy skepticism of newcomers. | zoklet-enjoyer wrote: | Bodybuilding.com forums got me interested in nootropics. Those | guys are trend setters and some of the first people I would | consider biohackers | jokowueu wrote: | For me it was longecity that got me into nootopics . I got in | the first group buy , it was nsi-189 since then I've been | invited in underground groups that go far beyond that . | | Super interesting world we are living in | zoklet-enjoyer wrote: | Oh yeah! I was on longecity too | jokowueu wrote: | If you are interested add me on discord and I'll add you | to some rocket chat servers just to look around | | https://pastebin.com/nYqPfWq5 | kilroy123 wrote: | What kind of underground groups? | jokowueu wrote: | Group buys for meds related to untreatable illnesses, etc | through independent chemists or labs either in china or | eastern Europe | travisporter wrote: | I'm still extremely skeptical. How would a newbie go about | learning about this stuff? Wiki is not very encouraging | rTX5CMRXIfFG wrote: | Not me, no. I decided to be formally educated in sports science | precisely because the internet is awash with disinformation | regarding fitness, bodybuilding.com included (and, honestly, | HN). There are some posts there that get the science right, but | there's a lot of falsehoods too, or unindividualized, "over- | engineered" advice. | | On a more on-topic note: I've never consciously held ExRx in | high regard, but considering how exhaustive and encyclopedic | its curation of exercises is, perhaps I should have. One also | couldn't argue that it contains false content because it merely | collects exercises instead of prescribing them (unless of | course they've added some section where they do, which I don't | know of and cannot comment against). | pokot0 wrote: | I feel like every field where science is lagging behind has | this problem. Is this not the case? It seems to me that we | know very little about how the body works, processes food, | etc. Saying "Sports science" feels very different to me than | saying (for example) "rigid body physics". The latter can | predict the behavior of objects very precisily, the former | struggles a lot and can hardly use the scientific method to | begin with. | rTX5CMRXIfFG wrote: | Sorry, what do you mean we know very little about how the | body works and processes food? That sounds to me like | fields like medicine or physical therapy or nutrition | should be impossible, and yet they exist. | | And correct me if I'm wrong but it doesn't sound like you | know the scope of sports science? It's a combination of the | fields that I made an example of above _plus_ physics, too, | and many more (such as business and psychology), but | oriented specifically for the purposes of sport and | recreation. | sdwr wrote: | Scientists and "put up or shut up" people optimize for diff | things. People who get results, in my experience, do the | right things but don't usually have correct explanations. | | Part of it is the subconscious figuring out what works, and | hanging it onto the closest known concept. The other half | is that false beliefs are practical and helpful sometimes. | bluGill wrote: | The results I want are long term health. That is much | harder to measure and study. I can see which exercise | methods results in competitive wins quickly (though some | may be a few years), but what will my efforts today | change about my life span or old age quality of life? | operator-name wrote: | What resources do you consider in high regard? | rTX5CMRXIfFG wrote: | Essentials of Anatomy and Physiology by Scanlon and Sanders | | Physiology of Sport and Exercise by Kenney, Wilmore, and | Costil. | | Strength Training Anatomy by Delavier, though this is more | like ExRx and is far less exhaustive | | And the above should be more than enough but it won't harm | to read NSCA's Essentials of Strength Training and | Conditioning. | hash872 wrote: | >There are some posts there that get the science right | | I'm sorry, I don't mean to be uncharitable, but 'exercise | science' is not an empirical scientific field like physics or | chemistry. It's very difficult to conduct genuine experiments | or isolate causes in the human body. It's pretty well-known | that lots 'exercise science' studies that prove X were | conducted with relatively untrained undergrad volunteers, who | would probably gain on any program because they're a) young | and b) exercise newbies. Political science has 'science' | right in the name too, but I think everyone understands it's | not an actual empirical field either (which is fine!) | | I'm certainly open to hearing contributions from exercise | scientists, but I weight folk wisdom from say the | bodybuilding or powerlifting fields at least as heavily | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_envy | nelblu wrote: | Also, back in the day there were some legacy bodybuilders | giving free advice on those forums. I remember discussing with | serge nubret around 2008ish, good old days :) | iamacyborg wrote: | Similar to the letsrun forum which used to have olympic class | coaches (ie Canova) dropping words of wisdom. | | It is a toxic hellhole now, unfortunately . | dylan604 wrote: | I was really hoping it would have been something outlandish | like website for Richard Simmons. | rchaud wrote: | That a 24-year old site still exists in largely the same | format today, without drowning in a million affiliate links | is plenty outlandish. | inopinatus wrote: | As soon as I saw the title I knew it was gonna be exrx. | raverbashing wrote: | Yes | | Rich discussions yes, but also discussions like these | https://old.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/2rbqzh/bodybuilders_... | Gunnerhead wrote: | Incredible! | brandonmenc wrote: | [dead] | theFletch wrote: | Yes, that was one of my first resources for online information. | I've never heard of the site from the article. | bbarnett wrote: | Indeed! Bodybuilding.com helped this guy too (this is an old, | classic post from there): | | https://imgur.com/a/EOpfb | lr4444lr wrote: | I liked the site, but let's be honest: they didn't vet | contributors too well, and they were full of contradictory | advice. | Snowbird3999 wrote: | The _lack_ of advertisements, popups, cookie consent, | propogandist language and fluffy content makes for such a | pleasant reading experience. | | It's a real pity that this is not more common with modern | websites, especially in the "recipe" or "news" domains. I am | grateful for Wikipedia however. | joisig wrote: | I'm seeing a pretty big ad at the top of every page. Is my | experience unique? | tambourine_man wrote: | I'm a sucker for nostalgia, but this site is completely | responsive. It has a spartan design, but it's a long distance | from what you could do in 1999. | djha-skin wrote: | The reason why the article is good to read and not just going to | the site[1] it talks about is that it tells you why getting rid | of JavaScript is sometimes just fine for your user base: | | > ExRx makes its organizational logic plain. Its pages adopt the | structure of unordered lists--uniform and sturdy...unlike | elsewhere on the modern Internet, on ExRx you are never lost. | | > the site's plain face lends it a certain authority. In a | fitness ecosystem dominated by new- and old-school flash, from | personal trainers on the hard sell to influencers with soft | power, _exrx.net treats me like an adult._ If Instagram Reels and | TikTok videos are the solicitous pusher on commission, ExRx is a | librarian--or, better yet, the library itself. | | (Emphasis my own.) | | 1: https://exrx.net | mostlysimilar wrote: | - Simple design with dense information and verbose navigation | | - Loads immediately, no frustrating and slow skeleton loading | gray boxes | | - No popups asking you to subscribe, register, or download a | mobile app | | Why do we tolerate the modern web treating us so poorly when | the example of how to do it better has been around since the | 90s? | bobthepanda wrote: | I am wondering who pays for it. Most of the free websites | from that era disappeared because their business models went | belly-up during the dotcom boom. | ilrwbwrkhv wrote: | Those loading skeleton irritates me to no end. Sometimes they | don't go away, and I'm left wondering what is going on. This | is just so much better. Solid, dependable, nothing shifts | around. | jpmattia wrote: | > _No popups asking you to subscribe, register, or download a | mobile app_ | | https://exrx.net/Drugs/Caffeine | mostlysimilar wrote: | Premium features and gated content are not inherently bad. | We all want to make money. Gaudy and intrusive pop-ups, | banners, and things that try to pull me to that content is | bad. | | The difference between being pulled into it and seeking | content myself is an important one. Services that annoy | people into doing what they want may get short term results | but are generating a lot of ill-will for the medium and | long term. | | This website even has reasonable advertisements in the | side-bar. No floating videos that auto-play, no ads | injected right in the middle of the content I'm reading. | Just a plain old ad on the right side of the content. | rchaud wrote: | When I was using this site a lot back in 2009, it really | was ad-free. Even more minimal than what it is now. Each | exercise page had a super-small dithered GIF image of a | person doing the exercise. Those seem to be gone now. | travisporter wrote: | Still not a pop up | scottLobster wrote: | Why did the Turks tolerate crappy construction in an | earthquake zone? Large businesses are by definition hard to | compete with. | | As for why they do it, businesses are fundamentally amoral. | Take your average Silicon Valley entrepreneur and transplant | them into Somalia with no way to leave, and they'd be | figuring out the ideal way to capture cargo ships and hold | their crews for ransom. Then if said crews were raped by some | misbehaving underlings, they'd try to disguise it to maximize | the profits. | | It's the meta joke behind the entire Silicon Valley TV | series. Some characters are more likeable than others, but | almost all of the key players are fundamentally | incompetent/insecure/exploitative people that you wouldn't | want in your life given the option. | naniwaduni wrote: | Locations are fundamentally scarce, but I'm sure they're | totally willing to adopt earthquake-resistant construction | techniques from elsewhere? | 2muchcoffeeman wrote: | To solve a housing shortage, there were construction | amnesties. Which the president even boasted about. | canadianfella wrote: | [dead] | altairprime wrote: | It's time-expensive and not easily automated to write | "rewrite" logic for sites. Think an order of magnitude more | difficult than Reader Mode, because you need to incorporate | the nav links and forms. | criddell wrote: | > - No popups asking you to subscribe, register, or download | a mobile app | | I've been wondering why ad blockers aren't better about | blocking these. I'm not sure when the last time was when I | got a popup on a website that was something I wanted to see. | strulovich wrote: | I know very little of the subject. But maybe since ads | generally arrive from other domains, making them easy to | differentiate from the site's content, while these popup | are part of the website and are much harder to distinguish | reliably, making it harder to build such a tool (which I | assume does exist). | milsorgen wrote: | I let my personalized Google feed on Android open links in | Chrome and it is astounding how hostile some of these sites | are getting in regards to their advertising. I had no idea | it had gotten this bad again without at least some ad | blocking. Popups haven't returned to any meaningful degree | but even so surely this isn't sustainable as I would | imagine a sizable portion of web users are not using ad | blocking. | rchaud wrote: | Adblockers usually apply a combination of a network filter | and a CSS filter to block the offending 3rd party script, | and make the HTML element containing the ads invisible. | | While network filters are still working well, it's getting | harder to block on-site elements like popups because web | frameworks often generate nonsensical class names to apply | on divs, to prevent Developer A's class names and styles | from conflicting with Developer B's. So if previously you | could successfully hide the HTML email popup container by | looking for the class/id "ad-container", you won't be able | to do that if the class/id changes to "xxgsgshhmahbgsg" | stanac wrote: | uBlock origin has annoyances filters for exactly that. They | aren't turn on by default. | OrwellianChild wrote: | I did not know this - thank you! | lr4444lr wrote: | The modern web makes more money than the "spray and pray" ad | affiliate links model that crashed in 2001. | ericmcer wrote: | Yeh this was an ad riddled nightmare. I would call it more an | example of how to subvert modern ad blockers than an example | of great web design. The bullet point lists are literally | broken up with targeted ads that look like relevant info to | the page itself. | newaccount2023 wrote: | [flagged] | stonogo wrote: | That's funny, I see GDPR popups as serving two functions: a | daily reminder that Europe has better privacy protections | than I do, and website project managers would rather plague | the world with unnecesary bullshit than just stop serving | unnecessary cookies. | charcircuit wrote: | >just stop serving unnecessary cookies. | | If they were truly unnecessary they wouldn't use it | because cookie banners are bad ux. | 2muchcoffeeman wrote: | Is this a serious comment? | | Have you never worked on a large website or even looked | at the cookies in the browser? | ClumsyPilot wrote: | And over-leveraging your bank is bad business, but they | do it anyway. | drstewart wrote: | >a daily reminder that Europe has better privacy | protections than I do | | So you're seeing the popups but not benefitting from | them? What are the "better" protections that these popups | are giving European users that you aren't getting by | being served them as well (that isn't just better served | by a good cookie / ad blocker)? | | Please restrict your answer to the POPUPS specifically, | as these are your daily reminder. | stonogo wrote: | I'll respectfully decline your arbitrary limitations on | my speech, primarily because to follow them would render | me incoherent. | | I said they serve as a reminder, and here you demand to | know what protections the popups provide. They can remind | me of things without delivering those things directly, | which is why I used the phrasing I did. Hope this helps. | SkySkimmer wrote: | But it does have javascript, it's used for image lazy loading | and possibly other stuff (I didn't investigate deeply). | djha-skin wrote: | Fair enough, I really just meant simple, not crazy websites. | gofreddygo wrote: | Another one in the same league - looks old and gets the job | done | | https://www.bikesdirect.com/ | tommek4077 wrote: | Looks like a spam site. | lawrenceyan wrote: | Is there a definitive understanding of how plastics (hormone | disruptors) have affected us? | | Should I be treating this as equivalent to smoking or drinking in | harm? https://exrx.net/Nutrition/Disrupters | alecco wrote: | https://archive.ph/k4lXm | lumb63 wrote: | Been lifting for 15 years and never heard of this website. | joisig wrote: | Same here, been lifting since 1989 and online since the year | after, and this is the first I hear of this website. | pbnjay wrote: | As soon as I read the title I knew it was exrx.net - I've used | the site off and on since 2003! | petesergeant wrote: | Love it. "exrx" and "examine" are by far my two biggest health | and fitness search prefixes | VLM wrote: | I used to use examine to find direct links to medical journal | articles about the latest supplement research, but they've | locked away all the details so I have to run dual monitor with | examine as a lead generator and search for articles on real | websites in the other window. | | Regardless of the above usability issues, examine is a pretty | good supplement research site. | | Edited to add: I don't like examine's pricing. Examine is | essentially the "consumer reports" of supplements and I'd | expect to pay magazine subscription rates, not a month of gym | membership annual rate. Its not that I can't afford it or it | doesn't fit in the budget, it doesn't fit in the worldview of | this is how much you pay for that kind of service. Even $50/yr | and I'd sign up, but two hundred? Really? | petesergeant wrote: | Yes, far too expensive. I got grandfathered into an older | plan, or I'd no longer be a subscriber | rchaud wrote: | One of the advantages of old-school websites like these is that | they were desktop-first, so they actually made use of the width | that a laptop screen offers. It's nice to see multiple columns of | content, rather than the usual mess of ad sidebars and "readers | also liked" blocks interrupting the content. | Semaphor wrote: | > SQLSTATE[HY000] [1040] Too many connections | | Funnily enough, the error message [0] looks far more modern than | the rest of the site. I guess they updated the backend (a PHP | framework called Doctrine, I think) without updating the design | ;) | | [0]: https://i.imgur.com/pwJzVUj.png | ffhhj wrote: | According to BuiltWith it uses a whole bunch of new things: | | https://builtwith.com/?https%3a%2f%2fexrx.net | jeffbee wrote: | I like that it helpfully disgorges the source code where the | exception was thrown. Very old school. I hope there are no | database credentials hard-coded in PHP. | jeroenhd wrote: | The title of that page is "concrete has encountered an issue". | Concrete is a PHP based CMS and Doctrine is a PHP ORM used in | all kinds of modern (and less modern) web frameworks. The stack | trace specifically shows concrete5-8.5.7, released November of | 2021. | | So it's outdated alright, but not quite as ancient as the | article makes it feel. The HTML may feel hand crafted but | that's often because PHP frameworks often rely on templating | languages to set up a base theme for the website, which then | gets filled in by content generated by a WYSIWYG editor, saved | to the database. | | It's quite possible that they've used their old website as a | basis for their theme/templates, keeping all their old HTML in | place. | epilys wrote: | The site is https://exrx.net/ | | No need to read the article. | endisneigh wrote: | ironically you could have just posted the link without your | opinion, just like the article! | gibbonsrcool wrote: | A link by itself might be another site that the person who | commented likes, not necessarily the one mentioned in the | article. | password4321 wrote: | No one suggested posting the link by itself. | | " _The site ishttps://exrx.net_ " is enough. | gibbonsrcool wrote: | "you could have just posted the link without your | opinion" | password4321 wrote: | Ha, I fell victim to the same issue (not including my | opinion) in my comment! The portion you quoted may as | well have been directed at me. | | I am indeed being very pedantic here but the parent to | your initial comment as you quoted did not exclude the | additional context noting the relevance of the link (as | per my quote) but rather emphasized leaving out the | opinion portion. The difference between "just posted" and | the theoretical "posted just" you seem to be implying. | | Upvotes all around; cheers! | [deleted] | RobotToaster wrote: | I tried to look up advice for people with my disability and got | a paywall, how nice. | replwoacause wrote: | The article is good and worth a read IMO. | MikeDelta wrote: | Been a happy user of this site since early 2000, it thought me | a lot about technique. | rationalist wrote: | Did we hug it? Doctrine \ DBAL \ Driver \ | PDOException (1040) SQLSTATE[HY000] [1040] Too many | connections | [deleted] | geewee wrote: | And it's a wonderful website too. Been looking up things in it | for what feels like a decade at this point | steve1977 wrote: | It feels like a decade, but it's actually 20 years ;) | blairbeckwith wrote: | The article includes the link in the first paragraph and is | worth reading if this type of thing [exercise/websites] | interests you more than a no context link. | cush wrote: | You can't get swole unless you're living life at maximum | efficiency. Reading is for wimps! | seb1204 wrote: | I disagree here, the article does not include a link to the | website but merely the website address written in text, | nothing to click. So no link. | rTX5CMRXIfFG wrote: | I find this rather ironic considering how no-context links is | exactly how not a few HN posts are submitted. | velox_neb wrote: | Similarly, the best source for nutrition information used to be | whfoods.org. Unfortunately it's been down for a while now, and | while there are some imperfect archives, you can't easily search | through the site anymore. | dw_arthur wrote: | The information is out of date, but I still occasionally use | the pdfs i have from whfoods. You can find them on archive.org | under TheWorldsHealthiestFoods. | [deleted] | [deleted] | marcrosoft wrote: | Don't let this think you need to do 100s of different exercises. | A handful of good ones like squat, bench, deadlift, etc are all | you really need. | cgh wrote: | It depends on your athletic goals. Exrx is geared towards | athletes and coaches more than the normal folks who, as you | said, would benefit from a simple, limited slate of fundamental | movements. | brap wrote: | Ha, I knew this was about exrx from the title alone. Such a | valuable resource, unfortunately not as well known as it should | be. | derbOac wrote: | Reminds me a bit of Sheldon Brown's bicycle website: | https://www.sheldonbrown.com/ | Scarblac wrote: | Reminds me of http://pagat.com for rules of card games. | glacials wrote: | And The Man in Seat 61: https://www.seat61.com/ | malermeister wrote: | That site is an incredible treasure for anyone interested in | planning a train journey. | m3kw9 wrote: | I'm afraid someone looking to monetize it gonna make them an | offer and then out ads on it. | jeffbee wrote: | It already has ads. Big graphic ads at the tops of every | article, and further down as well. | cratermoon wrote: | It's a shame exrx.net doesn't rank higher on google searches. It | just shows that SEO and search engine company priorities have | moved away from what people are looking for when they use the | internet. | ratchetclank wrote: | In the same vibe I've been using https://darebee.com/ for quite a | while. Good exercise library and great programs, all free for | everyone. | kilroy123 wrote: | At first I thought it was talking about darebee. | okaramian wrote: | Absolutely amazed this isn't littered with ads for supplements. | The good ol' days | laserlight wrote: | ExRx [0] has been a very valuable resource in my study of | exercise science. I found it after developing an injury because | of wrong training program given by a trainer in the gym. The site | let me discover almost everything to learn about physical | exercise better than all trainers in my gym. I'm thankful to | everyone who has contributed. | | [0] Exercise Prescription on Internet (ExRx.net) | https://exrx.net/ | q7xvh97o2pDhNrh wrote: | If you don't mind me asking, how was that injury-recovery | journey for you? | | I'm in the same spot -- injured myself because I foolishly | trusted an incompetent trainer. It's been weirdly difficult to | pick myself back up; I'm still stuck at the "blaming myself for | trusting bad advice when I should have known better" phase. | laserlight wrote: | Of course I don't. That injury was an inflammation because of | overuse. I take it seriously applying prescribed topical | anti-inflammatory medicine, however inconvenient it might be | to do so for up to six times a day. I, of course, updated my | exercise selection not to hit the same muscle in consecutive | days, but to give rest days. I reduced the weight hitting the | affected muscle to almost nothing and progressed slowly from | there. | | I hope you get well soon. | q7xvh97o2pDhNrh wrote: | That is helpful. Thank you. | scarface74 wrote: | I was a part time fitness instructor from 2000-2012 and the | ultimate gym rat. How did I not know about this site? | | Now, for $reasons, I'm not as much of a gym rat. But I am | training to at least run 5Ks again (as opposed to 10Ks and a | couple of half marathons). I'm going to make myself get into | resistance training again and this is going to be a great | resource | rTX5CMRXIfFG wrote: | Ha! I'm curious to know where you got your vocabulary of | exercises without ExRx.net (of course the site also merely | curates from other sources such as the books that came before | and along it). I don't remember the exact search keywords, but | I'm pretty sure I found it while building my own program and | looking for exercises for specific muscle groups. | scarface74 wrote: | I worked for an organization that contracted out fitness | instructors to various gyms, apartments, churches, etc. | | So I would go to their classes to pick up moves. There were | also various certifications and conferences (SCW). | | I got started in lifting weights ironically enough because I | was a short (still short), fat (I got better), kid with a | computer (still a software developer...sort of) and had | cerebral palsy (still do). | | While I didn't have any coordination to play sports (my CP | basically effects my left hand and a very slight limp), I | could "lift things up and put them down" with the best of | them and my "physical therapy" turned into weight lifting at | 12 and I was paired with a personal trainer early on. | | When properly conditioned as an adult, I found that I could | run up to 9 miles (a 15K) in races and come in the middle of | the pack (a little more than 6 miles an hour) before my legs | gave out on me. | | At my old age of 49, I wouldn't put my body through the kind | of training it takes to do anything above a 10K and probably | no more than a 5K. | | I also took advantage of remote work to buy a "Condotel" unit | in a resort in Florida for half the year specifically because | it had 3 pools (swimming is much easier on my body) and a | gym. | | The other half of the year, I "nomad" and fly around the US | and stay in hotels instead of AirBnbs partially to have | access to gyms and pools. | | My wife took up the mantle a few years ago and now she | teaches dance/fitness classes. | andrewmcwatters wrote: | I really enjoyed this comment about a month ago or so from "Why | the conventional wisdom on how to grow muscles is wrong,"[1] so | much so that I favorited it. | | "I have lifted for 30 years. The standard bullshit line in the | fitness industry has always been "everyone else is wrong". | Practically what every single trainer ever in the world has said. | The reason is because of all the things I have done in my life, | lifting is the most trivially simple activity there is. It is as | complex as shoveling dirt. The only way to differentiate if | trying to make money is to bullshit. Pick the weights up, put | them down, eat food. It just not that complicated."[2] | | - epistemer | | [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34677471 | | [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34679482 | rchaud wrote: | Lifting is complicated for the same reason that dating is | complicated. Not everyone is starting from the same place. Not | everyone will see the same results, in the same time. That is | where the complexity arises. People will see others doing | better, and try to find shortcuts, or magic panaceas. | ClumsyPilot wrote: | Futhering this: | | You lift incorrectly, you get trauma, injuries, I've seen a | guy in a gym lose an eye. I've seem people leaving weights | where they shouldn't, others trip over them. | | You choose your date poorly, you could get trauma and injury | too I guess. | VLM wrote: | Is this what they mean by submarine marketing? Because I've been | a gym rat since the 80s and never heard of this site, and never | heard anyone at the gym mention it, and never heard anyone in any | other fitness group mention it. Other than that, sure. | rchaud wrote: | This site is from the OG Web 1.0 era. Plenty of people know | about it; in fact I would say that they've modernized it quite | a bit from what I remember from back when I used it 2009. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-03-11 23:00 UTC)