> starting strength involves perhaps 30 minutes of active exercise in a week with most time in the gym sent recovering between sets.

I think you're arguing against a straw man...I've repeatedly stated that cardio is important and something that should be considered after a baseline of strength is established.

I've repeatedly stated that if mass is your goal don't do a strength program once you've established a baseline of strength.

> your links in support of the injury prevention and mass building benefits refer to startingstrength.com and Practical Programming. That book is health cult literature, not a reliable scientific resource.

Practical Programming was written by a PhD, and the article I sent is written by an MD. So...unscientific? Please do send sources for your assertions though.

> Weight gain is a problem. Most people have no health reason to gain mass rapidly (or at all), yet many trainees struggle to progress without eating a large calorific surplus.

I'm sorry this is completely ridiculous. I'm not suggesting people become powerlifters. I'm suggesting people build up a base of strength before doing other physical activity. In order to do so you do not need to put on weight.

> Everyone who lifts for mass does a lot more higher rep volume than Starting Strength.

Dude I have said over and over again that people should not be running starting strength past a few months. Rippetoe says the same. It's not a long term program meant to meet any and every goal. If your goal is mass and you are at step 0, start with strength and move to volume later. If you have a reason that is suboptimal I'd happily hear it, but you are arguing against things I'm not saying. To be 10000% clear: I'm not arguing people who are interested in mass should be doing low rep workouts forever.

> Strength is absolutely not that basis of all fitness.

Building a strength adaptation is the only way to simultaneously build an adaptation in every other type of fitness. Once again, I'm not suggesting it's the only thing to do, I'm suggesting it's the tip of the pyramid and thus the best place to start. Obviously if your goals are marathon running getting a 500# squat is not going to help you.

> Many extremely fit endurance athletes never lift any weights.

Well this is where it gets interesting. Fitness without a goal is not really a useful word. By powerlifting standards they are not fit, like a powerlifter is not fit by endurance standards. So I don't really think this is useful. In terms of day to day fitness for the general population, based on the sources above, I still assert that strength is the most useful form of fitness.

> I note that you didn't dispute that it will interfere with other physical activity

Once again, my recommendation is for people who aren't currently fit. There is no activity to interfere with because there is no current activity at all.

> Ask yourself also how much real evidence you have for your incredibly strong and dogmatic opinions on training.

I'm sorry, there are definitely people no the internet who are dogmatic about this stuff and knee jerk to starting strength and lifting. You're right. But I'm not one of them. Recommending that people with no experience in fitness start out in strength makes a lot of sense, and you've spent the entire time arguing against a straw man that I'm trying to get everyone to train as a powerlifter, which is nonsense. 3 months of training is a drop in the bucket. Try reading the sources you've dismissed so quickly. Alternatively send me some that disagree with my statements and I will happily critique the actual content of them rather than ignore them (or hey, maybe I'll have my mind changed, you never know!)