My Insult directly related to your math skills when we were talking about losing dumb amounts of weight to actually look good.
[/quote]
No, what I see is people acting like assholes constantly and acting like they are justified in doing so…which makes no sense outside of hypocritical rants.
You spend much of your time here hurling insults.[/quote]
And you don’t? Lol. Man I was away from this site since school started in aug. but this shit is now entertaining again because I have time until next semester. And I only insult ppl that do it to others [/quote]
Uh, no I don’t go around insulting people for no reason. If you write something stupid, I will tell you. You will not find me insulting other people on the progress they have made. That act is yours alone.
My Insult directly related to your math skills when we were talking about losing dumb amounts of weight to actually look good.
[/quote]
No, what I see is people acting like assholes constantly and acting like they are justified in doing so…which makes no sense outside of hypocritical rants.
You spend much of your time here hurling insults.[/quote]
And you don’t? Lol. Man I was away from this site since school started in aug. but this shit is now entertaining again because I have time until next semester. And I only insult ppl that do it to others [/quote]
Uh, no I don’t go around insulting people for no reason. If you write something stupid, I will tell you. You will not find me insulting other people on the progress they have made. That act is yours alone.[/quote]
I haven’t insulted your progress just basic math skills so like you I call someone out when I see something stupid
1st year - 20-25 lbs (2lb a month)
2nd year - 10-12 lbs (1lb per month)
3rd year - 5-6 lbs (0.5lb per month)
4th year - 2-3 lbs (not worth calculating)
[/quote]
It’s GENERALLY how it goes though - you know, for like 99% of people lifting. [/quote]
Do people GENERALLY run properly structured, tonnage adjusted, periodised programs in line with what the russians came up with?[/quote]
Hell no!
Dont trust those commie bastards[/quote]
The russians know there shit when it comes to periodisation. That stuff works, period. And it is possible to know when you are about to put on a few pounds of muscle. It’s nearly always in the deload week after setting new PR’s. Best time to bump calories more than usual, and IMO, the only time to consider overeating.
And it’s relevant to bricks comment that I quoted about how much muscle you can expect to put on GENERALLY. (im really trying to stop this caps thing put speech marks seem…well, gay??) Most people GENERALLY have no freaking idea what tonnage is, let alone how to structure it in a program.
[/quote]
I see what you are saying and by that reasoning and logic, Russian weightlifters should be blowing the rest of the world out of the water!
Why haven’t their been loads and loads of Russian pro BB’ers over here destroying everyone?
1st year - 20-25 lbs (2lb a month)
2nd year - 10-12 lbs (1lb per month)
3rd year - 5-6 lbs (0.5lb per month)
4th year - 2-3 lbs (not worth calculating)
[/quote]
It’s GENERALLY how it goes though - you know, for like 99% of people lifting. [/quote]
Do people GENERALLY run properly structured, tonnage adjusted, periodised programs in line with what the russians came up with?[/quote]
Hell no!
Dont trust those commie bastards[/quote]
The russians know there shit when it comes to periodisation. That stuff works, period. And it is possible to know when you are about to put on a few pounds of muscle. It’s nearly always in the deload week after setting new PR’s. Best time to bump calories more than usual, and IMO, the only time to consider overeating.
And it’s relevant to bricks comment that I quoted about how much muscle you can expect to put on GENERALLY. (im really trying to stop this caps thing put speech marks seem…well, gay??) Most people GENERALLY have no freaking idea what tonnage is, let alone how to structure it in a program.
[/quote]
I see what you are saying and by that reasoning and logic, Russian weightlifters should be blowing the rest of the world out of the water!
Why haven’t their been loads and loads of Russian pro BB’ers over here destroying everyone?
[/quote]
Because its against party rules. Protect the motherland!
1st year - 20-25 lbs (2lb a month)
2nd year - 10-12 lbs (1lb per month)
3rd year - 5-6 lbs (0.5lb per month)
4th year - 2-3 lbs (not worth calculating)
[/quote]
It’s GENERALLY how it goes though - you know, for like 99% of people lifting. [/quote]
Do people GENERALLY run properly structured, tonnage adjusted, periodised programs in line with what the russians came up with?[/quote]
Hell no!
Dont trust those commie bastards[/quote]
The russians know there shit when it comes to periodisation. That stuff works, period. And it is possible to know when you are about to put on a few pounds of muscle. It’s nearly always in the deload week after setting new PR’s. Best time to bump calories more than usual, and IMO, the only time to consider overeating.
And it’s relevant to bricks comment that I quoted about how much muscle you can expect to put on GENERALLY. (im really trying to stop this caps thing put speech marks seem…well, gay??) Most people GENERALLY have no freaking idea what tonnage is, let alone how to structure it in a program.
[/quote]
I see what you are saying and by that reasoning and logic, Russian weightlifters should be blowing the rest of the world out of the water!
Why haven’t their been loads and loads of Russian pro BB’ers over here destroying everyone?
[/quote]
Russians by and large prefer powerlifting it seems. Check out the current list.
Thanks to the guys who responded to my question(SW, Ripsaw etc.) I started counting my calories today and I’m looking forward to actually knowing what and how much I’m putting into my body.
It’s sad that this thread started off with a great discussion and has now devolved into the usual shit.
[quote]ishinator wrote:
Thanks to the guys who responded to my question(SW, Ripsaw etc.) I started counting my calories today and I’m looking forward to actually knowing what and how much I’m putting into my body.
It’s sad that this thread started off with a great discussion and has now devolved into the usual shit.[/quote]
[quote]ishinator wrote:
Thanks to the guys who responded to my question(SW, Ripsaw etc.) I started counting my calories today and I’m looking forward to actually knowing what and how much I’m putting into my body.
It’s sad that this thread started off with a great discussion and has now devolved into the usual shit.[/quote]
Plz take note where that happened and who joined [/quote]
It’s quite clear actually. I’m not sure why the mods don’t step in.
Carrying more bodyfat does not reduce the work done lifting a weight from A to B. Fact.
[/quote]
Not a fact for all exercises. If you become fatter, you reduce the bench press stroke. So less work is being done. Same can be said for the squat. [/quote]
I can’t read this forum any more.
Also, can we have a thread where only Brick posts and all he types is the word “Permabulker”?
Carrying more bodyfat does not reduce the work done lifting a weight from A to B. Fact.
[/quote]
Not a fact for all exercises. If you become fatter, you reduce the bench press stroke. So less work is being done. Same can be said for the squat. [/quote]
I can’t read this forum any more.
Also, can we have a thread where only Brick posts and all he types is the word “Permabulker”?[/quote]
Carrying more bodyfat does not reduce the work done lifting a weight from A to B. Fact.
[/quote]
Not a fact for all exercises. If you become fatter, you reduce the bench press stroke. So less work is being done. Same can be said for the squat. [/quote]
I can’t read this forum any more.
Also, can we have a thread where only Brick posts and all he types is the word “Permabulker”?[/quote]
I motion we change the name to “too fat to see feet bulker” or “consta-perma-neva-diet-neva-ending-thankgiving-bulker”.
Carrying more bodyfat does not reduce the work done lifting a weight from A to B. Fact.
[/quote]
Not a fact for all exercises. If you become fatter, you reduce the bench press stroke. So less work is being done. Same can be said for the squat. [/quote]
I can’t read this forum any more.
Also, can we have a thread where only Brick posts and all he types is the word “Permabulker”?[/quote]
So you would argue being fatter does not help leverage? Shorten stroke length? Ect? If so then it seems there are no benefits for plers to get fat
So you would argue being fatter does not help leverage? Shorten stroke length? Ect? If so then it seems there are no benefits for plers to get fat [/quote]
If they gain more leverage then more weight would be used…so saying less work is done without taking the increased weight used into the equation makes the statement incorrect.
If more weight can be moved, you can not claim less work is being done.
So you would argue being fatter does not help leverage? Shorten stroke length? Ect? If so then it seems there are no benefits for plers to get fat [/quote]
If they gain more leverage then more weight would be used…so saying less work is done without taking the increased weight used into the equation makes the statement incorrect.
If more weight can be moved, you can not claim less work is being done.[/quote]
But if stroke length decreas and weight increases seems like they negate. Since work is distance x force
So you would argue being fatter does not help leverage? Shorten stroke length? Ect? If so then it seems there are no benefits for plers to get fat [/quote]
If they gain more leverage then more weight would be used…so saying less work is done without taking the increased weight used into the equation makes the statement incorrect.
If more weight can be moved, you can not claim less work is being done.[/quote]
But if stroke length decreas and weight increases seems like they negate. Since work is distance x force [/quote]
Do you really understand the (force) part of that equation?
So you would argue being fatter does not help leverage? Shorten stroke length? Ect? If so then it seems there are no benefits for plers to get fat [/quote]
If they gain more leverage then more weight would be used…so saying less work is done without taking the increased weight used into the equation makes the statement incorrect.
If more weight can be moved, you can not claim less work is being done.[/quote]
But if stroke length decreas and weight increases seems like they negate. Since work is distance x force [/quote]
Do you really understand the (force) part of that equation?[/quote]
So you would argue being fatter does not help leverage? Shorten stroke length? Ect? If so then it seems there are no benefits for plers to get fat [/quote]
If they gain more leverage then more weight would be used…so saying less work is done without taking the increased weight used into the equation makes the statement incorrect.
If more weight can be moved, you can not claim less work is being done.[/quote]
But if stroke length decreas and weight increases seems like they negate. Since work is distance x force [/quote]
Do you really understand the (force) part of that equation?[/quote]
Yep
[/quote]
If you say so.
definition:
force, commonly, a “push” or “pull,” more properly defined in physics as a quantity that changes the motion, size, or shape of a body. Force is a vector quantity, having both magnitude and direction. The magnitude of a force is measured in units such as the pound, dyne, and newton, depending upon the system of measurement being used
Therefore, if force is increased with the weight used, you can not say there is less work done.
One time, I heard Johnnie Jackson bulked up for a PL meet and broke a bench press record, but only got one light because one of the judges said he illegally used fat-induced-stroke-shortening so he really didn’t do that much work and the other judge didn’t think he was asthetic enough in his singlet.
That’s all I can take for awhile. Maybe see you guys next month and play “count how many times ‘permabulker’ was used”.
So you would argue being fatter does not help leverage? Shorten stroke length? Ect? If so then it seems there are no benefits for plers to get fat [/quote]
If they gain more leverage then more weight would be used…so saying less work is done without taking the increased weight used into the equation makes the statement incorrect.
If more weight can be moved, you can not claim less work is being done.[/quote]
But if stroke length decreas and weight increases seems like they negate. Since work is distance x force [/quote]
Do you really understand the (force) part of that equation?[/quote]
Yep
[/quote]
If you say so.
definition:
force, commonly, a “push” or “pull,” more properly defined in physics as a quantity that changes the motion, size, or shape of a body. Force is a vector quantity, having both magnitude and direction. The magnitude of a force is measured in units such as the pound, dyne, and newton, depending upon the system of measurement being used
Therefore, if force is increased with the weight used, you can not say there is less work done.[/quote]
Mr physics that was. Definition of force not work. Work is force x distance as I stated. You keep trying though