[quote]SteelyD wrote:
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…[/quote]
Bingo.
It has gotten “circle jerky” in here and the truth ain’t setting in.
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
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
[/quote]
Dear Lord, do you understand that is that increases that WORK increases?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
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
[/quote]
Dear Lord, do you understand that is that increases that WORK increases?[/quote]
Not if stroke length DECREASES.
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
Not if stroke length DECREASES. [/quote]
There would be a definite limit on how much stroke is reduced that can be compensated for with the weight used.
This means Brick’s statement is incorrect.
I never thought the term permabulker was derogatory - seriously. Is it? If so, I will stop using it.
I just never saw it meaning anything other than someone who seems to be or is perpetually bulking.
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
I never thought the term permabulker was derogatory - seriously. Is it? If so, I will stop using it.
I just never saw it meaning anything other than someone who seems to be or is perpetually bulking. [/quote]
Someone who has never done a true cut. Don’t see how it’s derogatory. Different strokes for different folks
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
I never thought the term permabulker was derogatory - seriously. Is it? If so, I will stop using it.
I just never saw it meaning anything other than someone who seems to be or is perpetually bulking. [/quote]
Well then, since that does not describe me, who are you describing with it?
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
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]
It’s not even that simple. From a physiological perspective, not all “work” has the same effect on the muscle. Much more break down at extremes of ROM (full stretch on presses for example…that extra stretch you get where you are weakest.) Being overweight cuts that part out.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
Not if stroke length DECREASES. [/quote]
There would be a definite limit on how much stroke is reduced that can be compensated for with the weight used.
This means Brick’s statement is incorrect.[/quote]
You realize this is EXACTLY what Ryan was saying in his first post, right? Force can increase and distance decrease in such a way that total work done doesn’t change. Or work could increase, yes. Or it could decrease even.
[quote]jskrabac wrote:
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
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]
It’s not even that simple. From a physiological perspective, not all “work” has the same effect on the muscle. Much more break down at extremes of ROM (full stretch on presses for example…that extra stretch you get where you are weakest.) Being overweight cuts that part out. [/quote]
Please provide some definitive evidence to back that statement up.
[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
[quote]jskrabac wrote:
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
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]
It’s not even that simple. From a physiological perspective, not all “work” has the same effect on the muscle. Much more break down at extremes of ROM (full stretch on presses for example…that extra stretch you get where you are weakest.) Being overweight cuts that part out. [/quote]
Please provide some definitive evidence to back that statement up.
[/quote]
That it’s more difficult to move weight at rock bottom of a squat than at the top? Or rock bottom of a bench press than at the top?
One time, a physicist told me that “acceleration” and “mass” had something to do with “Work”.
[quote]jskrabac wrote:
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
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]
It’s not even that simple. From a physiological perspective, not all “work” has the same effect on the muscle. Much more break down at extremes of ROM (full stretch on presses for example…that extra stretch you get where you are weakest.) Being overweight cuts that part out. [/quote]
We were already struggling with basic things. That just seemed to complicated to get into. But I agree
I thought Steely had already decided to leave and return to his life of big-dom and old-schoolness.
Also, I think everyone’s problems would be solved if all in this thread would just EAT BIG, GET BIG!!! lulz
[quote]J. Prufrock wrote:
I thought Steely had already decided to leave and return to his life of big-dom and old-schoolness. [/quote]
I tried, but the lure of “Permaphysics” is keeping me engaged for a little longer.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
I never thought the term permabulker was derogatory - seriously. Is it? If so, I will stop using it.
I just never saw it meaning anything other than someone who seems to be or is perpetually bulking. [/quote]
Well then, since that does not describe me, who are you describing with it?[/quote]
Guys that are always bulking or seeming so. I think I’ve applied it to people who approve of uncalculated or very liberal bulks.
good for you OP!
Post up your findings from tracking a weeks macros and cals
Try not to adjust your normal eating so they you get an accurate assessment this week
Was that directed at me or ishinator??
Anyways I have been using Fitday for a while now so I got a better handle on my macro breakdown. When I first used it I was surprised at how much fat and carbs I was consuming. Afterwards was much better able to hit my goal macros whether I weighed everything or didn’t.
For you guys who prep meals in advanced how do yo do it? Preparing meals every day is time consuming.
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
Was that directed at me or ishinator??
Anyways I have been using Fitday for a while now so I got a better handle on my macro breakdown. When I first used it I was surprised at how much fat and carbs I was consuming. Afterwards was much better able to hit my goal macros whether I weighed everything or didn’t.
For you guys who prep meals in advanced how do yo do it? Preparing meals every day is time consuming.[/quote]
Cook in Bulk 1 or 2 days a week then package them as individual meals