[quote]CanadianLM wrote:
If you wanna talk hockey, somebody please tell me they watched the Leafs beat Detroit.
Greatest day of my life.[/quote]
Well, that’s at least one win in their lousy season. 
But wanna talk hockey… how about the Habs coming back from a 5-0 deficit against the Rangers to win 6-5 in a shootout!
[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
<<< Well, that’s at least one win in their lousy season. >>>[/quote]
OMG, he’s probably still bent over holding his nuts after that one. They have a had a rough season, but the Habs haven’t exactly inspired parade plans this year either. I winced reading LeFleur’s remarks a few weeks ago at TSN. EDIT:I retract this statement as I have been very bust for weeks and didn’t realize how drastically Montreal had turned it’s season around, my mistake
Now you know I’m gonna bring up the fact that my beloved Red Wings have pretty much manhandled the league until this accursed recent 6 game slide that happily ended last night. Lidstrom has his MRI tomorrow though dammit.
[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
But hey… don’t argue with my hockey knowledge mon esti de tarbarnak d’innocent … si tu continue m’a t’en crisser une.
Happy
I have no idea why I asked you to type out cuss words in French. I can’t read French - so I have no clue what you typed.
Well it would basically mean ‘‘don’t argue with my hockey knowledge you mutherf***ing idiot … if you don’t stop I’ll kick your ass.’’
The English language is so limited when it comes to swearing.[/quote]
Knowing only a rough literal translation of the original words outside of their Canadian context is much funnier.
[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
The English language is so limited when it comes to swearing.[/quote]
It’s not how many colors are in your paint set - it’s what you can do with them that makes you an artist.
[quote]dannyrat wrote:
GOAL OF THE VACUUM POSE= THIN STOMACH
GOAL OF ANOREXIA= THIN STOMACH.[/quote]
The goal of the vacuum pose: demonstrate a large degree of control over the abdominal muscles by dramatically contracting them.
Goal of anorexia: slow suicide via starvation.
The two have nothing in common.
1.What this thread seems to underline is that any possible controversy could only be derived from really poor reading comprehension skills, of a fundamental inability to reason and lack of experience. Improvement in the latter would likely solve deficits in the first two areas.
2.As learned as some of the posts have been it seems you are, for the most part, really addressing a strawman: someone who doesnt really workout.
3.@ Prof X (since he raised this question) –
The reason why such forums become diluted is perhaps simply due to the nature of the medium: before the internet a 14yo kid would have to actually leave his room, go down to a hardcore gym where some very serious and intimidating folks are doing some scary shit, and present himself as worthy of their attention. With the kindof questions posited here that aint likely to happen, certainly not over and over again ad nauseum, such as what one finds in some forums. Yet that goes both ways doesnt it? If some newb showed up at your elbow bugging you with stupid, pointless questions or making idiotic assertions you would probably not indulge him the same way he is indulged on these forums.
As for this being “the best thread” for a very long time – that would be sad. I dont think that’s so. I for one have really appreciated the PC section, where, despite the superb efforts of some of the participants, the real stars are the coaches and the tidbits of info they make available. Now, if they could find someone with true bodybuilding aspirations, that would be something…
[quote]thomas.galvin wrote:
dannyrat wrote:
GOAL OF THE VACUUM POSE= THIN STOMACH
GOAL OF ANOREXIA= THIN STOMACH.
The goal of the vacuum pose: demonstrate a large degree of control over the abdominal muscles by dramatically contracting them.
Goal of anorexia: slow suicide via starvation.
The two have nothing in common.[/quote]
…aside from highlighting those who think of such things as obviously not making much progress as far as building any muscle.
I get the feeling that if this forum were held in an auditorium, less than 10% of the people would actually look like they lift weights.
[quote]Scotacus wrote:
3.@ Prof X (since he raised this question) –
The reason why such forums become diluted is perhaps simply due to the nature of the medium: before the internet a 14yo kid would have to actually leave his room, go down to a hardcore gym where some very serious and intimidating folks are doing some scary shit, and present himself as worthy of their attention. With the kindof questions posited here that aint likely to happen, certainly not over and over again ad nauseum, such as what one finds in some forums. Yet that goes both ways doesnt it? If some newb showed up at your elbow bugging you with stupid, pointless questions or making idiotic assertions you would probably not indulge him the same way he is indulged on these forums.[/quote]
You are right. Having to walk down to that gym as a skinny teenager and feel like a rank beginner in a sea of more experience is what drove most of us to work harder. It also took a good deal of confidence just to get over feeling like you didn’t fit in with the big guys yet. It was motivational. You RESPECTED those who had put the time in and built that type of size. You listened to what they said and kept what worked for you. Without that, we get people who probably don’t even work out regularly fussing about minutia.
That could have never happened before the internet. You HAD to put the time in to even have a voice in a gym full of hard working bodybuilders. That level of experience is missing now as you have people worrying about the smallest details before they ever actually lift a fucking weight.
As far as some newbie walking up to me, I have NEVER experienced anyone in a gym just asking pointless questions of me. Usually if they walk up to me at all, they at least work out regularly. Those idiotic assertions seem to only occur outside of the gym and by people who aren’t serious but like to sound like they know what they are talking about.
That is the ONLY time you would hear “vacuum pose = anorexia” no one would walk up to me and say something like that while I’m doing leg presses.
[quote]thomas.galvin wrote:
dannyrat wrote:
GOAL OF THE VACUUM POSE= THIN STOMACH
GOAL OF ANOREXIA= THIN STOMACH.
The goal of the vacuum pose: demonstrate a large degree of control over the abdominal muscles by dramatically contracting them.
Goal of anorexia: slow suicide via starvation.
The two have nothing in common.[/quote]
I dont think that is the prime motion for a vacuum pose. A vacuum pose requires you to suck in your gut. Contracting (flexing) your abs will likely make them inflexible and, like any other muscle, cause them to stick out. At least this is what happens when I do both (flex and vacuum). Schwarzenneger described practicing the vacuum as attempting to touch his spine with his stomach. You dont do that by flexing your ab muscles.
[quote]Scotacus wrote:
thomas.galvin wrote:
dannyrat wrote:
GOAL OF THE VACUUM POSE= THIN STOMACH
GOAL OF ANOREXIA= THIN STOMACH.
The goal of the vacuum pose: demonstrate a large degree of control over the abdominal muscles by dramatically contracting them.
Goal of anorexia: slow suicide via starvation.
The two have nothing in common.
I dont think that is the prime motion for a vacuum pose. A vacuum pose requires you to suck in your gut. Contracting (flexing) your abs will likely make them inflexible and, like any other muscle, cause them to stick out. At least this is what happens when I do both (flex and vacuum). Schwarzenneger described practicing the vacuum as attempting to touch his spine with his stomach. You dont do that by flexing your ab muscles.[/quote]
I think most of us knew what he was talking about without nitpicking the use of “contract”.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Scotacus wrote:
thomas.galvin wrote:
dannyrat wrote:
GOAL OF THE VACUUM POSE= THIN STOMACH
GOAL OF ANOREXIA= THIN STOMACH.
The goal of the vacuum pose: demonstrate a large degree of control over the abdominal muscles by dramatically contracting them.
Goal of anorexia: slow suicide via starvation.
The two have nothing in common.
I dont think that is the prime motion for a vacuum pose. A vacuum pose requires you to suck in your gut. Contracting (flexing) your abs will likely make them inflexible and, like any other muscle, cause them to stick out. At least this is what happens when I do both (flex and vacuum). Schwarzenneger described practicing the vacuum as attempting to touch his spine with his stomach. You dont do that by flexing your ab muscles.
I think most of us knew what he was talking about without nitpicking the use of “contract”.[/quote]
Just trying to get some clarity.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Scotacus wrote:
3.@ Prof X (since he raised this question) –
The reason why such forums become diluted is perhaps simply due to the nature of the medium: before the internet a 14yo kid would have to actually leave his room, go down to a hardcore gym where some very serious and intimidating folks are doing some scary shit, and present himself as worthy of their attention. With the kindof questions posited here that aint likely to happen, certainly not over and over again ad nauseum, such as what one finds in some forums. Yet that goes both ways doesnt it? If some newb showed up at your elbow bugging you with stupid, pointless questions or making idiotic assertions you would probably not indulge him the same way he is indulged on these forums.
You are right. Having to walk down to that gym as a skinny teenager and feel like a rank beginner in a sea of more experience is what drove most of us to work harder. It also took a good deal of confidence just to get over feeling like you didn’t fit in with the big guys yet. It was motivational. You RESPECTED those who had put the time in and built that type of size. You listened to what they said and kept what worked for you. Without that, we get people who probably don’t even work out regularly fussing about minutia.
That could have never happened before the internet. You HAD to put the time in to even have a voice in a gym full of hard working bodybuilders. That level of experience is missing now as you have people worrying about the smallest details before they ever actually lift a fucking weight.
As far as some newbie walking up to me, I have NEVER experienced anyone in a gym just asking pointless questions of me. Usually if they walk up to me at all, they at least work out regularly. Those idiotic assertions seem to only occur outside of the gym and by people who aren’t serious but like to sound like they know what they are talking about.
That is the ONLY time you would hear “vacuum pose = anorexia” no one would walk up to me and say something like that while I’m doing leg presses.[/quote]
That level of experience is likely missed most in places like internet forums, where there is none of the accountability you rightly mention, and where all one needs is access. This is why it is likely such forums should not be taken too seriously.
[quote]HotCarl28 wrote:
how do you all think muscle memory plays into this discussion
i see it maybe like this
in another words u bulk up to gain muscle at a faster rate but also put on more fat… u then lost the fat … but also lose some of the muscle… but with muscle memory that muscle should be easier to regain the next time around… meaning u dont need to eat as many calories and hence dont put on the fat when u regain said muscle
is this point at all valid? i dont know much about muscle memory and would like some insight from anyone who does[/quote]
Yes, that point is valid. That is what I was referring to when I wrote that Kai Greene will end up making more progress in the long run regardless of what he may diet down to right now. It has always worked like that for me. If I hit a certain higher weight the first time, I may be carrying a good deal of body fat. If I diet down over time and then go up again, the next time I hit that weight I have more muscle and much less body fat. It is also easier for my body to accept the higher weight as homeostasis.
I also believe that bulking up aids fascial stretching from inside the muscle group as opposed to simply doing some stretching movements. That would mean the ones who do so would automatically see more muscle growth than if they hadn’t. That is my own explanation for why those who have bulked up in the past seem to make the most progress in muscle gains and always have.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Yes, that point is valid. That is what I was referring to when I wrote that Kai Greene will end up making more progress in the long run regardless of what he may diet down to right now. It has always worked like that for me. If I hit a certain higher weight the first time, I may be carrying a good deal of body fat. If I diet down over time and then go up again, the next time I hit that weight I have more muscle and much less body fat. It is also easier for my body to accept the higher weight as homeostasis.[/quote]
I’ve seen the same. Last time I dieted down, I took about three inches off my waist. Now, a few months later, I’m back up to almost the same weight, but my waist hasn’t gotten noticeable larger. The weight I’m putting on this time around is “good weight.”
I was very hesitant to post this at the time I first did for fear that I would be taken as railing on T-Nation which was definitely not the intent then or now:
From the “Mentor the Wretched Newbies” thread:
[quote]I really believe that for rank beginners who haven’t yet gotten any kind of grip on how their own body works or what it responds to at all, a website like this is the worst thing that could happen to them. Not THIS website, or even the fact that it’s on the web, but the astronomical quantity of often conflicting information which is symptomatic of the weight training world at large and certainly not peculiar to T-Nation.
They are not equipped to decipher what’s useful to them and they usually wind up tossing to and fro on a pitching sea of mental paralysis or firmly planted in somebody’s perceived camp.[/quote]
Add to that what you guys are saying about the impersonal nature of discourse over this medium and you have exactly what we’re seeing. In a gym the birds of a feather principle takes hold and people wind up in groups with similar goals. When they talk to each other there’s a common vernacular assumed and they generally understand each other. Here, in these forums, everybody is all together and a situation that already requires some discernment is made even more confusing by the presence of instant experts splashing around in all this information with no idea how to apply any of it to themselves let alone somebody else.
I do not view myself as any advanced guru either. I simply try to sort things out and see them as practically as possible. There are a few relatively simple principles that everybody should start out with. My clarion call has been to start with those things and build and adjust as you learn. The trouble is with the dawn of the internet people with 15 minutes experience have instantaneous access to the whole history of training theory since the beginning of time and it seems cool to bury yourself in as much of it as possible rather than start with those few principles.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I was very hesitant to post this at the time I first did for fear that I would be taken as railing on T-Nation which was definitely not the intent then or now:
From the “Mentor the Wretched Newbies” thread:
I really believe that for rank beginners who haven’t yet gotten any kind of grip on how their own body works or what it responds to at all, a website like this is the worst thing that could happen to them. Not THIS website, or even the fact that it’s on the web, but the astronomical quantity of often conflicting information which is symptomatic of the weight training world at large and certainly not peculiar to T-Nation.
They are not equipped to decipher what’s useful to them and they usually wind up tossing to and fro on a pitching sea of mental paralysis or firmly planted in somebody’s perceived camp.
Add to that what you guys are saying about the impersonal nature of discourse over this medium and you have exactly what we’re seeing. In a gym the birds of a feather principle takes hold and people wind up in groups with similar goals. When they talk to each other there’s a common vernacular assumed and they generally understand each other. Here, in these forums, everybody is all together and a situation that already requires some discernment is made even more confusing by the presence of instant experts splashing around in all this information with no idea how to apply any of it to themselves let alone somebody else.
I do not view myself as any advanced guru either. I simply try to sort things out and see them as practically as possible. There are a few relatively simple principles that everybody should start out with. My clarion call has been to start with those things and build and adjust as you learn. The trouble is with the dawn of the internet people with 15 minutes experience have instantaneous access to the whole history of training theory since the beginning of time and it seems cool to bury yourself in as much of it as possible rather than start with those few principles. [/quote]
That is why it would help if we could see whether the person giving so much information has actually put any of it to work.
It is ridiculous to see guys with 14" arms telling other newbies not to do direct biceps work to get big arms because of all of their experience READING on this forum.
I am curious about the distinctions that are made between knowledge and muscle size. My question is not about earned knowledge as I agree that those who have gotten big have insight about the process. But rather, the use of ‘14" arms’ or weigh ‘180 lbs’ or ‘24" legs’ as somehow clear distinctions. When you consider a full range of heights of people who participate on this site, anywhere from -5’2" to 6’6"+ --those are very different people if they have the exact same measurements. The former will look “large” while the latter is rightly a beanpole. Blanket distinctions dismiss the earned knowledge of the former while applying wisdom on those who by height/frame/fat are larger.
You may argue that this applies well to body builder, but that ignores the range of goals of individuals on this website.
14" arms are small on anybody.
Sorry, but I’m not about to listen to a guy talk about gettin’ big arms if he DOESN’T HAVE BIG ARMS.
[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
I am curious about the distinctions that are made between knowledge and muscle size. My question is not about earned knowledge as I agree that those who have gotten big have insight about the process. But rather, the use of ‘14" arms’ or weigh ‘180 lbs’ or ‘24" legs’ as somehow clear distinctions. When you consider a full range of heights of people who participate on this site, anywhere from -5’2" to 6’6"+ --those are very different people if they have the exact same measurements. The former will look “large” while the latter is rightly a beanpole. Blanket distinctions dismiss the earned knowledge of the former while applying wisdom on those who by height/frame/fat are larger.
You may argue that this applies well to body builder, but that ignores the range of goals of individuals on this website.[/quote]
How often have you been wrong by looking at someone as far as whether they lift seriously? Even smaller lifters have a look about them if they train hard.
The issue isn’t just the measurement, it is about experience of the individual. Exactly what does the guy with 14" arms (assuming they aren’t a midget just so you can get over the height issue) have experience with in bodybuilding?
Did you really think no one has noticed that height is a factor in bodybuilding as far as how much you weigh?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Tex Ag wrote:
I am curious about the distinctions that are made between knowledge and muscle size. My question is not about earned knowledge as I agree that those who have gotten big have insight about the process. But rather, the use of ‘14" arms’ or weigh ‘180 lbs’ or ‘24" legs’ as somehow clear distinctions. When you consider a full range of heights of people who participate on this site, anywhere from -5’2" to 6’6"+ --those are very different people if they have the exact same measurements. The former will look “large” while the latter is rightly a beanpole. Blanket distinctions dismiss the earned knowledge of the former while applying wisdom on those who by height/frame/fat are larger.
You may argue that this applies well to body builder, but that ignores the range of goals of individuals on this website.
How often have you been wrong by looking at someone as far as whether they lift seriously? Even smaller lifters have a look about them if they train hard.
The issue isn’t just the measurement, it is about experience of the individual. Exactly what does the guy with 14" arms (assuming they aren’t a midget just so you can get over the height issue) have experience with in bodybuilding?
Did you really think no one has noticed that height is a factor in bodybuilding as far as how much you weigh?
[/quote]
I do not think we are far apart on this issue. I agree that there is a look. Unfortunately we are unable to judge the advice on this site through visual inspection. (Especially with the current vogue of curls and more curls in the gym, I have seen many with ‘big’ arms and little else to recommend their advice.) I have but it seems that is an ignored variable in discussions on this page. It is disheartening to read naturally tall/big guys belittle dudes that are significantly smaller in height/weight because their lifts are not as heavy. I am far more interested in bw ratio when it comes to lifts. For me it levels the playing field a bit. I know your a big guy, I am not. So I am sensitive to false pride of that can come with total weight/size alone. You probably do not get the smug stares of dudes who bench with bad form 10 lbs more that you just did, despite the fact they have 60 lbs on you.
I always look forward to your advice on this site. At the same time, I find undeadlift one of the most humble and, dare I say, hardcore. He is not huge but having started at 120 lbs, he has made impressive gains that are easily overlooked when applying blanket distinctions, as discussed above.