[quote]Yo Momma wrote:
That’s because it’s propagated by the largely male scientific community, who just loves the idea of Planetary Penetration!
[/quote]
That does sound sexy.
[quote]Yo Momma wrote:
gojira wrote:
Yo Momma wrote:
gojira wrote:
Yo Momma wrote:
CU AeroStallion wrote:
Relativity. That theory was a bunch of shit.
What about Quantum Mechanics or the String Theory?
Punctuated Equilibrium
I think things went stale for me after my metasystem transition. Seem to have hit a plateau.
I was never a believer of the Bolide Theory for the extinction of the dinosaurs either. If it were true, then why do we still have frogs and insects and angiosperms and crocodiles and…
That’s because it’s propagated by the largely male scientific community, who just loves the idea of Planetary Penetration!
[/quote]
You two crack me up.
[quote]BIGRAGOO wrote:
You two crack me up.[/quote]
Glad to provide a laugh, that is of course what you meant.
anything Mr. Pushups has ever posted
[quote]MODOK wrote:
Here’s a funny one that I still hear now and then…
Black people have an extra muscle in their legs, which makes them run faster and cut quicker than whites and asians; bet ya’ll didn’t know that!lol[/quote]
No, but I think Jimmy 'The Greek ’ may have been on to something…lol
[quote]hueyOT wrote:
here’s another one: ‘you can only build muscle with freeweights’.[/quote]
That’s not true?? Shit, I’m screwed, that’s all I use.
What about gotta wait 30 minutes after eating to go swimming or else you’ll cramp. What a bunch of crap.
“Lifting for 5-8 reps is wrong you should do 5 sets of 20 reps.” I didn’t bother to reply I just laughed.
I’ve heard this one a dozen times over the years from all the lazy bastards i work with …
You shouldn’t lift weights and get muscular because when you get older it all turns to fat …
[quote]Digital Chainsaw wrote:
One I hear from old-timers:
“If you’re fat, you should lose the fat before you start lifting weights, otherwise you’ll build the muscle on top of the fat.” – I’ve taken to calling this the “Muscle/Gut Theory”.
I’ve even had one old guy go so far as to say that this will “lock the fat in”, and one could not lose it once this is done.
[/quote]
Well, I’m off to the gym. Gonna crank up the old rambler, turn on my left turn signal and leave it on, drive in the left lane only, hobble up to the elevator with my walker and watch all the young know it all idiots bounce on balls.
[quote]Go-Rilla wrote:
Digital Chainsaw wrote:
One I hear from old-timers:
“If you’re fat, you should lose the fat before you start lifting weights, otherwise you’ll build the muscle on top of the fat.” – I’ve taken to calling this the “Muscle/Gut Theory”.
I’ve even had one old guy go so far as to say that this will “lock the fat in”, and one could not lose it once this is done.
Well, I’m off to the gym. Gonna crank up the old rambler, turn on my left turn signal and leave it on, drive in the left lane only, hobble up to the elevator with my walker and watch all the young know it all idiots bounce on balls.
[/quote]
Sounds like fun, can I come?
[quote]baretta wrote:
anything Mr. Pushups has ever posted[/quote]
Gironda Situps are superior to all other exercises!
I can bench 500pounds, ride a bull, throw this football over that mountain!
I defy you to prove me wrong!
[quote]Professor X wrote:
gojira wrote:
Yo Momma wrote:
gojira wrote:
Yo Momma wrote:
CU AeroStallion wrote:
Relativity. That theory was a bunch of shit.
What about Quantum Mechanics or the String Theory?
Punctuated Equilibrium
I think things went stale for me after my metasystem transition. Seem to have hit a plateau.
I was never a believer of the Bolide Theory for the extinction of the dinosaurs either. If it were true, then why do we still have frogs and insects and angiosperms and crocodiles and…
Well, many insects can survive where other life forms can’t. Frogs and crocodiles, being amphibian, may have been at an advantage as opposed to other land dwelling animals in the confines of a theory based on the levels of iridium found within the clay layer that seperates the Cretaceous from the Tertiary. [/quote]
Ummm…crocodiles are reptiles, not amphibians.
The iridium layer was caused by the impact of the bolide in the Yucatan. I don’t dispute the meteor impact. What I don’t buy is it being the answer for the extinction at the end of the Cretaceous. There were a lot of other things happening to the planet at that time.
But then biologists and geologists always disagree on these sorts of things (punctuated equilibrium being one of them).
[quote]gojira wrote:
Professor X wrote:
gojira wrote:
Yo Momma wrote:
gojira wrote:
Yo Momma wrote:
CU AeroStallion wrote:
Relativity. That theory was a bunch of shit.
What about Quantum Mechanics or the String Theory?
Punctuated Equilibrium
I think things went stale for me after my metasystem transition. Seem to have hit a plateau.
I was never a believer of the Bolide Theory for the extinction of the dinosaurs either. If it were true, then why do we still have frogs and insects and angiosperms and crocodiles and…
Well, many insects can survive where other life forms can’t. Frogs and crocodiles, being amphibian, may have been at an advantage as opposed to other land dwelling animals in the confines of a theory based on the levels of iridium found within the clay layer that seperates the Cretaceous from the Tertiary.
Ummm…crocodiles are reptiles, not amphibians.
The iridium layer was caused by the impact of the bolide in the Yucatan. I don’t dispute the meteor impact. What I don’t buy is it being the answer for the extinction at the end of the Cretaceous. There were a lot of other things happening to the planet at that time.
But then biologists and geologists always disagree on these sorts of things (punctuated equilibrium being one of them).[/quote]
he meant crocodiles spend their lives on land and water, that they are amphibious (aka amphibian). he wasn’t saying that they were classified as amphibians.
If you don’t go to failure then you have wasted that set!
[quote]Yo Momma wrote:
BIGRAGOO wrote:
You two crack me up.
Glad to provide a laugh, that is of course what you meant.
[/quote]
Of course.
a clean bulk imo is pretty much following Berardi’s precision nutrition.
clean foods constitute foods that are whole and not processed to such a huge degree. Meaning cookies and chocolate do not qualify.
foods that come out of the ground or from an animal and nothing is added or condensed.
You can most easily hit 5000 calories doing this( nuts are gods gift to the clean bulk).
fast foods and clean foods mainly differ in their macronutrient ratios and the quality of those macronutrients.
[quote]rawda wrote:
he meant crocodiles spend their lives on land and water, that they are amphibious (aka amphibian). he wasn’t saying that they were classified as amphibians.[/quote]
Thank you. I was beginning to wonder if every single thing needed to be spelled out to that degree. Contrary to what some may believe, I seriously doubt that there are only one or two people on this site who have an education beyond high school.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
rawda wrote:
he meant crocodiles spend their lives on land and water, that they are amphibious (aka amphibian). he wasn’t saying that they were classified as amphibians.
Thank you. I was beginning to wonder if every single thing needed to be spelled out to that degree. Contrary to what some may believe, I seriously doubt that there are only one or two people on this site who have an education beyond high school.[/quote]
Well, you would be amazed at how many “educated” folks I come a cross that think that birds are mammals, raccoons are rodents and insects don’t have any blood. There are a whole lot of people out there that slept through biology class.
[quote]CU AeroStallion wrote:
Relativity. That theory was a bunch of shit. [/quote]
When the universe has a beginning, the fudgefactor in relativity is gone, and the theory is correct, based that the universe has a beginning, which looking at the galaxies moving a way and decreasing in speed shows there was a beginning and starting point to the universe
[quote]hueyOT wrote:
although you cannot purely isolate one area of a muscle <i.e. inner pecs> during an exercise, you can create more tension on different areas of the muscle in question with different exercises.
although i don’t know how important it is to consider <i don’t consider it at all when developing my training programs>, different ‘chest exercises’ do strain different areas of the pecs more than others. although muscles do contract as a whole, cable crossovers will create more tension on the inner chest than flat bench barbell bench press.
EMG electrodes on various areas of any given muscle will reveal differing degrees of activity between differing exercises. so although i don’t think it’s really relevant to consider this when designing a training system <for most trainees, anyways> it is untrue that you cannot emphasize certain areas of muscles with different exercises.[/quote]
with the different angles, you getting a prestretching of the portion of the muscle you are trying to engage, there for increasing the force placed on that part of the muscle. its all about leverage.