Is Everyone Retarded?

Off Topic
41

[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
Nope…they just put out a new magazine last month… which I had to buy for my girl.

Its frustrating because I have made some MAJOR changes in my physique, and I think that shows that I at least have some knowledge. Then she reads ONE THING in a magazine,or hears ONE THING from a trainer, and everything I say is null and void.

Probably my pet peeve is diet and size.

her - “I don’t want my legs to get all big!”

Me- “Thats impossible on a restricted calorie diet, if anything they will get smaller”

her - “For a guy, women gain size differently than men, we have to train and eat different because we store fat different”

Me- “But…calories…size…bangs head on wall”[/quote]

Lonnie, I think you and I should start a club or something. I had practically the same conversation with my fiancee yesterday evening! She was saying that she had great legs and didn’t want to spoil them by doing squats or deadlifts and getting all big. I banged my head on the wall too.

She also said I should stop working my legs so hard cos they were getting too big. I only squat bodyweight ATG, so they can’t be that big, can they?

How does the ELBOW Club sound to you? (Exasperated Lifter Boyfriends Opposed by their Women)

42

[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
Nope…they just put out a new magazine last month… which I had to buy for my girl.

Its frustrating because I have made some MAJOR changes in my physique, and I think that shows that I at least have some knowledge. Then she reads ONE THING in a magazine,or hears ONE THING from a trainer, and everything I say is null and void.

Probably my pet peeve is diet and size.

her - “I don’t want my legs to get all big!”

Me- “Thats impossible on a restricted calorie diet, if anything they will get smaller”

her - “For a guy, women gain size differently than men, we have to train and eat different because we store fat different”

Me- “But…calories…size…bangs head on wall”[/quote]

Been there, done that. I guess Women’s Lib was for nothing after all.

43

[quote]Rockscar wrote:
Allright. I’ll come out and say yeah, I’m taking it wrong. Jets are cooled.[/quote]

Rockscar, although you seem to have resovled this issue, all this talk about ‘retards’ and other misfits brings up a good point. Sure, it’s highly politically incorrect to say, ‘retard, faggot, or moron.’ But this forum isn’t about political correctness. It’s mainly about opinions. Most of us have an opinion and an asshole. This forum isn’t about Christian brotherhoood, or Nuns giving for Jesus… it’s mainly populated by self-centered weightlifters. Hence the name, “BodyBuilding’s Think Tank”. So, you’re bound to find a much different attitude towards people who are ‘different’ than you are, say, on a ‘basket weaving for people in need’ forum.

I often wonder when a joke becomes acceptable. When was the first Titanic joke told? And how soon until a titanic joke was told to someone who lost a relative on the Titanic. The very day Steve Moore
( the race car driver ) was killed, a guy at work made up a joke about it. I got a pretty thick skin, and that made me wince. Laugh, but wince at the same time.

It’s all fun and games until I lose an eye.

Just yesterday, I was attacked personally on this board.

http://www.t-nation.com/readTopic.do?id=745232

[quote]Damici wrote:

“…work as hard as three-toed tree sloths…”

[/quote]

Masons and Blaines aren’t safe either.

There’s probably a large number of people on this forum, who have relatives with dementia. ( Hell, I am pretty sure I am in the early stages of it, myself ) But jokes about Alzheimers are pretty much mainstream.

Joking about shit is probably a defence mechanism. The place I work for is slowing going down the crapper, and sooner than later, I’ll probably be outa work. Along with the other 200 guys there. So, we joke about it. What the fuck else we gonna do?

Anyhow, enough babbling. I think I made my point.

My favourite saying… " A journey of 1,000 miles begins with one hit from the pipe"

and graffiti I saw on the side of a train years ago… " Silly faggit, dicks are for chicks "

|/ 3Toes

44

[quote]Sonny S wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
Rockscar wrote:
Allright. I’ll come out and say yeah, I’m taking it wrong. Jets are cooled.

Actually, the JETS just plain suck!

Nope, Jets are pretty good - they just need a QB. Defense is one of the best in the NFL and they have a solid running game. Watch, they’ll still win another 6 or so games even with VInny or Brooks Bollinger at QB.

Remember, they had the Steelers beat TWICE in the playoffs, but the PK let them down.

And ya, I got the joke :)[/quote]

AAHHHH----Nope!

JETS defense–not bad/not great
Running game is only as good as a 35 yr old running back–who was great/is now good
Vinny is like 50 and never gonna make it 6 games
You forgot to look at my nameplate–from WI–I saw Brooks Bollinger for 3 years. He ain’t takin’ you anywhere. I’ll bet anythin you want that Brooks Bollinger never wins an NFL game as starting QB.

There, back to the thread.
And I’m glad you caught the original nuance. I felt the thread need a push away from where it was going.

45

[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
I’m getting close to not talking to anyone about it, especially my girlfriend. She loves working out and eating right, but she hates taking my advice. I’ll give her advice and get her on the right track but the SECOND someone else gives her an opinion i am totally wrong. Lifing heavy… Its IMPOSSIBLE to gain size on a calorie deficient diet (she think her legs are getting bigger, yet hasnt gained a pound in a year)… high intensity cardio. Her arguments are always referrenced to a trainer she talked to ONCE or an article is M&F Hers.

Her - “But i heard low intensity cardio burns more fat”

Me - “But you want to burn total calories, what does it matter if you burn 80% fat but only 100 calories in an hour?”

Her - “But i read that in muscle and fitness Hers, which is geared towards women.”

me - “why do you even ask me?”[/quote]

shes got a valid argument, why would u burn 500 calories as opposed to 100 when from those 500 you burn muscle while from the 100 you do not burn any muscle??

46

[quote]Miserere wrote:
Lonnie123 wrote:
Nope…they just put out a new magazine last month… which I had to buy for my girl.

Its frustrating because I have made some MAJOR changes in my physique, and I think that shows that I at least have some knowledge. Then she reads ONE THING in a magazine,or hears ONE THING from a trainer, and everything I say is null and void.

Probably my pet peeve is diet and size.

her - “I don’t want my legs to get all big!”

Me- “Thats impossible on a restricted calorie diet, if anything they will get smaller”

her - “For a guy, women gain size differently than men, we have to train and eat different because we store fat different”

Me- “But…calories…size…bangs head on wall”

Lonnie, I think you and I should start a club or something. I had practically the same conversation with my fiancee yesterday evening! She was saying that she had great legs and didn’t want to spoil them by doing squats or deadlifts and getting all big. I banged my head on the wall too.

She also said I should stop working my legs so hard cos they were getting too big. I only squat bodyweight ATG, so they can’t be that big, can they?

How does the ELBOW Club sound to you? (Exasperated Lifter Boyfriends Opposed by their Women)[/quote]

or, you could tell your woman she is right. Tell her you agree woman gain weight differently, and then show her where you get your info from and ask her if maybe you are misguided.

47

Here’s my experience with women and training.

  1. They love soy, they think it should be injected into everyone IV Styles…don’t even get me started…yikes…

  2. They love to be right.

  3. They hate to hear advice from any any man based upon weight b/c they take it personally.

  4. Choose your words very wisely. Tone is very important, if it’s preaching like, they’ll back away. They require a much different approach.

So, you’re better off not saying anything and just leaving a printed out article lying around that has the words fat loss on the title…don’t mention it. I betcha she reads it…then she may inquire about this so called T-nation…hmmm?

Anyways, I tend not to discuss any shit with anyone these days b/c they don’t listen. My roomate tried to tell me that men with long arms are at a disadvantage in the deadlift, b/c they’re levers are longer…she’s a kinesiology major… I then asked her to demostrate how that’s possible if you’re don’t have to pull it as far from the ground b/c you’re arms are closer to the ground when standing erect, and she showed me a stiff legged…I told her that’s not the specific deadlift I was referring to, and she responded, which other deadlift is there? Yeah…a kinesiology major…I left it at that!

I have the worst time b/c I live with a vegetarian and a kine student and they both don’t have a clue about what they’re talking about. The veg, has the worse case of man breasts I’ve seen in a while, and I’m positive it has alot to do with his massive consumption of soy. The kine student, well please see above. Nuff said.

It’s not worth my time…

48

[quote]EliteMasterMan wrote:

shes got a valid argument, why would u burn 500 calories as opposed to 100 when from those 500 you burn muscle while from the 100 you do not burn any muscle??[/quote]

I agree. High intensity cardio causes me to lose more muscle mass over the long term. I would rather walk on an incline for 30min than run at full speed for 20 even if I burned fewer overall calories. Where those calories come from isn’t a non-issue.

49

[quote]EliteMasterMan wrote:
shes got a valid argument, why would u burn 500 calories as opposed to 100 when from those 500 you burn muscle while from the 100 you do not burn any muscle??[/quote]

Hey, wow, I’ve got a question. If you consume adequate protein in your diet, how does creating a higher EPOC (excessive post-exercise OXYGEN consumption) lead to muscle tissue catabolism, especially moreso than “aerobic” activity?

The extra energy used after a resistive workout comes from the same damn places energy used in “cardio” comes from.

She does not have a point. She is wrong (again, as long as adequate dietary protein is consumed, but then, that’s true of any workout/eating plan).

-Dan

50

[quote]buffalokilla wrote:
EliteMasterMan wrote:
shes got a valid argument, why would u burn 500 calories as opposed to 100 when from those 500 you burn muscle while from the 100 you do not burn any muscle??

Hey, wow, I’ve got a question. If you consume adequate protein in your diet, how does creating a higher EPOC (excessive post-exercise OXYGEN consumption) lead to muscle tissue catabolism, especially moreso than “aerobic” activity?

The extra energy used after a resistive workout comes from the same damn places energy used in “cardio” comes from.

She does not have a point. She is wrong (again, as long as adequate dietary protein is consumed, but then, that’s true of any workout/eating plan).

-Dan

[/quote]

Yeah, they call what you just did “over simplification”. There is a reason that larger bodybuilders usually don’t opt for high intensity long duration cardio. By your logic, as long as you keep funneling in protein, your muscles will never be used as an energy source. As would especially be the case right after exercise, unless you are stopping at regular intervals to down a protein shake, your point goes out of the window. You don’t STORE protein as energy. You store glycogen and when that is depleted, your muscular protein and fat reserves become open to use for energy. High intensity cardio burns a larger ratio of glycogen to fat…leading to the use of protein for gluconeogenesis once depleted (even though your body is burning all macronutrients as energy at different ratios at all times). This is why I tend to avoid high intensity cardio for long periods. By your logic, HIIT needs to be thrown out and everyone should just go all out for 30min to an hour as the best way to burn body fat.

51

I have noticed that alot of topics end up being a wide ranging debate on a completely irrelevent bit of science. X is always in the center of it too. Looks like this one is about to go the same way.

Damn I had a point about something else and now I can’t remember it. Oh well I’ll just call rockscar a retard and call it a day.

52

Rockscars the man, how could u not love that avatar

53

[quote]jacross wrote:
I have noticed that alot of topics end up being a wide ranging debate on a completely irrelevent bit of science. X is always in the center of it too. Looks like this one is about to go the same way.[/quote]

I definitely don’t agree with this. The benefits of high versus low intensity energy system work discussed on a site conceived as “Bodybuilding’s Think Tank” by no means seems irrelevant. Given the initial topic, the quality of this thread has improved significantly, at least in my opinion.

54

[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
I’m getting close to not talking to anyone about it, especially my girlfriend. She loves working out and eating right, but she hates taking my advice. I’ll give her advice and get her on the right track but the SECOND someone else gives her an opinion i am totally wrong. Lifing heavy… Its IMPOSSIBLE to gain size on a calorie deficient diet (she think her legs are getting bigger, yet hasnt gained a pound in a year)… high intensity cardio. Her arguments are always referrenced to a trainer she talked to ONCE or an article is M&F Hers.

Her - “But i heard low intensity cardio burns more fat”

Me - “But you want to burn total calories, what does it matter if you burn 80% fat but only 100 calories in an hour?”

Her - “But i read that in muscle and fitness Hers, which is geared towards women.”

me - “why do you even ask me?”[/quote]

so lonnie i dont want to burst your bubble or anything but at least with the cardio thing your g/f is right. if youre on a treadmill running your ass off youre going to get your heart rate too high and it will be cardiovascular as opposed to fat burning. these are differnt things. when your heart rate is too high your body is essentially freaking out and burning whatever it can get its hands on, and since fat is a slower burner what do you think youre burning? thats why all those “cardio” machines have the heart rate monitors on them nowadays- even though i think they are a little off sometimes that is the logic behind them. and thats why there is a chart on the side that tells you what your heart rate should be, based on your age, to burn fat and then to do cardio. ever wonder why these are too different heart rates? maybe cardio and fat burn arent the same thing? leave your g/f alone, or better yet until youve got some kind of impressive development how about taking her advice

55

[quote]michael2507 wrote:
jacross wrote:
I have noticed that alot of topics end up being a wide ranging debate on a completely irrelevent bit of science. X is always in the center of it too. Looks like this one is about to go the same way.

I definitely don’t agree with this. The benefits of high versus low intensity energy system work discussed on a site conceived as “Bodybuilding’s Think Tank” by no means seems irrelevant. Given the initial topic, the quality of this thread has improved significantly, at least in my opinion.[/quote]

I’m on this wagon too.

56

[quote]dez6485 wrote:
A bunch of stuff to prove Lonnie123 was wrong.[/quote]

4 letters: HIIT.

That’s what I interpreted from Lonnie’s post. 15 mins of HIIT will burn more calories than 30 mins of slow cardio over the course of a day, although not within the actual session.

57

[quote]dez6485 wrote:

so lonnie i dont want to burst your bubble or anything but at least with the cardio thing your g/f is right. if youre on a treadmill running your ass off youre going to get your heart rate too high and it will be cardiovascular as opposed to fat burning. these are differnt things. when your heart rate is too high your body is essentially freaking out and burning whatever it can get its hands on, and since fat is a slower burner what do you think youre burning? thats why all those “cardio” machines have the heart rate monitors on them nowadays- even though i think they are a little off sometimes that is the logic behind them. and thats why there is a chart on the side that tells you what your heart rate should be, based on your age, to burn fat and then to do cardio. ever wonder why these are too different heart rates? maybe cardio and fat burn arent the same thing? leave your g/f alone, or better yet until youve got some kind of impressive development how about taking her advice[/quote]

Could you elaborate on this with regard to 400m sprinting. Would you consider this “fat burn” or “cardio”?

58

We’ve gotten off topic. As for the question posed in the thread’s title, the answer is obviously YES! Everyone is retarded.

DB

59

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Yeah, they call what you just did “over simplification”. There is a reason that larger bodybuilders usually don’t opt for high intensity long duration cardio. By your logic, as long as you keep funneling in protein, your muscles will never be used as an energy source. As would especially be the case right after exercise, unless you are stopping at regular intervals to down a protein shake, your point goes out of the window. You don’t STORE protein as energy. You store glycogen and when that is depleted, your muscular protein and fat reserves become open to use for energy. High intensity cardio burns a larger ratio of glycogen to fat…leading to the use of protein for gluconeogenesis once depleted (even though your body is burning all macronutrients as energy at different ratios at all times). This is why I tend to avoid high intensity cardio for long periods. By your logic, HIIT needs to be thrown out and everyone should just go all out for 30min to an hour as the best way to burn body fat.[/quote]

Looking at masterdude’s post again, I may have read too much into what he was saying. If I did, sorry about that, the point that where the energy comes from IS important. Total caloric expenditure is not even half the story.

X, were you replying to what I said or to what masterguy had said? In either case, your last sentence is wrong - the total caloric expenditure resulting from a HIIT session is much higher than 30min-1hr of “all-out cardio.”

-Dan

60

[quote]Rockscar wrote:
michael2507 wrote:
jacross wrote:
I have noticed that alot of topics end up being a wide ranging debate on a completely irrelevent bit of science. X is always in the center of it too. Looks like this one is about to go the same way.

I definitely don’t agree with this. The benefits of high versus low intensity energy system work discussed on a site conceived as “Bodybuilding’s Think Tank” by no means seems irrelevant. Given the initial topic, the quality of this thread has improved significantly, at least in my opinion.

I’m on this wagon too.[/quote]

I don’t think we disagree. I never said that it doesn’t elicit a more informative thread. It simply shifts. You’ll find many boards have strict policies about this. I do not wish to get into a debate about such matters, it was merely an observation. Besides I forgot my original point and seeing as it was 2.30am pressing the back button seemed too hard.