“Pain is weakness leaving the body”
[quote]Goodfellow wrote:
shizen wrote:
NeoSymbol07 wrote:
How can I increase growth in my Calves?
atg squats, deadlifts, really calves are a very small muscle. The way they will look bigger is by having a very low body fat % same with abs in a sense.
Calf raises.[/quote]
EXACTLY.
[quote]NeoSymbol07 wrote:
How can I increase growth in my Calves?[/quote]
Hit them with a hammer so they will be sore and then grow!
Excellent responses here. Here’s a summary of the key points:
-Soreness is a clear indicator of muscle breakdown.
-Muscle breakdown is necessary for muscle growth.
HOWEVER
-Muscle breakdown (and by extension, growth) can theoretically occur without the onset of noticeable soreness, due to various neurological mechanisms.
So, where does that leave us?
I amend my original statement to the following:
Training to soreness is the most reliable way to ensure growth.
[quote]yogaroots wrote:
IF YOU DON’T WORK THE MUSCLE HARD ENOUGH IT MAY GET SORE. [/quote]
Impossible.
[quote]BigKDawg wrote:
If the goal of training is to get sore, your missing the point. You can squat the bar for 100’s of reps but does that guarentee you growth? Maybe, but it will be as functional as a 1 legged stool. I think what people should focus on more is training density when it comes to getting more mass. [/quote]
-
Actually, you will be a hell of a lot more functional being able to do hundreds of BW squats than a single rep with 400 lbs. Think about it. There is practically no situation you will ever face that calls for you to be able to lift more than 200 lbs. Powerlifting and Olympic weightlifting aren’t functional. They’re sports which utilize very precise motor patterns which have little to no carry-over to daily activities. Ballet and Gymnastics, same thing.
-
Anything that creates soreness stimulates growth. Yes, repping out with the pink db. for 200 reps until complete exhaustion will trigger growth. Muscles don’t “understand” weights, repetitions, and sets. Muscles only understand TUT. The weight is irrelevant. All of the parameters are largely irrelevant.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
If you are a trainer you should know that the recovery is what builds muscle, not the breakdown of muscle. And typically, any workout where you are very sore later will negatively effect the next workout.
So while soreness may make you think you did a good job in the weight room, it may actually hurt your recovery in the long run and not produce the results you want.[/quote]
Only if you’re a strength athlete who trains specific movement patterns, as noted above. For everyone else, the degree of soreness doesn’t negatively impact their workouts. People looking for hypertrophy should strive to be sore at all times.
DOMs simply isn’t a problem with isolation training. Killing your chest one day isn’t going to prevent you from hitting biceps the next. Not when you aren’t doing any full ROM compound movements (which I recommend).
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
So personally I would look to progression in load or volume as an indicator of progress, not being sore. Because continual soreness will not help you recover, and recovery is where it all takes place.
[/quote]
Here’s how you can train 4 days a week and go to complete failure on each session:
D1: Arms
Smith Bench Overhead Lockouts
Seated Incline Curls
D2: Legs & Abs
Lying Leg Press
Weighted Back Extensions
D3: Chest/Back/Lats
Pec Fly Lever
Machine Row
Machine Lat Pulldown
D4: Delts & Traps
Front/Side/Rear Delt Raises
Smith Shrugs
Load progression is the result of improvements in technique (via better form) or leverage (via weight gain) 98% of the time. It is probably the worst benchmark of actual muscular hypertrophy. That is why so many people who lift to be “strong” look like stocky construction workers instead of bodybuilders.
Volume progression is an endurance characteristic, which isn’t associated with hypertrophy, either. Both parameters should be experimented with, but progression in either shouldn’t be used to define muscular growth. As I said before, the only thing that defines muscular growth is seeing actual muscular growth. Your BEST BET to see growth is to train to failure, all the time.
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
BigKDawg wrote:
If the goal of training is to get sore, your missing the point. You can squat the bar for 100’s of reps but does that guarentee you growth? Maybe, but it will be as functional as a 1 legged stool. I think what people should focus on more is training density when it comes to getting more mass.
- Actually, you will be a hell of a lot more functional being able to do hundreds of BW squats than a single rep with 400 lbs. Think about it. There is practically no situation you will ever face that calls for you to be able to lift more than 200 lbs. Powerlifting and Olympic weightlifting aren’t functional. They’re sports which utilize very precise motor patterns which have little to no carry-over to daily activities. Ballet and Gymnastics, same thing.
[/quote]
Oh boy, here we go again with this “functional” crap. While you might be correct that you are less likely to have to squat really heavy weight than to perform reps with BW, but to suggest that the ability to squat the heavy weight won’t pay off big time towards the ability to perform BW squats is simply wrong.
Maximal strength is the one athletic quality which will improve all other athletic qualities (i.e. balance, coordination, speed, endurance and even active flexibility).
You also make the mistake of assuming that everyone has the same physical demands placed on them throughout their everyday lives. What if someone is a mover? Don’t you think it would be pretty “functional” for them to be capable of picking heavy things up off the ground (deadlifting them), or being able to get heavy objects up onto their shoulders where they can carry the most weight for the longest distance (cleaning them)?
Yeah, maybe if you work at a desk all day long typing on a computer such strength might not be all that “functional” for you, but then really no weight training/strength training would be all that “functional” for you.
You need to keep in mind that “functionality” depends on the desired function.
No, not “anything” stimulates muscular hypertrophy. If you get into a car accident or get into a fight and get banged up, you’re going to be sore (damage has been done to the muscles), but it won’t result in you getting bigger.
You need to breakdown the muscles by exposing them to a greater amount of stress than they have experienced before. Now how exactly you do this, I agree isn’t as important as that you do it. So, I’m not arguing with your main point, I just don’t like absolute statements like your first one.
I do have to say though that there are some limitations to your statement about muscles only understanding TUT. If all that muscles understood was TUT, then marathon runners would have just as big of legs as sprinters, and you wouldn’t see athletes who perform very intense short bursts of effort (football players, powerlifters, olympic lifters, etc…) being much more muscular than athletes who perform low intensity activities for long durations (marathon runners, long distance rowers, etc…).
The level of tension matters, and although it’s not perfect, there is some correlation between weights and tension. And the more tension, the fewer reps one is going to be able to perform, so there is also some correlation with reps and volume/sets.
I don’t completely agree with what Lorisco said either. Yeah, recovery is what builds muscle, but your body must first have a damn good reason to rebuild your muscles bigger and stronger. And it’s usually not going to do that unless you put your muscles through a very intense workout, which will most likely break down your muscles, causing soreness.
I don’t really agree with your “strict isolation” methodology though. If it’s worked for you, great. But telling people to completely avoid free weights or big compound movements (full ROM or otherwise) isn’t the best idea IMO. Those two things have built more muscle on more people than can be quantified. Nothing against machines or isolation movements btw, using a combination of the two is the best way to go in my experience.
Yes, improvements in neurological efficiency (technique) do play some role in load progression (especially true the lower in reps you go), but your second reasoning (weight gain) seems like you are suggesting that this isn’t exactly what we want.
If you are building muscle, do you really expect that you aren’t going to gain any weight? And if the majority of the weight that you are gaining is muscle, then isn’t that exactly what we’re after? So therefore aren’t you pretty much completely agreeing with Lorisco that load progression is a good benchmark of muscular hypertrophy?
People who lift to be “strong” looking like “stocky construction workers” simply has to do with them usually not being at single digit bodyweight like on stage bodybuilders. Ever see some pics of powerlifters when they diet down? Ever see the pics of Dave Tate at 4% bf? Other than that, it’s just a matter of genetics. Some guys simply don’t have the necessary shape or aesthetics to be able to compete at the very high levels of bodybuilding. It has nothing to do with whether or not they lift heavy.
Besides, when you look back through the history of BB’ing, you’ll see some guys who trained to be “strong” have some pretty damn good BB’ing physiques (Ronnie, Franco, Jackson, Levrone, Leidelmeyer, etc…).
[quote]
Volume progression is an endurance characteristic, which isn’t associated with hypertrophy, either. Both parameters should be experimented with, but progression in either shouldn’t be used to define muscular growth. As I said before, the only thing that defines muscular growth is seeing actual muscular growth. Your BEST BET to stimulate growth is to train to failure, all the time. There is no other way you can be 100% CERTAIN that muscular breakdown has occured.[/quote]
Volume may or may not be associated with hypertrophy. There is a limit to it’s effectiveness in this regard, but to suggest that it’s not related seems a little shortsighted.
For instance, who would you expect would be bigger, the guy who can deadlift 500 lbs once, or the guy who can deadlift 500 lbs 10 times? The second one right? Why? Because he can produce the same amount of force for more sustained periods of time. Now how about someone who can do 1 set of 10 with 500 or someone who can do 10 sets of 10 with 500? Once again the second guy, because he can sustain the same amount of force for longer periods of time.
Muscle is only about 30% contractile tissue. The other 70% is made up of cellular materials, nutrients (glycogen, sodium, etc…), water, and blood vessels (which technically are muscle, but involuntary). So, while heavy training which overtaxes the contractile tissue is certainly beneficial for building muscle; forcing the muscles to store more nutrients and forcing the cellular components to be better at producing energy will also go a long way towards helping the muscle to increase in size (hypertrophy). Increasing volume is one way to go about doing this.
Sentoguy,
- Very nice post.
sentoguy just owned this dude.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Oh boy, here we go again with this “functional” crap. While you might be correct that you are less likely to have to squat really heavy weight than to perform reps with BW, but to suggest that the ability to squat the heavy weight won’t pay off big time towards the ability to perform BW squats is simply wrong.
Maximal strength is the one athletic quality which will improve all other athletic qualities (i.e. balance, coordination, speed, endurance and even active flexibility).[/quote]
I could not disagree with this more. If you want to develop balance and coordination, nothing will get you there faster than doing bodyweight exercises.
If you want muscular endurance, you train with high reps (1RM’s, are you kidding me lol?)
If you want cardio endurance, you do any activity that gets your heart pounding, from masturbation to jump rope.
If you want speed, you train explosive, functional movements with low to moderate weights (high load is antithetical to speed).
Active flexibility? Absolutely nothing beats strict isolation exercises on machines. That will develop superb neuromuscular control and teach you the ROM and function of every joint and muscle in your body. It worked on me.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
You also make the mistake of assuming that everyone has the same physical demands placed on them throughout their everyday lives. What if someone is a mover? Don’t you think it would be pretty “functional” for them to be capable of picking heavy things up off the ground (deadlifting them), or being able to get heavy objects up onto their shoulders where they can carry the most weight for the longest distance (cleaning them)?[/quote]
Bodyweight squats, deadlifts, and presses are all functional. Add hundreds of pounds, support gear, and powerlifting “form” and there is no longer anything functional about it. It has ceased to have any practical carryover into the real world.
There are guys at my gym who work as movers. I know what they lift. They are pretty big and well built. Yet it’s very rare to see anyone bench more than 225 or deadlift more than 250. They are not powerlifters. They do not max out. They train in the same 5-12 rep range that most people in commercial gyms follow.
My guideline took into account ALL occupations except, “professional strength athlete”. 200 lbs. is pretty generous. The majority of us will never be required to lift over 50. A 400 lb. squat/bench/DL is useless and the effort required to take you there is far better spent elsewhere. Nobody in the real world gives a shit how much anyone else lifts. Nobody in the real world uses “powerlifting form”. Nobody in the real world box squats. Nobody in the real world tucks their elbows in on benches. Nobody in the real world does any of the Westside shit besides some 16 year olds who read about it on the internet.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
You need to keep in mind that “functionality” depends on the desired function.[/quote]
Trust me, I know this.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
No, not “anything” stimulates muscular hypertrophy. If you get into a car accident or get into a fight and get banged up, you’re going to be sore (damage has been done to the muscles), but it won’t result in you getting bigger.[/quote]
That is just playing word games. Any type of training which creates internal soreness is going to stimulate hypertrophy. I’m referring to the physiological mechanism of DOMs. We know what how it feels, but we can’t open up our muscles and check to see what type of soreness is there.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
I do have to say though that there are some limitations to your statement about muscles only understanding TUT. If all that muscles understood was TUT, then marathon runners would have just as big of legs as sprinters, and you wouldn’t see athletes who perform very intense short bursts of effort (football players, powerlifters, olympic lifters, etc…) being much more muscular than athletes who perform low intensity activities for long durations (marathon runners, long distance rowers, etc…).
The level of tension matters, and although it’s not perfect, there is some correlation between weights and tension. And the more tension, the fewer reps one is going to be able to perform, so there is also some correlation with reps and volume/sets.[/quote]
The intensity of the muscular contraction is how I define tension. By that definition, endurance athletes do not have nearly as much TUT as bodybuilders. The fact that they go for long distances is irrelevant because they are constantly taking tension off their muscles.
If you breakdown the bio-mechanics of any long-duration activity, you’ll see that most of them rely on momentum, which can be thought of as the amount of force that is “carried over” from one repetition to the next. In bodybuilding, the goal is for carry-over to be ZERO. In endurance-oriented activities, the goal is to maximize carryover to the greatest extent possible. Carry-over uses momentum to generate or maintain force. It is the exact opposite of TUT because it seeks to maximize the amount of time necessary between muscular contractions. TUT seeks to keep constant, unending tension on the muscles.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
I don’t completely agree with what Lorisco said either. Yeah, recovery is what builds muscle, but your body must first have a damn good reason to rebuild your muscles bigger and stronger. And it’s usually not going to do that unless you put your muscles through a very intense workout, which will most likely break down your muscles, causing soreness.[/quote]
“Intensity” in my book = the number of muscular contractions performed in a given amount of time.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Yes, improvements in neurological efficiency (technique) do play some role in load progression (especially true the lower in reps you go), but your second reasoning (weight gain) seems like you are suggesting that this isn’t exactly what we want.
If you are building muscle, do you really expect that you aren’t going to gain any weight? And if the majority of the weight that you are gaining is muscle, then isn’t that exactly what we’re after? So therefore aren’t you pretty much completely agreeing with Lorisco that load progression is a good benchmark of muscular hypertrophy?[/quote]
To tell you the truth, I do not believe that heavy weight training does absolutely anything for muscular hypertrophy (unless it’s done with a volume high enough to be comparable to a bodybuilding routine). I believe that heavy weight training targets the skeletal structure and not the muscular structure. That’s why guys with big skeletons naturally veer towards powerlifting.
Thus, when I wrote about “weight gain”, I was speaking about fat gain, which increases leverage. Anything that increases leverage, increases “apparent strength”. It does nothing for actual contractile tissue. In other words, you have not increased the amount of force that your muscles are capable of producing. You have simply cut the ROM.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote
People who lift to be “strong” looking like “stocky construction workers” simply has to do with them usually not being at single digit bodyweight like on stage bodybuilders. Ever see some pics of powerlifters when they diet down? Ever see the pics of Dave Tate at 4% bf? Other than that, it’s just a matter of genetics. Some guys simply don’t have the necessary shape or aesthetics to be able to compete at the very high levels of bodybuilding. It has nothing to do with whether or not they lift heavy.[/quote]
It has to do with their skeletal structure. Also, you can nearly always tell who follows an isolation routine and who does functional stuff. You cannot get a bodybuilder’s “X-Frame” by doing compounds only.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote
Besides, when you look back through the history of BB’ing, you’ll see some guys who trained to be “strong” have some pretty damn good BB’ing physiques (Ronnie, Franco, Jackson, Levrone, Leidelmeyer, etc…).[/quote]
Yeah, but they were gifted and would have turned out that way no matter what they did. Every person who excels at heavy lifting started out “big” to begin with. Heavy lifting does not make people big. It is something that people who are already big choose to do because they’re made for it.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote
Volume may or may not be associated with hypertrophy. There is a limit to it’s effectiveness in this regard, but to suggest that it’s not related seems a little shortsighted.[/quote]
Yeah, but I can get ultra volume if I use a hydraulic press to lift my weight for me. That’s why support gear does. That’s what momentum does. Anything that takes tension off the muscles diminishes the effectiveness of the exercise. That’s why the ONLY criterion you can possibly go by is muscular soreness. If you’re sore, you know you’ve targetted and fatigued the muscles.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote
For instance, who would you expect would be bigger, the guy who can deadlift 500 lbs once, or the guy who can deadlift 500 lbs 10 times?[/quote]
I’d expect the second guy to have better leverage than the first. Better leverage is usually associated with being shorter, smaller, stockier.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote
Muscle is only about 30% contractile tissue. The other 70% is made up of cellular materials, nutrients (glycogen, sodium, etc…), water, and blood vessels (which technically are muscle, but involuntary). So, while heavy training which overtaxes the contractile tissue is certainly beneficial for building muscle; forcing the muscles to store more nutrients and forcing the cellular components to be better at producing energy will also go a long way towards helping the muscle to increase in size (hypertrophy). Increasing volume is one way to go about doing this.[/quote]
Now you’re talking about fluid hypertrophy. I commented on this exact principle in another thread. Volume is one way to encourage fluid hypertrophy because it stimulates the pump. But you still cannot go wrong by training to failure. Any time you take a muscle to exhaustion, you are going to be using high volume by default.
http://www.T-Nation.com/tmagnum/readTopic.do?id=2212340&pageNo=0#2215911
[quote]LiveFromThe781 wrote:
sentoguy just owned this dude.[/quote]
No he didn’t. You think that just because someone writes a long post, they’ve automatically owned somebody.
I can write long posts as well.
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
LiveFromThe781 wrote:
sentoguy just owned this dude.
No he didn’t. You think that just because someone writes a long post, they’ve automatically owned somebody.
I can write long posts as well.[/quote]
Post some pics of yourself to back up your experience.
Get some new avatars no one is impressed. I would bet anything that you don�??t have the sack to wear that shit out in public. Again post some pics to prove otherwise.
The kid deals in absolutes which is his undoing.
There is only one absolute truth here: “What works works” and thats about it. That Haycock guy tried to act like he’d found the holy grail of hypertrophy, anyone remember him? and HST?
There are NO “reliable” indicators.
You can trian to soreness and failure, and that may or may not result in hypertrophy. You can gain scale weight and gain strength in key movements and that again may or may not result in hypertrophy. Nothing is guaranteed.
I’d go so far as to say as no one really knows EXACTLY WHAT causes muscular hypertrophy.
By observing cases here and there, people have come to the conclusion that gaining scale weight over at least ONE extended mass gaining period (to enough allow time for developing structural integrity, tendons, connective tissue, ligaments, bone density etc) with overloading muscles in key movements (for different muscle groups) usually results in size gains.
HOW to overload the muscle? there’s where youve got your TUT, load on bar, volume (sets), temp, whatever…
BTW a stocky construction worker can usually diet down with lifting to reveal solid musculature.
BTW, long before Dante talked about extreme stretching to improve shoulder width, wrestlers and gymnasts and even strength trainers noticed a great widening by using super-heavy negatives and supra-maximal holds in the pulldown movements. These are things that take time to develop and directly contribute to your frame. Training merely for TUT isn;lt going to do jack squat for improving your frame.
No one gives a crap about what youre saying, despite your attempts to call attention to yourself. Youre a minor itch that won;t go away, not bad enough to make a person seek medical attention - but annoying nevertheless.
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
LiveFromThe781 wrote:
sentoguy just owned this dude.
No he didn’t. You think that just because someone writes a long post, they’ve automatically owned somebody.
I can write long posts as well.[/quote]
[quote]BlakeAJackson wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:
LiveFromThe781 wrote:
sentoguy just owned this dude.
No he didn’t. You think that just because someone writes a long post, they’ve automatically owned somebody.
I can write long posts as well.
Post some pics of yourself to back up your experience.
Get some new avatars no one is impressed. I would bet anything that you don�??t have the sack to wear that shit out in public. Again post some pics to prove otherwise.
[/quote]
I certainly wouldn’t wear it in public at this time, no. Not here, on the liberal east coast of Zionist-Occupied America. But I support it, nevertheless. It is the right thing to do. I have no regrets about my beliefs. And I will live to see them resurrected on a grade scale. With any luck, I’ll get to be a part of it.
Posting pictures is extremely risky because I’ve already given out a fair bit of information about myself here. A determined opponent could put the pieces together and create huge problems for me in my “off-line” life. Experience has taught me that there are bitter, hateful individuals on the internet with lots of free time and plenty of inclination to harm others.
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Excellent responses here. Here’s a summary of the key points:
-Soreness is a clear indicator of muscle breakdown.
-Muscle breakdown is necessary for muscle growth.
HOWEVER
-Muscle breakdown (and by extension, growth) can theoretically occur without the onset of noticeable soreness, due to various neurological mechanisms.
So, where does that leave us?
I amend my original statement to the following:
Training to soreness is the most reliable way to ensure growth.
yogaroots wrote:
IF YOU DON’T WORK THE MUSCLE HARD ENOUGH IT MAY GET SORE.
Impossible.
BigKDawg wrote:
If the goal of training is to get sore, your missing the point. You can squat the bar for 100’s of reps but does that guarentee you growth? Maybe, but it will be as functional as a 1 legged stool. I think what people should focus on more is training density when it comes to getting more mass.
-
Actually, you will be a hell of a lot more functional being able to do hundreds of BW squats than a single rep with 400 lbs. Think about it. There is practically no situation you will ever face that calls for you to be able to lift more than 200 lbs. Powerlifting and Olympic weightlifting aren’t functional. They’re sports which utilize very precise motor patterns which have little to no carry-over to daily activities. Ballet and Gymnastics, same thing.
-
Anything that creates soreness stimulates growth. Yes, repping out with the pink db. for 200 reps until complete exhaustion will trigger growth. Muscles don’t “understand” weights, repetitions, and sets. Muscles only understand TUT. The weight is irrelevant. All of the parameters are largely irrelevant.
Lorisco wrote:
If you are a trainer you should know that the recovery is what builds muscle, not the breakdown of muscle. And typically, any workout where you are very sore later will negatively effect the next workout.
So while soreness may make you think you did a good job in the weight room, it may actually hurt your recovery in the long run and not produce the results you want.
Only if you’re a strength athlete who trains specific movement patterns, as noted above. For everyone else, the degree of soreness doesn’t negatively impact their workouts. People looking for hypertrophy should strive to be sore at all times.
DOMs simply isn’t a problem with isolation training. Killing your chest one day isn’t going to prevent you from hitting biceps the next. Not when you aren’t doing any full ROM compound movements (which I recommend).
Lorisco wrote:
So personally I would look to progression in load or volume as an indicator of progress, not being sore. Because continual soreness will not help you recover, and recovery is where it all takes place.
Here’s how you can train 4 days a week and go to complete failure on each session:
D1: Arms
Smith Bench Overhead Lockouts
Seated Incline Curls
D2: Legs & Abs
Lying Leg Press
Weighted Back Extensions
D3: Chest/Back/Lats
Pec Fly Lever
Machine Row
Machine Lat Pulldown
D4: Delts & Traps
Front/Side/Rear Delt Raises
Smith Shrugs
Load progression is the result of improvements in technique (via better form) or leverage (via weight gain) 98% of the time. It is probably the worst benchmark of actual muscular hypertrophy. That is why so many people who lift to be “strong” look like stocky construction workers instead of bodybuilders.
Volume progression is an endurance characteristic, which isn’t associated with hypertrophy, either. Both parameters should be experimented with, but progression in either shouldn’t be used to define muscular growth. As I said before, the only thing that defines muscular growth is seeing actual muscular growth. Your BEST BET to see growth is to train to failure, all the time.[/quote]
You seem to be relating DOMS with training to failure and they are not the same thing. You can train to failure and not experience DOMS.
I agree with training to failure, just not that DOMS is necessary for growth in size or strength. Also, there are studies that demonstrate that a muscle that is worked to become very sore can take up to two weeks to regain its previous level of force production.
Force = load and load = muscle
So again, training to failure = good; training to always be sore = bad
[quote]UkpairehMombooto wrote:
I’d go so far as to say as no one really knows EXACTLY WHAT causes muscular hypertrophy.
[/quote]
No offense UkpaireMombooto, but I wouldn’t go that far.
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
I certainly wouldn’t wear it in public at this time, no. Not here, on the liberal east coast of Zionist-Occupied America. But I support it, nevertheless. It is the right thing to do. I have no regrets about my beliefs. And I will live to see them resurrected on a grade scale. With any luck, I’ll get to be a part of it.
Posting pictures is extremely risky because I’ve already given out a fair bit of information about myself here. A determined opponent could put the pieces together and create huge problems for me in my “off-line” life. Experience has taught me that there are bitter, hateful individuals on the internet with lots of free time and plenty of inclination to harm others.[/quote]
Al Shades, could you please post more about how you think you’re immortal? It’s a shame that giant thread was deleted - it was pretty fun to read.
I wish I took up that offer to train with you when I had the chance.
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
I certainly wouldn’t wear it in public at this time, no. Not here, on the liberal east coast of Zionist-Occupied America. But I support it, nevertheless. It is the right thing to do. I have no regrets about my beliefs. And I will live to see them resurrected on a grade scale. With any luck, I’ll get to be a part of it.
Posting pictures is extremely risky because I’ve already given out a fair bit of information about myself here. A determined opponent could put the pieces together and create huge problems for me in my “off-line” life. Experience has taught me that there are bitter, hateful individuals on the internet with lots of free time and plenty of inclination to harm others.[/quote]
Sorry to Hijack, but the belief that you hold is one that is held by hateful people. So your fear of similar hatred seems odd…
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Experience has taught me that there are bitter, hateful individuals on the internet with lots of free time and plenty of inclination to harm others.[/quote] Lack of self reflection is amazing sometimes…
The fact that you must hide your identity in public or any social setting, even the Internet when yours is a belief of superiority must create a rather low self-esteem for yourself. Do you agree that this is the case since you must be a coward in public about your believes?
This in turn fuels your belief further, but at the expense of character and stability of mental well being.
Here is a piece of advice if you can’t own your actions and beliefs by putting your face out there then they are wrong.
The belief system is based on fear and is fueled by fear and insecurity. A person of superior strength and intelligence would hold neither quality.
Did I get lost somewhere? What belief system is this?
Not trying to judge, just want to know.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
I don’t completely agree with what Lorisco said either. Yeah, recovery is what builds muscle, but your body must first have a damn good reason to rebuild your muscles bigger and stronger. And it’s usually not going to do that unless you put your muscles through a very intense workout, which will most likely break down your muscles, causing soreness.
[/quote]
Intense in relation to your previous workout, yes, but not intense to the point of DOMS every workout. If so, you are limiting the force production you will be able to apply to the load the next workout and thus limiting your ability to progress.
“Delayed-onset muscular soreness (DOMS), the sensation of pain and stiffness in the muscles that occurs from 1 to 5 d following unaccustomed exercise, can adversely affect muscular performance, both from voluntary reduction of effort and from inherent loss of capacity of the muscles to produce force. This reduction in performance is temporary; permanent impairment does not occur.” Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1984 Dec;16(6):529-38.
Enough said!
Good post!
[quote]Varanid wrote:
Did I get lost somewhere? What belief system is this?
Not trying to judge, just want to know.
[/quote]
Up until my post requesting him to get a new avatar he had a picture of a Nazi in uniform, with the SS and iron cross. These imply an anti-Semitic and probably much greater spectrum of racial and religious hatred.
And for any one out there who had a grandfather or distant relative in the Nazi movement or any other movement based on hatred, I don�??t care what your heritage is. If your grandpa was a pedophile would you look at kiddy porn and molest kids? It�??s a weak argument for what you are doing yourself.