Shut-Up About Your Abs!

Training Bodybuilding
241

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
My muscles tell me how much to eat, not my body fat.

When they’re doing what I want that’s how much I have to eat and that’s how much fat I have to put up with.

When they don’t, I eat more and same as above.

If I found myself getting fatter without a corresponding response from my muscles I’d eat less.

All I need now is 2000 studies and a million armchair experts to help me make that more complicated.

But, can’t you at least give this a flashy techno sounding name or something?

Sheesh.[/quote]

How bout

Existentially analytical Nutro Empiricism

I could write a book, but it’s all contained in that last post.

242

Well, it’s the start of the “new year resolution” insanity at the gyms…and so far in my 2 trips to the gym this year; it’s going to be a doosey.

Watch out world; here comes some sick abZ!

i can feel my anger levels rising…

243

I absolutely hate the first two weeks of January. TONS of curls in the squat rack, and people standing in my way…looking at the “exotic” lifts im doing…such as dead lifts and squats…

I cant wait for February…

244

Every January I’m extra thankful that I have a good home gym…

245

[quote]Professor X wrote:

Do you have a formula to help me find this “middle ground” you speak of? Can a brother get some coefficients or some vectors or something? I’m making a spread sheet and hiring a NASA engineer to help me calculate how much I should be eating to gain the right amount of obesity.[/quote]

I do have it, but the government will make me disappear If I tell anyone.

246

[quote]sam_sneed wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
My muscles tell me how much to eat, not my body fat.

When they’re doing what I want that’s how much I have to eat and that’s how much fat I have to put up with.

When they don’t, I eat more and same as above.

If I found myself getting fatter without a corresponding response from my muscles I’d eat less.

All I need now is 2000 studies and a million armchair experts to help me make that more complicated.

While it is simple, it’s kind of tricky when your starting out. I’ve only been lifting and paying attention to my diet for about 6 months. So even when you’re not eating enough, your still getting a little bigger and stronger since your a beginner. Just not as big and strong as you could’ve had you eaten properly. Its only now that the strengths gains have tapered off that I’m realizing I need more protein and calories.

I thought I was getting enough (the old 1g/lb you read everywhere). I went from a maintenance of 2400 calories to 3400 and not gaining weight. I found lifting heavy (5x5) my maintenance was higher than when I did 20 minutes of daily cardio and a 3x8 split. I’m bumping it up to 4000 this week to see what happens.

[/quote]

If you’re really interested in getting as big and strong as you can bump it up to 5000 for a month or 6 weeks and see what happens then.

The trouble with the cautious small increment approach is that you could spend a year fiddling around. What’s the very worst that could happen in a month or 2. If you tell me you could gain some fat I’m wasting my time.

247

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
sam_sneed wrote:

If you’re really interested in getting as big and strong as you can bump it up to 5000 for a month or 6 weeks and see what happens then.

The trouble with the cautious small increment approach is that you could spend a year fiddling around. What’s the very worst that could happen in a month or 2. If you tell me you could gain some fat I’m wasting my time.[/quote]

I’m not concerned with getting too fat. I’‘m 6’ and went from a flabby 215 at 24% bf to 190 at 15% bf within 3 months so I know I can drop the fat. My problem is getting my body used to the force feeding I’d need to take in 5000 calories. I got 4100 in yesterday but it was tough. But I think after a couple weeks at that level hopefully I’ll be used to it enough to stomach 5000 (if needed). I’ll tell you though, it was alot easier restricting my self to 1600 cal when dieting than getting in 4000. Alot easier.

248

[quote]sam_sneed wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
My muscles tell me how much to eat, not my body fat.

When they’re doing what I want that’s how much I have to eat and that’s how much fat I have to put up with.

When they don’t, I eat more and same as above.

If I found myself getting fatter without a corresponding response from my muscles I’d eat less.

All I need now is 2000 studies and a million armchair experts to help me make that more complicated.

While it is simple, it’s kind of tricky when your starting out. I’ve only been lifting and paying attention to my diet for about 6 months. So even when you’re not eating enough, your still getting a little bigger and stronger since your a beginner. Just not as big and strong as you could’ve had you eaten properly. Its only now that the strengths gains have tapered off that I’m realizing I need more protein and calories.

I thought I was getting enough (the old 1g/lb you read everywhere). I went from a maintenance of 2400 calories to 3400 and not gaining weight. I found lifting heavy (5x5) my maintenance was higher than when I did 20 minutes of daily cardio and a 3x8 split. I’m bumping it up to 4000 this week to see what happens.

[/quote]

If you’re really interested in getting as big and strong as you can bump it up to 5000 for a month or 6 weeks and see what happens then.

The trouble with the cautious small increment approach is that you could spend a year fiddling around. What’s the very worst that could happen in a month or 2. If you tell me you could gain some fat I’m wasting my time.

249

419×568 95 KB

I’ve enjoyed reading this thread and the lively debate that ensued but here is my contribution to what’s wrong and where people are getting these ideas about hawt abz. Can they sink any lower?

250

[quote]Qaash wrote:
I’ve enjoyed reading this thread and the lively debate that ensued but here is my contribution to what’s wrong and where people are getting these ideas about hawt abz. Can they sink any lower?[/quote]

Sex mass stack, WHAT is that? Sounds great.

251

[quote]JamFly wrote:
Qaash wrote:
I’ve enjoyed reading this thread and the lively debate that ensued but here is my contribution to what’s wrong and where people are getting these ideas about hawt abz. Can they sink any lower?

Sex mass stack, WHAT is that? Sounds great.[/quote]

I think “Sex mass” is the adult version of Christmas.

The basic ‘sex mass stack’ is a combination of viagra and NO Explode.

The viagra is there for obvious reasons, and the NO explode helps to concentrate an extra pump in a certain part of the body.

Don’t forget that Bruce Lee is on the cover because he had great relative strength and a kick-ass set of abs.

In fact, his abs were so kick-ass that Bruce Lee never got into a single fight in his life. Lee actually abhorred all forms of violence.

His abs were making all the trouble. Ever noticed that his opponents usually go for his stomach?

252

[quote]Qaash wrote:
I’ve enjoyed reading this thread and the lively debate that ensued but here is my contribution to what’s wrong and where people are getting these ideas about hawt abz. Can they sink any lower?[/quote]

Eh, Bruce is cool in my book. Sure, he’s tiny, but at least he displayed great muscularity.

As small as he is, he’s symmetrical and muscular. Plus, he was a big fan of bodybuilding, and incorporated weight training into his MA regimen.

253

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
Still, a common problem I see a lot of, is with F.F.B.s. Having been pudgy as kids, once they shed the fat, even though they now have some muscle, there is always that real deep inner fear of getting ‘fat’ again if they eat too much. I understand it, but it is sometimes difficult to convince these types otherwise.

S
[/quote]

thats me…man Its my worst nightmare…

254

[quote]SkyNett wrote:
Qaash wrote:
I’ve enjoyed reading this thread and the lively debate that ensued but here is my contribution to what’s wrong and where people are getting these ideas about hawt abz. Can they sink any lower?

Eh, Bruce is cool in my book. Sure, he’s tiny, but at least he displayed great muscularity.

As small as he is, he’s symmetrical and muscular. Plus, he was a big fan of bodybuilding, and incorporated weight training into his MA regimen. [/quote]

I agree. Bruce Lee was (is?) the man. My comments might’ve come across as a bit facetious, but I was reacting to the small caption on the right side of the cover.

It reads:35 years after Bruce Lee, we celebrate the most famous abs of all time.

Not only that, but they are trading on Lee’s image and reputation to peddle an ab routine that most certainly bears no resemblance to his actual training.

I might be being pessimistic, but a new trainee that doesn’t know any better could come along and buy that issue, thinking that they are getting Bruce Lee’s personal ab routine.

EDIT:

Yes, I believe people can be that gullible:( If people didn’t fall for it, the publishers wouldn’t pump their magazines full of hype and misinformation.

They are essentially deceived on the strength of the cover image, combined with cleverly and deliberately worded captions. It’s a very calculated marketing ploy.

What’s worse, the newbie might actually assume from what they’ve read that Bruce Lee’s training was focused around his abs :frowning:

It just goes back to what I said earlier about the magazines having a commercial agenda.

255

[quote]roybot wrote:
SkyNett wrote:
Qaash wrote:
I’ve enjoyed reading this thread and the lively debate that ensued but here is my contribution to what’s wrong and where people are getting these ideas about hawt abz. Can they sink any lower?

Eh, Bruce is cool in my book. Sure, he’s tiny, but at least he displayed great muscularity.

As small as he is, he’s symmetrical and muscular. Plus, he was a big fan of bodybuilding, and incorporated weight training into his MA regimen.

I agree. Bruce Lee was (is?) the man. My comments might’ve come across as a bit facetious, but I was reacting to the small caption on the right side of the cover.

It reads: 35 years after Bruce Lee, we celebrate the most famous abs of all time .

Not only that, but they are trading on Lee’s image and reputation to peddle an ab routine that most certainly bears no resemblance to his actual training.

I might be being pessimistic, but a new trainee that doesn’t know any better could come along and buy that issue, thinking that they are getting Bruce Lee’s personal ab routine.

They are essentially deceived on the strength of the cover image, combines with cleverly and deliberately worded captions. It’s a very calculated marketing ploy.

What’s worse, the newbie might actually assume from what they’ve read that Bruce Lee’s training was focused around his abs :frowning:

It just goes back to what I said earlier about the magazines having a commercial agenda.
[/quote]

Exactly! Hence why I posted the picture. It is one of two possible covers for the next issue. As a side note, Bruce was severely underweight at the time this photo was taken.

256

Qaash,
I think it’s great that you posted that cover image. It shows just how easily people can be swayed into a certain way of thinking through clever advertising.

These magazines are usually the first port of call for individuals with little or no training experience. Trouble is, they’ll often believe what they read. This crap will then trickle into the forums when the newbie decides to expound his ‘wisdom’ on the message boards.

They don’t realize that the magazines have provided them with a false base of knowledge. The result is that they will try to educate others on the wrong way to train, and that has serious repercussions for forums like this, because ultimately this is where the damage has to be undone.

257

Thanks for bringing him up, quash. Now we’re gonna start having bruce lee debates again:/

258

[quote]matsm21 wrote:
Thanks for bringing him up, quash. Now we’re gonna start having bruce lee debates again:/[/quote]

That’ll be in the combat forum ;-. Sorry but this is whats coming next month in a major “bodybuilding” publication, at least we have the heads up. As well as relevant to the topic at hand.

259

[quote]matsm21 wrote:
Thanks for bringing him up, quash. Now we’re gonna start having bruce lee debates again:/[/quote]

You could replace that image of Bruce Lee with Ryan Reynolds and it would be exactly the same situation. The point is, the publishers know what they need to do to sell magazines.

This usually involves exploiting the reader’s misconceptions and ignorance when it comes to proper training and nutrition, as well as emphasizing what is popular in the media at the time.

An ineffective routine on its own won’t sell many issues, but link that routine to a movie star who has recently undergone a transformation for a particular role and you have a recipe for success.

In fact, publishing ineffective or gimmicky routines is all part of the marketing strategy, because they can ‘dangle the bait’ again next month with another crappy routine and celebrity cover image…

260

:smiley: <— Big fucking grin at this entire thread. A lot of good posts in here, and it made my day.

I wish I had one of you guys as a training partner, instead of the pussies I regularly see at my gym. Not one big guy among them. I need a new gym.