[quote]kpsnap wrote:
Today’s training.
Smolov Jr. Week One, Day Four
8/45
5/75
5/95
10/3/106
Easy.
Lots of tits on a stick in the gym today. (Really skinny women with really large implants.)[/quote]
That sounds like something you get at the fair.
How do you like Smolov so far?
Gumdrops on a stick. Hmmm. Pretty accurate.
I’ve done the first phase of Smolov before, Joe. I’m doing the “junior” version this time, which is just three weeks total. I love this program because it helps me remember how to squat again as well as really facilitates me breaking through physical/mental plateaus if for no other reason than because I’m squatting so damn much (every other day for three weeks). I love the variety of sets/reps. I’m wearing my knee sleeves for my work sets and just loving life with them. Squatting already feels more intuitive and I find I’m really looking forward to each training day. Not that I’m handling any real challenging weight yet.
I noticed today that I didn’t hit the safeties once. Which means that I’m finally squatting to proper depth rather than ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE FLOOR. I am tres happy about this.
Got a free training session today from a 23 year old at my new gym. It came with the membership, so I thought “what the hell?” I told him I wanted abs and conditioning since I take care of the weights myself but am really, really lazy about my abz. The session was pretty easy. The interesting part was the body fat analysis. It was done with a machine that sends, umm, some waves or such through the body. Supposed to be accurate. I’ve had the calipers before and always thought the results from those were a crock of shit. After hearing the results from the machine today, I really believe that calipers are a waste of time.
Don’t leave me hanging like that. WHAT DID THE FUCKING MACHINE SAY???
P.S. Please comment on the attractiveness of said trainer.
Said trainer was very cute. Dark hair and built. Told me he really wanted to train me (duh! money) and said he’d do it for only $25/session since I don’t whine and am actually athletic (unlike most women at the gym who he has to drag kicking and screaming off the treadmill/elliptical and encourage to eat more than one meal a day). I don’t need a trainer, though.
The body fat reading. Yes. It said 21.4%. Which means I’m plenty juicy. Considering I eat pretty much what I want, I suppose that figure is to be expected. If I really reigned in my diet, I could probably be around 15-18%. Caliper readings that I’ve had done in the past ranged from 11-14%. But I always knew those were a lie.
Plenty juicy sounds good to me, nothing wrong with that. I may have to borrow that from you, it beats what I usually call myself, fat.
[quote]kpsnap wrote:
Said trainer was very cute. Dark hair and built. [/quote]
I’m liking this mental image.
I would have guessed you around 18% as is. Very interesting.
Juicy, but tart with a tiny hint of sweetness. Snapper is what’s for dinner!
Why would you get your body fat tested? You’re obviously a very attractive women in your avatar. I’m sure your husband is all over you. I’m a little chubby but I have to beat my wife off with a stick so I’m not going near a caliper. And its hockey season so dieting is out of the question until April.
Meh. I’d put you below 21%. I don’t buy what the machines say either. My bathroom scale has the same thing and the year before last it had me around 20% when a local pl/bodybuilder put me closer to 10%. I looked like a whippet and had full on visible abs so 20% wasn’t terribly accurate. I take it all with a grain of salt.
The nice thing about carrying a bit of extra fat is you can cut it if you need to make weight. If you start running too lean, you can’t. Don’t take his machine reading as a sign that you should drop to a lower weight class.
If you’re 20 I’m a whale Snap. I’m around 20-25%. Not that a whale cares of course 
did the cutie trainer anything new for the abs or just same old same old??
p.s maybe he was hitting on you with cheap training price, did ya think about that?
…
[quote]ecogenx wrote:
Why would you get your body fat tested? You’re obviously a very attractive women in your avatar. I’m sure your husband is all over you. I’m a little chubby but I have to beat my wife off with a stick so I’m not going near a caliper. And its hockey season so dieting is out of the question until April. [/quote]
The body fat test was a standard part of the free training session, so I figured “why not?”
No, Eco, you’ve got it wrong. It’s me who’s all over my husband. One of the benefits of being mid-40s, fit, and lifting heavy is a solid libido.
I don’t think anyone would call me chubby.
First of all, youre hot…just had to get that out the way.
Second,…the machines at gyms are often calibrated incorrectly to entice you to get the training. I know people who worked in gyms who would tell me stories of trainers messing with scales and other equipment, just to show what they wanted the client to see.
And if this is one of the scales that sends the electronic impulse then its not reliable. I had a highschool lifter who lifted at 114, lived at about 117, and you couldnt find an flap of extra skin anywhere on him. And the machine would say he was 12 % or something like that. Meaning he had around 15 pounds of fat on him.
I got on the thing once and it just said “NO”
[quote]kpsnap wrote:
Said trainer was very cute. Dark hair and built. Told me he really wanted to train me (duh! money) and said he’d do it for only $25/session since I don’t whine and am actually athletic (unlike most women at the gym who he has to drag kicking and screaming off the treadmill/elliptical and encourage to eat more than one meal a day). I don’t need a trainer, though.
The body fat reading. Yes. It said 21.4%. Which means I’m plenty juicy. Considering I eat pretty much what I want, I suppose that figure is to be expected. If I really reigned in my diet, I could probably be around 15-18%. Caliper readings that I’ve had done in the past ranged from 11-14%. But I always knew those were a lie.[/quote]
You’re no where near 21.4%.
Article on those electronic impedence thingys:
[quote]kpsnap wrote:
No, Eco, you’ve got it wrong. It’s me who’s all over my husband. One of the benefits of being mid-40s, fit, and lifting heavy is a solid libido.
[/quote]
Snapper, would you be so kind as to train my late-40’s wife?
My body fat test, pants tight or loose. Tight, swim more, eat a little less. Loose, gorge. My thoughts kinda agree with LSUPOWERDC and the rigged equipment. Based on your pix I think it’s a high reading. BTW, once you hit 50, sex becomes fantasic. We just don’t tell you young folk about it, you get jealous.
[quote]hel320 wrote:
BTW, once you hit 50, sex becomes fantasic. [/quote]
Sex already is fantastic. But something to look forward to, nonetheless.
Thanks, LSU. You’re probably right that those devices are suspect. Pretty sad that gyms would actually do what you suggest.
Interesting read, PMPM. That’s the exact device used to test me. To be honest, I haven’t given that body fat percentage number a second thought. Sort of irrelevant to my goals whether it’s accurate or not.
Today’s training:
Smolov Jr. Week 2, Day 1
Squat
8/45
5/60
5/85
6/6/98
This was so easy. I’m thinking I set my max too low. No worries, though. My confidence in the cage is really increasing. I had a guy approach me today (unusual) and ask if I competed. I looked at the weight on the bar and looked at him like he was crazy. He said that the way I approached the bar tipped him off. Interesting, eh? Even though the weight is so light and I’m repping away.
Then followed it up with bench.
Flat Bench
8/45
5/55
3/60
6/65 Wanted to do sets of 8 here, but I didn’t want to strain my shoulder. Still feeling pretty whimpy.
3/8/62 Saved by microplates!
Close Grip Bench
3/8/52
Bentover BB Row
3/8/62
A) Bicep Concentration Curl
3/8/17.5
B) Russian Twist with Plate
3/15/10
C) Lying Straight Bar Tricep Extension
3/15/25 . . . too light
Nice work in here.
Re: spotting a comp squatter. Proper shoes and belt are a dead giveaway. Tight upper back, grip and stance is another.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
Nice work in here.
Re: spotting a comp squatter. Proper shoes and belt are a dead giveaway. Tight upper back, grip and stance is another. [/quote]
I imagine purposefully and repeatedly descending to the proper depth is another tip-off…
Side question and general shit stirring: How many “personal trainers” have you seen squat halfway down with toes pointing directly forward?
[quote]DaCharmingAlbino wrote:
Side question and general shit stirring: How many “personal trainers” have you seen squat halfway down with toes pointing directly forward?[/quote]
(warning: rant)
This is exactly how the NASM teaches the squat (and they certify a lot of “personal trainers”). They claim toes pointed directly forward is key, and that depth is secondary, and will increase over time as flexibility increases. This way of squatting is imo why most people think squatting to parallel and below is bad for your knees. Because guess what? with toes pointed forward, for most people, the path of least resistance to go deeper is to drift your knees (too far) forward. I know this, because this is how I tweaked my knee back in the day by “squatting too deep”.
Oh yeah, and the NASM is big on sucking in the belly also. Try keeping upright in the hole with your belly sucked in…
Physical therapists (the brains behind the NASM) are good at fixing what’s broken. Not so great at training for performance.