Stupid People At The Gym

Off Topic
81

[quote]IQ wrote:

So, would someone who is already doing the basic compound movements you suggest and utilising isolation movements also make better progress by training only twice a week for 30 mins?

While you say that you don’t dislike big guys you must be able to see that you are coming across as incredibly jealous. Why can’t you accept that it is possible for someone to be big and strong? There’s nothing wrong with not wanting to be big yourself but by trying to devalue the achievements of others you just sound insecure. [/quote]

I dunno about twice a week. I think 15 minutes 4x a week is better than 30 minutes 2x a week, but thats debatable. It depends on the person, but i feel anywhere between 20-40 minutes, 3-5 times is far more than enough. You ask would twice a week be better, im not really sure what you’d be comparing it to. But in general, this is how i feel.

  1. Use the least amount of work that gets the greatest results. Its like a bell curve, and there is a point where more work = worse results.

  2. Train each muscle as many times a week as possible. Now when i say possible, you still gotta take into acount the first guideline. So if 2 workouts a day is possible, but you are doing too much, then dont do it.

  3. Third guideline kinda is a catch all. It doesn’t matter what load,set,rep,volume you do in general, as long as your doing enough, and not too much. Some people will get best strength results with sets of 3, while others aren’t ready to train with that low of reps, and may be just fine using sets of 5 or 6. There is a science to working out and how the body works, but much of it isn’t understood, so in the end, use what works for you.

I know i probably contradicted myself in many ways with that last though, but thats fine. Sure, bicep curls may work better for a lot of you, and pullups/chinups COULD have worked even better, its all on how you use them.

Lastly, im not jelous of big people. I am jelous of strong people to an extent though.

I tailor my training to my goals, which happen to be very high relative strength. If i wanted to be as huge a possible, I would be, but instead i choose to gain very little weight, but gain a lot in my lifts. I shouldn’t be criticizing people who’s goal is just to get big, but i do feel size without strength is less than optimal. Its better to, GET STRONG → EAT —> GET BIG.

Theres more than one way to skin a cat, so to each his own.

82

What you are writing just sounds like a justification for you sucking. Good luck trying to develop your abs, biceps, calves and chest after 2 years without isolation training. Oh wait, you won’t have to develop them because they will have to match the 0 pound mass gains you will make by then…

Let us know when you have skinned 10% of your cat…

83

[quote]ill wrote:
What you are writing just sounds like a justification for you sucking. Good luck trying to develop your abs, biceps, calves and chest after 2 years without isolation training. Oh wait, you won’t have to develop them because they will have to match the 0 pound mass gains you will make by then…

Let us know when you have skinned 10% of your cat…[/quote]

Actually, your partially correct. I recently added standing and seated calf raises, because they aren’t getting much work in my current routine. And the only other isolation i do is hamstring curls. I dont know of any other good exercises that work knee flexion through the full ROM. Lastly, i probably am going to include some forearm iso, because i dont have the opportunity to do thick bar work.

84

[quote]texasguy1 wrote:
BALBO wrote:
In a war you have to respond 3 times harder!
My new avatar…

That would be fine, except that you can’t claim another’s sexiness as your own. That is just gay.

You could quit being a wussy and post a pic of your own mug. [/quote]

Pouty lip face and a ball sac on your chin posted on a dudes website = gay

85

EVERYBODY’S A “SELF PROCLAIMED” EXPERT ON THIS SITE. CONGRATULATIONS. I’m not just talking about the guy who is the original poster. Especially the dude that stated he handles situations in the gym himself and ripped on the guy who got a person who works there. Tough guy… Made me laugh at least. I’ll add my two gym complaints.

  1. The person who tries to take up two machines at once.
    2)The person who brings their cell phone on the gym floor with them. Tool city. You have kids and/or expecting a call then ok but not to plan dinner or talk baby talk to some chick.
86

[quote]dankid wrote:
I never said i hate people that are big, and i probably should have titled the topic “funny things i saw at the gym”.

I guess I just come from a different school of thought than most here. Im not a functional guy, but i would lean toward the functional approach far before the get big at all costs approach.

IMO what good is leg pressing 700lbs, when you cant squat 2x your body weight. Im gonna say it, squat is more “functional” The functional approach doesn’t work for the most part though, because most people live pretty sedentary lives. We dont need to train our bodies to be able to drive a car, or sit at a desk, or push buttons on a microwave.

Saying that pullups are more functional than lat pulldowns is a questionable statement though, unless you do a lot of rock climbing or parkour. Its not about functionality in my opinion, its about efficiency. One of the big reasons sedentary people dont workout, other then them being lazy, is that they dont think they have the time. Well sure, when they here about people working out for hours upon hours and recieving less than optimal results, i kinda feel the same way too.

If they only knew they just needed a small handful of exercises, and 30 minutes a couple of days a week, and they’d get far better results.

I still hold that im a minimalist, I stress strength and “funcionality” over size, and that with training, quality over quantity is paramount.

Oh and I would have 99% of athletes avoid curls like the plaque.

And I wasn’t bashing vikings in general, i just thought it was funny to see a guy that was 6’6+ probably 280+ with a pony tail down past his waist. He should seriously try to be in movies if he already isn’t[/quote]

Pullups require all the muscles lat pulls do and more. If you are now going to turn the topic to a “functional” issue, pull ups are much more functional than lat pulls as they work the same muscles in similar fashion plus more.

But that wasn’t your point to begin with and it doesn’t work anyhow.

What good is squatting 2x your weight if you can’t leg press half your squat load? you are comparing apples and oranges. Big and strong people are usually good at both.

If your new issue is that too many people are lazy, you are preaching to the choir and would be better served in the beginner section.

Athletes do not avoid curls like the plague. Every athlete i’ve known, including myself, does concentrate on sport specific strength training as the basis of their programs, but balance out other muscles with isolation movements secondarily. And i’ve played lots of sports consequently meeting and training with lots of athletes.

87

[quote]BALBO wrote:
texasguy1 wrote:
BALBO wrote:
In a war you have to respond 3 times harder!
My new avatar…

That would be fine, except that you can’t claim another’s sexiness as your own. That is just gay.

You could quit being a wussy and post a pic of your own mug.

Ok,tough guy![/quote]

Now please explain the bald guy with an underdeveloped back and triceps + the fuzzy pic of the old saggy looking dude in your photo gallery.

88

[quote]oldcrabbybastard wrote:
texasguy1 wrote:
BALBO wrote:
In a war you have to respond 3 times harder!
My new avatar…

That would be fine, except that you can’t claim another’s sexiness as your own. That is just gay.

You could quit being a wussy and post a pic of your own mug.

Pouty lip face and a ball sac on your chin posted on a dudes website = gay[/quote]

Only if you are sexually attracted to it. Don’t get too horny though. I like chicks.

89

[quote]dankid wrote:
Oh and I would have 99% of athletes avoid curls like the plaque.
[/quote]

This is some deja vu from the professional athletes’ physiques thread.

90

[quote]BALBO wrote:
Functionaly trained athlete.He is functional in his sport…pounding down beers and stuffing his face with McShit.[/quote]

Damn, BALBOS, you outdid yourself once again.

91

[quote]Chewie wrote:
BALBO wrote:
Functionaly trained athlete.He is functional in his sport…pounding down beers and stuffing his face with McShit.

Damn, BALBOS, you outdid yourself once again.
[/quote]

Damn it! I am NOT Balbos!!!

Its Mr.Balbo for you!

92

[quote]texasguy1 wrote:
BALBO wrote:
texasguy1 wrote:
BALBO wrote:
In a war you have to respond 3 times harder!
My new avatar…

That would be fine, except that you can’t claim another’s sexiness as your own. That is just gay.

You could quit being a wussy and post a pic of your own mug.

Ok,tough guy!

Now please explain the bald guy with an underdeveloped back and triceps + the fuzzy pic of the old saggy looking dude in your photo gallery. [/quote]

Bald head and skinny back was from a few years ago,when I was in my Football hooligan/bad boxer phase.
You know,lots of boxing endurance and high carbs combined with heavy use of alcohol and less sleep as a football hooligan!

93

[quote]texasguy1 wrote:
oldcrabbybastard wrote:
texasguy1 wrote:
BALBO wrote:
In a war you have to respond 3 times harder!
My new avatar…

That would be fine, except that you can’t claim another’s sexiness as your own. That is just gay.

You could quit being a wussy and post a pic of your own mug.

Pouty lip face and a ball sac on your chin posted on a dudes website = gay

Only if you are sexually attracted to it. Don’t get too horny though. I like chicks. [/quote]

Keeping steers and queers alive and well in Texas. Way to go Texasgay!!

94

[quote]oldcrabbybastard wrote:
texasguy1 wrote:
oldcrabbybastard wrote:
texasguy1 wrote:
BALBO wrote:
In a war you have to respond 3 times harder!
My new avatar…

That would be fine, except that you can’t claim another’s sexiness as your own. That is just gay.

You could quit being a wussy and post a pic of your own mug.

Pouty lip face and a ball sac on your chin posted on a dudes website = gay

Only if you are sexually attracted to it. Don’t get too horny though. I like chicks.

Keeping steers and queers alive and well in Texas. Way to go Texasgay!![/quote]

Hey man, you are the one who finds my pic sexually attractive. I don’t appreciate your advances one bit. Find a guy who shares your mutual homosexual interest. And try not stare at my pic too long. It is creepy.

95

I don’t find it attractive at all … You are the one advertising yourself as a fruit on a male based website…you should expect advances. The picture is creepy. Can you teabag yourself with those nuts on your chin?

96

[quote]dankid wrote:
As for me learning everything from books, thats not entirely true, but hey, thats what books are for.

Since im planning to be a strength coach and not an athlete, i’d rather be small and have a ton of knowledge and experience, than to be huge and not have a clue what im doing.[/quote]

Being your weight and size you will never hit huge numbers in powerlifting so you have no right being a strength coach. Any coach who has never acomplished ANYTHING above average can go to hell in my book.

And you say you would rather be small and have knowledge than be big and be clueless? The only knowledge you will have would be from books because clearly you wouldnt have aplied the principals to your self because remember YOUR SMALL. And every big guy has knowledge because he knows what he did to get big.

I fucking hate people who dont look like they lift and move no weight who hide behind books and what people said in a study they read 50 years ago.

97

[quote]dankid wrote:
Since im planning to be a strength coach and not an athlete, i’d rather be small and have a ton of knowledge and experience, than to be huge and not have a clue what im doing.[/quote]

Greatest quote EVER!!

Where’s the Professor when we need him? ; )

98

[quote]dankid wrote:
Oh and I would have 99% of athletes avoid curls like the plaque.
[/quote]

Why would you do that? Don’t you care about their elbow health?

99

[quote]n3wb wrote:
dankid wrote:
As for me learning everything from books, thats not entirely true, but hey, thats what books are for.

Since im planning to be a strength coach and not an athlete, i’d rather be small and have a ton of knowledge and experience, than to be huge and not have a clue what im doing.

[/quote]

You’d rather be small and have experience? Experience in what? Being small? What kinda line of thinking is that?

And why would you think that someone huge wouldn’t have a clue as to what he was doing? Do you think he got huge by accident?

Why would I hire a small strength coach to teach me to be strong when he doesn’t have the first clue of what it takes to be strong? I don’t think you’ll be a very successful strength coach, at least not with those of us who want to be truly strong and not commercial gym strong.

100

[quote]SkyNett wrote:
dankid wrote:
Since im planning to be a strength coach and not an athlete, i’d rather be small and have a ton of knowledge and experience, than to be huge and not have a clue what im doing.

Greatest quote EVER!!

Where’s the Professor when we need him? ; )

[/quote]

Bwahahahahaaaa. Ahhh that’s good. Slayed me.

Dankid. Why not be both? I’m a strength coach. And I’m always applying my knowledge to my own training. How can I not be getting bigger, faster and stronger all the time? I wouldn’t be satisfied knowing a ton of shit and looking like shit. Trust me, when you start training athletes if you’re not already, it really helps to get theri attention when they know that you can outlift them on every lift you train them in. I often train with my athletes to show them ‘how it’s done’.

I guess it’s the difference between leading by example and just telling people what to do.