9226
Nutrition & Supplementation / Re: junk food diet that works
« on: November 17, 2010, 09:47:52 am »
He said "majority." 900>840, therefore a majority of calories from junk food.
QED, bitches.
QED, bitches.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
9227
Strength, Power, Reactivity, & Speed Discussion / Re: low bar squat vs high bar squat
« on: November 17, 2010, 09:36:09 am »
Those are some nice looking squats, kingfish.
9228
Progress Journals & Experimental Routines / Re: a fast and explosive donkey!
« on: November 17, 2010, 09:33:08 am »
Yeah something like 12-13 30's, 2 30.5's and maybe 1 or 2 29-29.5's when I was goofing around at the end and not resting long enough. I was thinking about getting lower, but mostly (especially on the full run-ups) about starting slow and then accelerating at the end. If you look at the vid from the other day, my approach is a lot better than it had been. Still ugly and my plants still suck, but getting better.
9229
800m+ Running and/or Conditioning / Re: Tarahumara: The Running People
« on: November 16, 2010, 11:23:00 pm »check out the 4 part series form berardi's youtube account
precisionnutrition
here is part 1 the other 3 are also on his account
http://www.youtube.com/user/PrecisionNutrition#p/u/3/0OglqtsHzAE
They don't really answer how the tarahumara are able to have enough energy in order to be able to run those distances.
By eating enough and getting lots and lots of practice.
9230
Progress Journals & Experimental Routines / Re: a fast and explosive donkey!
« on: November 16, 2010, 11:18:56 pm »
neutral focus
SH:SP:SR:SH:SP:SR:SH:SP:SR:SH:SP:SR:
power focus
SH:SP:SP:SR:SR:SH:SP:SP:SR:SR:
speed/reactivity focus
SP:SR:SR:SR:STIM:TEST
I think I missed a SP workout. Will have to go back and double-check. EDIT: Nope, didn't. Anyway, this week hasn't really provided the relief I'd been hoping for work-wise, but at least volleyball was canceled at the gym tonight, so I got to jump at the rim. Jumps weren't extraordinarily high, but they felt smooth and I was consistently getting 30", nothing lower, and maybe 2 30.5".
warm up
shoot hoops
sprinter's warm ups
few tuck jumps
work
15y sprint x4, then
superset x5 -- ended up with about 15 1-step jumps and 8 full run-up jumps
1-step x4, alternate with full run-up x4
15y sprint x1
couple more 1-step jumps
tuck jump 2x20
pogo 2x5
bench 3x5x155 -- form was tight
BOR 3x8x135 -- form tight on 1st and 3rd sets, kind of weak in 2nd
core x3
--ab rollouts x20
--side plank x30s/ea
--poor man's reverse hyper x10
cool down
stretch
SH:SP:SR:SH:SP:SR:SH:SP:SR:SH:SP:SR:
power focus
SH:SP:SP:SR:SR:SH:SP:SP:SR:SR:
speed/reactivity focus
SP:SR:SR:SR:STIM:TEST
warm up
shoot hoops
sprinter's warm ups
few tuck jumps
work
15y sprint x4, then
superset x5 -- ended up with about 15 1-step jumps and 8 full run-up jumps
1-step x4, alternate with full run-up x4
15y sprint x1
couple more 1-step jumps
tuck jump 2x20
pogo 2x5
bench 3x5x155 -- form was tight
BOR 3x8x135 -- form tight on 1st and 3rd sets, kind of weak in 2nd
core x3
--ab rollouts x20
--side plank x30s/ea
--poor man's reverse hyper x10
cool down
stretch
9231
Olympic Weightlifting / Re: 69kg lifters
« on: November 16, 2010, 11:08:53 pm »
Jesus H. Christ.
9232
Nutrition & Supplementation / Re: junk food diet that works
« on: November 16, 2010, 10:52:29 pm »
let's take a 200lb guy, 20% bf, trying to lose weight.
6 twinkies = 900 cal, 162g carbs, 27g fat, 6g protein
7 protein shakes = 840 cal, 14g carbs, 14g fat, 161g protein
total = 1740 cal, 176g carbs, 49g fat, 167g protein
6 twinkies = 900 cal, 162g carbs, 27g fat, 6g protein
7 protein shakes = 840 cal, 14g carbs, 14g fat, 161g protein
total = 1740 cal, 176g carbs, 49g fat, 167g protein
9233
Nutrition & Supplementation / Re: junk food diet that works
« on: November 16, 2010, 05:35:43 pm »my post on another forum:
awesome, a professor who was 33% fat got down to 24% eating far less than maintenance kcal consisting of junk, who cares Smile
a calorie is not just a calorie, a gram of carb (especially sugar) has a very different effect on the body than a gram of protein. Hormonally, junk is not something we should be consuming if we want to get strong, shredded, and actually put on mass. Sure he lost some body fat, but we're athletes, not fat f**k professors who have alot of bodyfat to lose.. Junk food diets typically don't do well with performance athletes, it leaves them less alert & less motivated to compete. I guarantee you that, these stupid studies would be alot different if you look at someone trying to go from 15% BF to 6% bodyfat. A caloric deficit wouldn't mean (expletive), the body would try to keep fat (which would happen easily due to all the sugars/sat fat you're eating), and you'd actually lose lean mass.. so sure, your BMI would go down, but you'd lose mass and become relatively fatter.
I hate that stupid study Smile
peace
Yes and no. Caloric deficit always matters if you're trying to lose weight. If you're trying to get from 15% to 6%, you still have to be in a deficit. It just becomes that much more important to get enough protein and keep lifting, for maintenance of muscle mass. Obviously, I'm not saying a junk food diet + protein is optimal for anyone at any time. I'm just saying that if you want to lose weight, caloric deficit matters.
9234
Article & Video Discussion / Re: Unilaterals Make You Weaker
« on: November 16, 2010, 05:03:42 pm »
steven-miller's next project is to get really really fast by doing nothing but double-legged bounds. 
9235
Progress Journals & Experimental Routines / Re: a fast and explosive donkey!
« on: November 16, 2010, 03:20:33 pm »That's tight dude. My cousin went to Blair and graduated in 08'; her name is Jaya Kannan...sound familiar? Were you in the science & math magnet?
Nah, I'm too old.
Was in the other magnet, CAP. Lots of friends in math/sci magnet, though.
9236
Progress Journals & Experimental Routines / Re: ADARQ's journal
« on: November 16, 2010, 11:13:11 am »Ha nice man. You are getting a bit heavy again
I see you do those single arm db bench as well. What the advantage to them compared to regular db bench?
just to even out any imbalances, for myself especially, my right arm is MUCH stronger, for example, i can standing 1 arm OHP 40 lb x ~8+ with right arm, 0 left arm... so ya btw it's standing 1-arm OHP, not bench press, i have no bench ;d
peace
Bro, unilateral exercises are no better than bilaterals for evening out imbalances. Don't you know anything?
9237
Progress Journals & Experimental Routines / Re: a fast and explosive donkey!
« on: November 16, 2010, 09:38:31 am »sick dunks man! is that takoma in dc or takoma park in md? did you go to hs in moco?
Thanks man! It's the Takoma Middle School in MD (i.e. Takoma Park). I went to Blair for HS. Takoma is about 2.5 blocks from where I grew up.
9238
Article & Video Discussion / Re: Unilaterals Make You Weaker
« on: November 15, 2010, 11:23:54 pm »This shit is apples and oranges.
Why not just do both and reap the benefits they provide?
If you're an athlete(that involves running), and you want to only do bilateral work, it will catch up to you.
IMO, there's no point attacking a single 'method' b/c of what it lacks. No single 'method' is all inclusive to get you strong, powerful, fast, and ripped, etc. Use each 'method' what it's meant for.
Comparing lunges and squats is retarded. You can do max effort squats, but why the fuck would you do max effort lunges?
This.
9239
Progress Journals & Experimental Routines / Re: ADARQ's journal
« on: November 15, 2010, 11:01:19 am »i agree with Flander
Darq, i think you should take into account that your tendons/ligaments/cartilaginous tissues and fascia(correct me if i'm wrong) heal and take longer to recover than the muscles. my point is, you might feel ok in terms of soreness and cns fatigues, but that doesn't mean nothing is happening
just a thought..
You're giving advice to a brick wall, fellas.
9240