Adarq.org

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmVhJ4YL9f4" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmVhJ4YL9f4</a>

Well high frequency squatting sure did increase my squat. Now the question is - is this good for athleticism? It will increase your squat, but I'm not sure if that's not ONLY movement efficiency improvements in the squat and that will not help you on the field. However, using heavier weights again and again will improve your body's explosiveness afterall, maybe even without increases in muscle (stronger neural signals).

Also, lifting with heavier weights will lead to more muscle growth than otherwise anyway.
If you squat 350x3... then you're able to go up to 350x6 strictly through neural gains, you'll build more muscle that way.
And yes, the explosiveness part - I never thought about that. Probably will also help you release more testosterone or gH maybe, who knows (maybe if we were younger?).

whats with this 5/3/1 thing i see ppl talking about?

Excellent program with a lot of room for tampering with accessory work and stuff. Not for beginners or early intermediates.
It's by powerlifter jim wendler, although you can tune it to fit bodybuilding needs or olympic lifting needs if you want:
http://www.muscleandstrength.com/workouts/hardcore-look-at-jim-wendlers-5-3-1-powerlifting-system.html
I read the entire book (~100pgs, but a light read) a few hours after I got it and I loved it. There's a few things I disagree with, like the de-load. Seems to be far too light for me. But I searched up and found out he has new de-load parameters.

Finally made a great new track.

I think this one's beautiful. 3:00 and on is good:

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdD3d-zNaKo" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdD3d-zNaKo</a>




He was the first DJ I ever saw perform live. I was 15. Blew me away...

Quote from: Dreyth on March 27, 2012, 07:51:18 pm

Quote from: TheSituation on March 27, 2012, 07:42:05 pm

You're viewed as a pussy on the misc if you don't deadlift, so I'm not sure what section you're talking about.

Don't act like you've never seen the anti-deadlift debates.

I have (people think they give you a big waist, heh), but for the most part deadlifts are viewed positively there.

agreed

I have no idea. I just go there for the nutrition and misc sections.

Quote from: Dreyth on March 26, 2012, 03:51:35 pm

Quote from: T0ddday on March 26, 2012, 03:37:01 pm

No! They are not. That's the point I have been trying to hammer home to you!  You seem to think that besides water weight which is regulated largely by sodium/water intake (osmotic balance) all other bodyweight is regulated by energy balance.

Before I even read the rest of your post, I'm going to have to see some sources for how the human body violates the laws of thermodynamics.

It's quite frustrating spending 4 years studying physics and then another 6 in graduate school to have to remind people over and over again that nutritionists who know absolutely nothing of what they are talking about and couldn't tell a line integral from an apple and bring up thermodynamics for proof of why one diet or exercise plan work know ABSOLUTELY nothing.

You are NOT A CLOSED SYSTEM.  You are not even a planet.  If you eat 10,000 calories today and then you cut off your leg.... You will weigh less.  The first law is not violated because the energy of the closed system (planet, universe, etc) is still there is the form of a leg on the floor... but YOU weigh less.  That's all that matters to you!   Just like if your bones atrophy you will piss out inorganic metals, quite literally matter will flow out of the open system, and you will weigh less. 

Sorry if I come across as an ass for this post but it's really frustrating to here diet gurus bring up energy in the strictest sense (ie. $E=mc^{2}$)  when talking about human metabolism.  Not all catabolic processes even produce energy (usable for humans)!

I stick by Calories In Calories out and the IFFYM approach for body composition but if we are going to have a discussion regarding the peculiarities or exceptions to the model.... Well, broscience for weight training is one thing... but let's not approach bro-physics. 

makes sense to me now.

i can see how u can lose bone mass by maintaining an energy deficit/surplus of 0.

Can you also gain bone mass while still maintaning a zero caloric deficit/surplus? (curious)

Quote from: Dreyth on March 22, 2012, 09:22:03 pm

Man I always screw my de-loads and end up losing strength.


 

Yeah but you really need to ask yourself "am I really losing strength or am I actually losing movement efficiency "strength" in certain gym exercises".

Considering I bench, shoulder press, chin up, and row all only once a week... i think it's strength.

A) Situations definition: Maintenance is eating according to energy balance, no positive energy balance, no net fat gain, largely true.

B) Your definition (I think): Maintenance is eating according to maintaining bodyweight.  If a major stimulus is changed (ie. you move to the moon, a bodybuilder stops training, hormonal changes), then eating a bodyweight maintenance will result in a gain of fat tissue as muscle is lost.  Also true.  

uhhhhhhhh...... if you are maintaining according to energy balance, then you are also maintaining your bodyweight... our definitions are identical

only exception: maintaining calories doesn't mean you're maintaining water weight, so if you exclude water weight (which fluctuates daily) from the equation then they are the same.

The important point I am trying to convey to you is the reason the two definitions are often interchanged (ie energy balance == weight maintenance) is because for 99% of people on 99% of diets  they are essentially the same thing.  Unless you have extremely low bodyfat and extremely large amount of muscle or have drastic change in lifestyle (ie get wheelchair bound or move to the moon, or hormones involved) worry about losing appreciable amounts of muscle tissue is not necessary.  Most people on this msg board are not in danger of losing enough muscle to effect energy expenditure if they stop training.  

People often think they have experienced muscle loss for two reasons, both are wrong:

You may lose A LOT of strength but it's not because of losing muscle tissue.  That's why it will take 5 years for someone to build their squat from 225 to 405 but only 8 months to train it back from 225 to 405 after they take a few years off.  

You main gain a lot of fat when you stop lifting and keep eating the same.  But it's not because your energy balance is changed due to lost muscle but rather due to the fact that instead of using energy training you are probably watching TV.  

IMHO those most important takeaways to take from this discussion.  It's largely thought and stated in broscience that you lose muscle tissue which effects metabolism and causes you to gain fat.  While this is possible, it's not what happens to most young men who stop training, especially not in the short term.

There's a lot to ingest there, but basically:

We agree that if two atheletes:
- Both have the same caloric balance
- Both consume and burn the same amount of calories
- Both maintain the same bodyweight
- Only one continues to lift weights, while the other stops

The one that stops lifting weights will, eventually, lose more muscle than the one that continues to lift weights. The amount may very from half pound over the course of a year to 5 pounds in one year, but it will not be zero.

And, in fact, if the athlete that continues lifting is noob enough, he will actually gain muscle over the coruse of a year.



Nobody can deny the above.