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.


Messages - Dreyth

Pages: 1 ... 126 127 [128] 129 130
1906
Pics, Videos, & Links / Re: 345 x 3 (1080p HD)
« on: February 07, 2011, 12:29:10 am »
I'm just more excited about the camera lol. It's a Nikon s8100... my main motivation for buying it wasn't the video or picture qualty, but rather, the AUDIO quality. I wanted a camera that wouldn't distort from the loud bass when I go to trance events. I tested this one out on my friends Yamaha speakers, blasted the volume and subwoofer, and the thing picked up the bass clean as crystal on playback without distorting lol.

Can't wait to test it out at this Paul van Dyk gig in NYC in about 2 weeks.

1907
Pics, Videos, & Links / 345 x 3 (1080p HD)
« on: February 06, 2011, 10:29:33 pm »
1st Set of 345x3
10th Set of 345x3

From today's workout. The angle makes it look like I'm not going as low as I used to, but I still am!
If you look at the white line on my shorts, it hits just below parallel. In this video, it looks like I'm going lower, but the line on the shorts goes to just below parallel as well http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jplDf8iYtWA. Same depth.

1908
Oh, btw, i think the low bar squat translates a bit less to the VJ. However, since you can use more weight in the low-bar, it pretty much evens out. IMO you'd probably be at the same spot VJ-wise with either approach...

example:

A - After 3 years, Squat high-bar 405lbs at 200lbs bw and jump 30"
B - After 3 yeras, Squat low-bar 440lbs at 200lbs bw and jump 30"

Choose on preference.

1909
I like mid-bar. I think that's what I'm doing... it's still pretty high though. Usually I squat with the barbell on the very top of my traps. Now I put the barbell an inch lower because it's a lot more comfortable and I can lift easier. It kind of rests behind the very top of my traps. But it's still DEFINITELY not resting on my rear delts, not even touching the top of them. I use a narrow stance and go near-ATG. I break parallel all the time, but only maybe every 5th rep do I hit rock bottom. Actually, I'm uploading a video of it right now in HD :)

Will be in the pics/vids section.

1910
Peer Reviewed Studies Discussion / Re: Vertical Jump
« on: February 06, 2011, 12:54:31 pm »
Oh and I'm still confused about some stuff on RFD "vs" plyos. Like is there a need to do resisted RFD when you can just do plyos? I'm asking because plyos also increase explosive strength as well as elastic strength, and I feel like you'll get more bang for your buck doing an extra set of depth jumps versus a few sets of paused weighted jumps squats.

1911
Pics, Videos, & Links / Re: funny / horrible training videos
« on: February 02, 2011, 05:44:55 pm »
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaJDek6Pf8U" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaJDek6Pf8U</a>

HAHAHHAHAA

1912
Article & Video Discussion / Re: Spot reduction may actually be possible?
« on: February 02, 2011, 04:48:26 pm »
The other areas of my body are still warm, so wouldn't the fat continue to come off in those areas?

uh.... yeah... he kinda said that. the point is that fat comes off slower in "colder" areas, so maybe warming them up will allow fat to come off a little quicker. lets not misquote anybody.

whether "warming up your stomache" is effective or not (probably just 1% effective honestly). im in no way advocating for this retarded method, i'm just looking to have a valid discussion about an argument the guy is making. that's what interests me, because it is SOMEWHAT of a tiny paradigm shift, which i've always loved.

Your very large sentence contradicts itself. If you can create a more even distribution of fat loss, why can't you create a differently uneven distribution of fat loss? The mechanism -- increased heat to areas of desired loss -- would be the same, just taking it to different levels.

The sentence contradicts itself because I didn't make clear what I meant by "more even distribution." It depends on the POV:

POV 1. If we have stubborn areas, then that means fat loss happens unevenly, since fat loss ocurrs SLOWER in those areas. Hence, they are stubborn areas. "Evening it out" would mean a bit more relative fat loss to happen in that spot, thus creating a more even distribution of fat loss over the entire body(although yes, you will still experience faster fat loss in non-stubborn areas anyway).

POV 2. If we have stubborn areas, then it must mean that we must create an uneven distribution of fat loss and focus it on the stubborn areas to have some sort of spot reduction.

The POV I was using was #1, and that's also why I was stating early that it's not necessarily a spot reduction. I think you are using #2.

I don't know how else to clarify myself lol

1913
Strength, Power, Reactivity, & Speed Discussion / Re: Great Agility
« on: February 02, 2011, 02:39:48 pm »
I need to "learn" this hip sink for basketball... but as for cutting while having the ball in my hands (aka crossing over), my ball handling is the first limiting factor. Any split second needed to reassure the ball in my hands won't fly out is another split second lost.

1914
Peer Reviewed Studies Discussion / Re: Vertical Jump
« on: February 02, 2011, 12:53:10 pm »
for example, say you squat 2xBW in 2s, well, if you become squat-obsessed and end up squatting 2.5xBW in 5-6 seconds, those gains in maximal strength past 2x probably won't transfer well to explosive movements

Agreed. However, consider this possibility:

Athlete A:

Squats 2.0xbw in 2s

Three months later

Squats 2.5xbw in 4s
Squats 2.0xbw in 1.75s

I think going from a 2xbw squat to a 2.5xbw squat is more effective in increasing the amount of time it takes to squat 2xbw (in terms of how long the rep takes) versus incorporating RFD work and not increasing to a 2.5xbw squat.
Not only that, but the RFD work may fade away over time once you switch to more strength oriented work, and you wouldn't be able to keep up with that 2xbw squatting speed.

I prefer strength work over RFD work pretty much all the time. Plyos, on the other hand, are a bit of a different story imo (yes I know they increase RFD as well).



1915
Article & Video Discussion / Re: Spot reduction may actually be possible?
« on: February 02, 2011, 12:44:26 pm »
Why not? I'm definitely a skeptic but I'm looking for faults in the article.  BUT PLEASE READ:

Spot reduction is definitely not possible in the way that we think it is (ONLY losing fat in ONE area), but what the author is saying is that we may have stubborn areas due to some certain causes, and if we help do away with some of those causes, those stubborn areas wont be stubborn... they'll just be like most other areas. regular. Which means at THAT point, the body will actually be closer to losing fat more evenly over different parts.

He's not saying that we can actually lose more fat in a "stubborn area" than any other area, he's saying that maybe we can get the level of fat loss in a "stubborn area" closer to the level that it occurs in the rest of the body, therefore allowing for a more even distribution of fat loss.

Don't get it wrong, "spot reduction" is just in the title (of this post and the article as well) just to grab attention. Please understand the philosophy.

1916
Article & Video Discussion / Spot reduction may actually be possible?
« on: February 02, 2011, 12:33:49 pm »
http://www.t-nation.com/free_online_article/most_recent/spot_reduction_is_real_heres_how_to_do_it

I trust this article a bit more than the others because there's no product placement in it. Read up, sounds interesting and plausible.

1917
Pics, Videos, & Links / Squat 335x3
« on: January 26, 2011, 12:42:23 pm »
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEAQIRL-aVI (unrack at :22)

The first set of 10x3 from smolov jr. 335 was my max before i started. I also recorded the last set, but the memory on the camera ran out and cut off the second two reps so I'm not uploading that.

I'll be sure to try recording a 335x5 and a 375 1RM later this week and early next week.

1918
Progress Journals & Experimental Routines / Re: ADARQ's journal
« on: January 24, 2011, 07:41:48 pm »
I used to love t-nation for their NO BULLSHIT attitude in their articles and it was a great source of information for putting on muscle. However, I can't stand how everyone there thinks if you're less than 200lbs at 6'0 YOU'RE A PUSSY. And that you need to gain more weight... for what? I asked a question about why the hell my left pec is so much bigger than my right and posted a pic, and the first comment I got was "go eat 5 steaks a day for a year and come back."

And it's not just the forum anymore, but I can't stand their whole Biotest bullshit, they market that thing like crazy. Like they find out some important breakthrough shit about nutrition and hey, whaddya know, this biotest product has had exactly that for 2 years now!

And the anaconda protocol? Are you fucking serious?

1919
Progress Journals & Experimental Routines / Re: ADARQ's journal
« on: January 24, 2011, 06:49:57 pm »
links to threads please!

1920
Progress Journals & Experimental Routines / Re: Kingfish
« on: January 19, 2011, 08:12:58 am »
I think within 7 months you can be at a 2.5x bw squat. That's this summer man. Crazy.

Pages: 1 ... 126 127 [128] 129 130