Adarq.org

Ha what did you do to them, color balance + for red and remove greens and blues?

~300 lbs? Excuse me? So I could squat ~600 lbs?

Quote from: Daballa100 on July 08, 2011, 03:12:29 pm

Quote from: Avishek on July 08, 2011, 02:06:25 pm

People get fat in the long term from low calorie diets once exposed to food. These people probably have crushed metabolisms and may experience the same phenomenon once exposed to unlimited amounts of food. People with unhealthy metabolisms do not gain massive amounts of fat if exposed to unlimited amounts of food. This is what all the overfeeding studies have shown

Jimmy Moore of livin la vida low carb is a great example. Lost like hundred pounds form low carb dieting, gained 60 back after 2 years.

Bodybuilders are another great example. [http://scottabel.blogspot.com/2011/04/self-destructive-nature-of-willpower.html]http://scottabel.blogspot.com/2011/04/self-destructive-nature-of-willpower.html[/http://scottabel.blogspot.com/2011/04/self-destructive-nature-of-willpower.html]



Some science: http://www.cswd.org/docs/ltdietstudy.html

You're over complicating things.  Weight loss and maintenance of weight loss is a matter of motivation vs discipline.  Motivation = a short fiery emotion that makes you want to do something.  Discipline = ability to stick to something, and not chicken out.  Americans satisfy themselves everyday ASAP, so how do you expect them to maintain a diet if they can't avoid satisfying themselves.  If you have discipline you will keep the weight off, if you don't, you don't deserve to keep the weight off.

I don't get the metabolism stuff.  Of course you will gain weight if you start eating more food than normal.  I think it's common sense.  People aren't fit in America because they're undisciplined, and stupid.

That's just what I think.

are you insinuating that most Americans are dumb and/or out of shape?

You might be on to something here.

Also did a 480 kg squat

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gjg4ymAsPOQ" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gjg4ymAsPOQ</a>

One of the spotters was kind of standing with his feet right under the plates... not really smart if you ask me

how about not mixing lb and kg?

Haha, got me there. I thought there wouldn't be a difference since they're all "numbers" so the same formula applies. Apparently not, since the differences are quite big in absolute terms.

And I'm doing leg presses since thats what Jacob Hiller recommends in his ebook

 

Raptor this is the broomstick lunge deal I was talking about:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IGZTVInH1Y

Make sure you keep both your feet on a line.

As for the front squats you should be able to do them without even touching the bar. There is a groove between your delts and neck the bar will naturally sit.  Check this out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WE81-EtbqcA

I actually do them unloaded a couple of times per day...no bar or broomstick I just "pretend" like I'm holding a bar - the effect as far as thoracic mobility is the same.  If you do a lot of sitting the front squat is the best exercise there is to cure bad upper body posture IMO.

Hm... to quote another commenter - is the knee supposed to go as far in front in that broomstick video? How far should I step back with the "non working leg"? As far as possible but that I can still go straight down?

As for the squats - I can go pretty low both in the normal squat and in the front squat but only if I take a very wide stance and rotate the feet quite a bit to the sides. For example, in that 145 kg squat video I posted I had a very wide stance, I think more than 1.5 x shoulder width... otherwise I wouldn't be able to go so low (low = parallel or so). I'd just fall on my back or I'd have to compensate by bending forward.