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 - T0ddday

Pages: 1 ... 52 53 [54] 55 56 ... 58
796
Article & Video Discussion / Re: Hang Snatch Alternative
« on: January 23, 2012, 03:32:34 pm »
Interesting argument.  I have a somewhat different perspective on the necessity of olympic lifts.

1) First, jumping with weights or snatch grip high pulls DO provide a lot of the same benefits of the olympic lifts, but the lack of scalability is what really ruins them.  When you take your clean from 100kg to 200kg you have undoubtedly gotten more powerful.  But increasing the weight used in the snatch grip high pull or some weighted jump might just be arrived at by jumping lower or performing a terrible pull.  You could make the argument that high pulls are a somewhat acceptable substitute if you have a coach to watch you perform them.... but then again if you have a coach with you all the time then why not just have him teach you the olympic lifts?

2) Second, I agree with Raptor at least about the full snatch.  I've performed and taught hang power cleans and hang snatch in commercial gyms, but to really get the groove in the catch portion of the full snatch you need to practice tons and tons of reps where you may fall down, throw the weight behind you, in front of you, etc.  That probably won't fly in most commercial gyms.

3) Finally, I think that while there are not great weighted substitutes for the Olympic lifts, I would argue that the necessity of the olympic lifts is somewhat overstated.  I think they got a lot of praise for the single anecdote about weightlifter sprint times from the Mexico olympics which was taken to be a factual study by most of the training community.  Whether the story is at all true doesn't really matter, I'm quite confident it couldn't be replicated today.  This isn't to say that olympic lifters are not extremely powerful, but more that you can get extremely powerful in your sport without performing the oly lifts.  Additionally, most sprinters are type IIx dominant and most jumpers are IIb dominant which makes them susceptible to a decent degree of unwanted hypertrophy if they do enough repetition to learn the oly lifts.  Experienced sprinters and jumpers usually don't have much problems with triple extension or RFD, that's why the best bang for the buck for them is to usually have them just get their squat variations up.  Athletes that do learn the oly lifts correctly usually are limited more by maximal strength then anything else.  For example, I was taught how to do hang power cleans somewhat correctly in college.  In November I did 3 reps of hang power clean with 275, dropping to about parallel to catch.  At the time my front squat max single was 315.   If I spent more time working on my hang power clean I may have gotten it up to 285...  If I was a competitive oly lifter this would have made sense... but since I'm not my time is best spent focusing on getting my squat up, keeping my bodyweight down and working on technique and RFD exercises more specific to my sport.  I'm confident if I could front squat 405 I could get power-clean to ~330 in a month or two.

4) Anyway, sorry to ramble, this is just a topic I've heard a lot of arguments from both sides.  As far as who should do olympic lifts other than olympic lifters, I would argue that American football players benefit from them because upper body hypertrophy is actually helpful in their sport,  additionally throwers benefit because because they don't really have much negative repercussions from added bodyweight.   You could also argue that athletes who are "slow" might benefit more from them than others.  For example if you learn proper power clean technique but can still only power clean 135 despite the fact that you squat 315.... Then clearly there's a problem.  Additionally, if you LIKE olympic lifts I would say then by all means include them in your training.... Just that they are in no way necessary, especially if you are already a good athlete who is somewhat new to the weight-room.  The overemphasis on olympic lifts in football is why you see guys in every college gym cleaning 95 with terrible form and doing quarter squats with 225.  Part of me wishes olympic lifts were less popular just so there would be more free olympic bars in the gym!

797
Progress Journals & Experimental Routines / Re: ADARQ's journal
« on: January 21, 2012, 11:50:24 pm »
Quote from: adarqui on January 21, 2012, 01:54:59 am
so weird, using firefox on my dad's freebsd computer, after typing this huge response it just automatically reloaded the page before i hit submit, bam gone.

Quote from: T0ddday on January 19, 2012, 09:14:25 pm
I am a computational biologist and sometimes freelance algorithm developer.  Basically a glorified statistician.   

really cool, must have some serious math skills.

ya, vim to be more exact this point.. ya screen + console providesextremely fast navigation.. splt screening is also very useful for coding in the top half & compiling in the bottom half, or issuing commands in the first half and tailing logs in the bottom half.. really helpful.


Studied math and chemistry in undergrad.  Statistics are def waaaay less fun than the math you learn about as an undergrad but it's a really good field if you wanna have a job.  Also a good thing to study if you wanna know how science and evidence works. 

What do you do that has you coding so much?  If you want to have fun programming math problems check out http://projecteuler.net/.

It's a great site.  It starts off really easy, too save time best initially to use a scripting language like python.  The cool thing is after you solve each problem you get forum access to see everyone elses code.  There is always some people that write everything in x86 or haskell or some crazy one-liner in J or APL, and you get to look at peoples really interesting efficient code.  I have learned about as much on that site about coding math than I learned in 5 years of grad school.  Watch out though, they get exponentially hard.  I solved the first 50-100 problems in a couple weeks and then they started taking me weeks to solve each one and I had to quit to get work done. 

Finally, watch out for the Mac.  I had a mac laptop and the mac terminal is set up ALMOST like the unix standards.  However, if you write a lot of shell scripts or awk scripts you will invariably write something in linux that isn't portable to your mac.  Really annoying but they follow the POSIX standard about 99% of the time and then the 1% of the time ruins you.

798
Progress Journals & Experimental Routines / Re: ADARQ's journal
« on: January 21, 2012, 11:42:21 pm »
Quote from: vag on January 20, 2012, 04:59:54 am
Don't underestimate vi. It may be the most difficult editor ever indeed , takes so much time to learn it and get used to it , but it may also be the most powerful one. Once you get used to the basic features to do your job , you start learning more complicated features, macros etc. This builds up if you use it for work , new needs come up , new ways to cover them are discovered. In the end ( after using it at work for ~8 years ) i prefer vi over any high-tech editor, just personal opinion though.
Adarqui, so the lack of GUI is a matter of choice? Don't understand it. Install one of the most recent linux editions , like ubuntu. You get an easy and friendly gui , pnp for most devices , access to the basic stuff you need ( youtube , flash etc ) and when you get sick of gui just open a terminal , make it full screen, there you are :D

I use vim for text editing.  I meant actual Vi.  Original Vi where you can't use the arrow keys and you can't see what you are typing (or is that ed?).   Vim is the best editor.  I went through elipse, then emacs, then found vim was just the best for what I do.  I write standalone algorithms though, maybe if I was managing a huge codebase I would have to learn something else, though, hopefully that won't come too quick.

799
Progress Journals & Experimental Routines / Re: ADARQ's journal
« on: January 19, 2012, 09:14:25 pm »
I am a computational biologist and sometimes freelance algorithm developer.  Basically a glorified statistician.   

GNU Screen is probably the worlds greatest program.  Eliminates the need for so much other stuff that has tons of overhead like dropbox and virtual desktops.  Screen is so easy, I might even run it on my phone so I can check jobs I submit to the cluster.

From 1996?  Damn I didn't know you could use computers for anything interesting till I started grad school.  Really old school.  Is that VI days?  That's the most difficult editor of all time.

800
Progress Journals & Experimental Routines / Re: ADARQ's journal
« on: January 18, 2012, 11:06:47 pm »
Yeah we run debian here at work.  We have to.  I use iceweasel though for the web.  I had a period where I tried to do everything in the terminal and I gave up.  Now I'm probably 70/30.  Terminal for work everything else for fun.

801
Nutrition & Supplementation / Re: Cheat days on a weight/fat loss diet
« on: January 16, 2012, 06:13:12 pm »
Quote from: Avishek on January 14, 2012, 09:33:19 pm

But yes it is a model. A model that naive consumers are unsuccessfully using to achieve photoshopped physiques on the front of shitty magazines, and destroy their health.



Strange that you blame the fitness industry on calories-in-calories-out model.  It seems it's a little harder to sell diet advice and supplements when you say "Eat less energy and you lose weight".  I'd actually argue that the fitness industry makes a lot of money by getting overweight people to believe that losing weight is a super complicated process for which they need to buy the latest book, or read the latest article or take the new pill or herbal supplement.... 


802
Nutrition & Supplementation / Re: Cheat days on a weight/fat loss diet
« on: January 16, 2012, 06:08:20 pm »
Quote from: Dreyth on January 16, 2012, 05:52:38 pm


Quote from: TheSituation on January 16, 2012, 03:49:16 pm
1. Athlete A will burn more than Athlete B because he's adding exercise into the equation. Also, because athlete B will lose muscle, he will no longer burn 3000 calories because less muscle = less calories burned. That's why he'd put fat on, because he's now eating over maintenance.

...but that's not the situation we're talking about (they both consume and burn 3000cal a day, period). I already wrote down they they are both on caloric maintenance. You can't change a hypothetical situation and THEN defend yourself against THAT one.  ;)

Quote
2. Obviously we are talking about weight.

Not so obvious when the words can NOT be used interchangeably. ALSO not so obvious when you stated:
"If you eat 3000 calories, and your body uses 3000 calories, you won't store any fat because there's no reason to."
But YES, I do know what you meant now.


Read my response, actually it makes more sense to talk about fat rather than weight in your example. Your example is an example where an athlete would lose weight (muscle) despite calorie maintenance but actually would not add any fat (provided he kept upping his exercise).  In reality, athlete B would probably end up fatter, but that's only because with much less muscle he has less "wiggle-room".... If he gets injured and rests for a couple days and eats 3k calories he will gain some fat where athlete A might not. 

803
Nutrition & Supplementation / Re: Cheat days on a weight/fat loss diet
« on: January 16, 2012, 06:02:57 pm »
It's great to spend 5 years of life getting a PhD reading millions of papers and doing actual research and then have people on the internet tell you it's all wrong because they read some website.

The Athlete A/Athlete B example is actually a great question.  If we assume that both athlete A and B had some training experience and had added some lean tissue to their frames, then if conducted perfectly Athlete B would detrain slightly and lose muscle tissue even if he is eating maintenance because he has dropped resistance training.  In this case he will lose lean tissue and his maintenance calories will either no longer be 3k or he will have to drastically increase his exercise (essentially become a marathoner).  If he continues to up his training to make up for the loss of metabolically active tissue then he will actually lose lean tissue but not add fat as time continues.  Eventually athlete B will be lighter but with the same amount of fat as he started with because he has exercised exactly enough to make up for his relatively large energy intake compared to his body size.  

This is certainly a flaw in the calories-in-calories-out model.  It does not take into account the loss of lean tissue that will occur from detraining (for example you will lose muscle and bone in outer space even if you eat well above maintenance).  The model is also flawed when macros are extreme.  For example if someone eats under maintenance but consumes no protein at all, they simply won't rebuild lean tissue and will actually store excess energy (carbs and fats) as fat even though they are technically under their energy expenditure for the day.  Additionally, if someone gorges on protein only and severely restricts fat and carbs they will not store as much fat as would be expected because of the metabolic overhead to convert protein to fat is expensive.

The calories-in-calories-out model certainly seems to be poorest at predicting results for extreme situations.  Still, for normal situations, ie.  You are not beginning  or ceasing a new  resistance training program, you are not protein deficient nor severely restricting fat and carbs, you are not on steroids or in puberty, you are not in outer-space, you have not developed diabetes, etc, THE MODEL WORKS PRETTY DAMN WELL.  Especially on the overweight.

The benchmark study:

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa0804748

This is a study of over 800 overweight patients on calorie restriction.  

Result: Reduced-calorie diets result in clinically meaningful weight loss regardless of which macronutrients they emphasize.

A study which attempts to show that calories-in != calories out.

http://www.ajcn.org/content/79/5/899S.full?ijkey=f3919ec7617632925bb12e0ffb8deeb08a678686

CONCLUSION

We conclude that a calorie is a calorie. From a purely thermodynamic point of view, this is clear because the human body or, indeed, any living organism cannot create or destroy energy but can only convert energy from one form to another. In comparing energy balance between dietary treatments, however, it must be remembered that the units of dietary energy are metabolizable energy and not gross energy. This is perhaps unfortunate because metabolizable energy is much more difficult to determine than is gross energy, because the Atwater factors used in calculating metabolizable energy are not exact. As such, our food tables are not perfect, and small errors are associated with their use.

In addition, we concede that the substitution of one macronutrient for another has been shown in some studies to have a statistically significant effect on the expenditure half of the energy balance equation. This has been observed most often for high-protein diets. Evidence indicates, however, that the difference in energy expenditure is small and can potentially account for less than one-third of the differences in weight loss that have been reported between high-protein or low-carbohydrate diets and high-carbohydrate or low-fat diets. As such, a calorie is a calorie. Further research is needed to identify the mechanisms that result in greater weight loss with one diet than with another.


Couple anecdotes:

Twinkie diet professor:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html

Crazy fasting lady:

Fat beginning; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bY9_Qviei7g&feature=list_related&playnext=1&list=SP52CFD735D7B5734E
1 year later (still crazy, much healthier) : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFbvOAbhcT8&feature=relmfu
  

Anyway, this debate REALLY has been put to rest.  In normal cases, if you want to lose weight you simply have to eat less. Different macronutrient ratios will make some differences and you certainly don't want to be protein deficient, but the bottom line is EAT LESS ENERGY (metabolism-wise) and calories are a pretty good approximation of that energy.  

  

804
Progress Journals & Experimental Routines / Re: ADARQ's journal
« on: January 16, 2012, 05:19:14 pm »
Quote from: adarqui on January 14, 2012, 10:52:44 pm
crossfit is too much effort. i'm on RetiredFit.

ran a bunch today with my dog, then ate 5 english muffins with butter.

need to figure out how to view videos on my new setup, would like to see the vids nightfly/jello dropped ni that january dunk contest thread.

right now im strictly ascii/console, except for viewing a few pics with zgv.


Linux?  What distribution. VLC player is probably your best bet for video.

805
Progress Journals & Experimental Routines / Re: Kingfush
« on: January 16, 2012, 04:54:37 pm »
Are you in CA?  I thought crunch was a local gym.  How is it?  My gf got a 6-month pass to it but I figured they wouldn't even have squat racks.  Maybe it will be useful when my regular gym is closed.  Been paying for the day passes on holidays, starts to add up.

806
Nutrition & Supplementation / Re: Cheat days on a weight/fat loss diet
« on: January 14, 2012, 07:09:30 pm »
Quote from: Raptor on January 14, 2012, 08:58:40 am
Quote from: TheSituation on January 13, 2012, 10:19:27 pm
Quote from: Avishek on January 13, 2012, 09:20:41 pm
WHere is that quote from.

If you want to go on a strict diet it will help, and is a good idea, but a strict diet isn't necessary if you're already pretty overweight and consume a lot of refined sugars/carbs, oils. Just reducing those and eating healthier will automatically get you lean.

Calories in, Calories out. Your body doesn't burn fat unless it needs to for energy. Has nothing to do with how "healthy" your foods are.



So you're saying what you eat, considering the calories are the same, doesn't matter? What about hormones? Like insulin?

You're basically saying "hey if you eat 2500 kcal of sugar or 2500 kcal of good healthy foods per day will do the same thing for your body fat %, body composition, strength etc"? It's not that easy.

I don't see where he said anything about strength.  The remark was concerning losing fat mass.  Doesn't matter if you eat 2500 kcal of healthy foods if it doesn't create an energy deficit you won't lose weight.

Is calories-in-calories-out 100% correct?  No.  There are many reasons why it's not.  For example the kcals that you read on the back of a package list 4 grams of trans-fatty acids and 9 grams of protein as 36.0 kcals.  In the human body metabolism of those two foods causes the true value of energy expenditure to be different.  But it is a MODEL!   All models are wrong, but some are useful (quoting the great statistician George Box), and calories-in-calories-out is a very useful model.

Concerning fat loss, calories-in-calories-out might be about 1% wrong.  But its still a far better way to go than advice like: "Eat lots of healthy greens and organic grass fed beef and don't worry about calories, your body will lean out cause the food is so healthy."   That advice is 99% wrong.  Take your pick.  

807
Progress Journals & Experimental Routines / Re: Kingfush
« on: January 11, 2012, 01:36:00 pm »
Just curious, whats the heaviest you have been at your current strength levels?  Did you have sufficient skill at jumping while your weights fluctuated at all?  If you are doing approx 40.0 inches at 170 what do you think you jumped at 180? 190? 200?

808
Progress Journals & Experimental Routines / Re: Kingfush
« on: January 07, 2012, 07:13:33 pm »
Quote from: Kingfish on January 07, 2012, 02:50:35 am
Quote from: T0ddday on January 07, 2012, 12:37:38 am


- my acceleration has been improving a lot with the contrasting sled drags + sprint workouts. calves, glutes and quads got bigger. no formal timing yet. im doing my GPP type training on my own. i will not have time to train and get solid top speed mechanics. plan is to go apeshit on the acceleration and hopefully by the time it decays, the distance has already been covered in decent time. 60m is just 1 test.

- yes, sprint training is very draining. one thing i learned lately is that it is very difficult to make a sub-max workout in sprinting.. its mostly all out all the time. the only way to control intensity is to not do it often. my squat dropped from 440x1 top sets for 14+ days to a barely 400-410x1. i felt so weak in the squat it was not cool at all. the strong is coming back again and by sun-mon.. il be back to paused 440 again.

- front squats really require strong spinal erectors to keep the torso solid. with the way i do my back squats, i rely also a lot on keeping my torso solid and upright. my secret is the GHR (at home) - weighted back extensions in the mid-high rep range. i do it whenever it feels right. high rep 135s then chug down protein shakes. my spinal erectors got massive just from those.

- yes, tight/sore legs does not mean a bad squat workout. in fact, i usually lift heavier when i have some sort of that quad lock feeling. sore lowerback and everything is mush, squat strength at least -30 to -40lb easily.  i actually thought that the floor was uneven at one point because i cant seem to keep everything solid..

- sore lowerback: use smith machine bar to foam roll yourself. find a way to dig deep into the muscles. good luck on your training. i like sprinting. i don't like how it kills the squats if you over do it.



Thanks for the advice about the smith machine bar.  I already use the smith machine for hip mobility step-overs, it will be great to find another use to the smith machine that doesn't use weight!  Yeah, I was forced to squat for sprinting in college but I never actually took it seriously.  Learning to actually do the lift and do it often has really helped.  The low back pain is annoying.  I don't have access to a real GHR machine, what do you think of partials in natural GHR as a a substitute.

About your 60m sprint.  Top speed mechanics require a lot of work AND they will trouble your recovery even more to do a lot of top speed work... So I understand leaving them out and seeing how you do.  Only thing to remember is when you do come feel yourself going really fast.... Focus on pointing the knee and getting the foot down and pushing off the ground rather than lifting the knee from the hip.  Should be easy for you to remember to keep pushing the ground, seems like it's what your best at.

Also, are you running the race by yourself?  It might help if you do.  Often runners who accelerate well but hold top speed poorly do much worse in races because they feel the other athletes coming up on them and passing them and they tighten up and do even worse.  In reality they will lose no matter what but they kill their times by tightening up when they get passed.  Hopefully you can run along and just push the shit out of the ground and you might come up with a surprisingly good time.  Sled work is one of the best tools for a short sprinter so it sounds like your already off to a great start.

809
Progress Journals & Experimental Routines / Re: Kingfush
« on: January 07, 2012, 12:37:38 am »
Quote from: Kingfish on January 06, 2012, 11:46:10 pm
Fri
Jan 6, 2012

Daily Squats Maintenance - Paused Reps
[150,200,250,300x4][350x2][400,410x1]

* cutting volume of heavy sled drags working nicely. paused rep squat maintenance got so much easier. could have gone 430-440 today.
* i can do a reverse SVJ 2 hand dunk now. lol. same shit, facing the other way.
* acceleration / sprinting and front squats are getting closer to my goals. front squats at mid-high 300s now


How is the 60m coming along?  Do you have a decent way of timing yourself.  A really impressive goal, interested in seeing your mechanics at top speed.  I tried to increase my squat frequency although I don't have near your work capacity and also have problems with recovery because of track work... BUT... moved squatting from 1-2X week to 3-4x week.  Only problem is anything greater than singles with more than 350 gives me low and mid back soreness that ruins me for a few days are ruins the next workout.  For example Wednesday was 3x315,3x3x365 paused... Today my back hurt too much to front squat more than 245.  Have you ever dealt with back soreness like this?  Does it go away?  Weirdly my legs seem to adapt just fine and stay in a sort of sore but tight state which doesn't hinder training but my back just gets tighter and hurts more and more. 

810
Progress Journals & Experimental Routines / Re: A Journey to Running Fast and Jumping High
« on: December 09, 2011, 02:50:59 pm »
Quote from: seifullaah73 on October 09, 2011, 11:57:55 am
If you are referring to my speed agility and quickness drills then no i just found some drills put them into a routine so it is my own routine i made. the video i don't know who is in it but i got it from stronglifts website for hip mobility drills, like the drill alot but gets tiring on my quads hips and hams when you have to go up and down stay down then go up then go down do it 8 times. but once done that's it done only one set.

np

Since the site was down. i have completed one week and have a lot to say

the workout went as normal

i am gradually improving the jump rope technique i can do 1 leg fast, alternate but since the rope is short i have to bring my arms below or level to hips but still get it over me.

when i do the ladder drills i try to move legs up and down as fast as possible when going through the ladder and this cause area around my last 2 fingers to pain most pain on the second from last toe of my right feet, am i running on the edge of the balls of my feet or is it something else?

i ran the 60m while i was counting; i know biased results, but counted mississiply and got 7 missis which is 6.5 which is good.

i also tried to blow out when one of my hands comes in front not both.

workout going well.

peace

Just read this, lol at the counting 60m.  6.5 while counting without spikes isn't good, it's freaking world class fastest man in the world type time.  Which might be a good reason to reconsider your method.   

Pages: 1 ... 52 53 [54] 55 56 ... 58