Post: #2301

(05-10-2016 04:02 AM)CrashBangWallop Wrote:  Michael Jordan had a coach. Lionel Messi has a coach. Floyd Mayweather has a coach. Tiger Woods had a coach...

Coaches should be judged on their coaching and nothing else.

An sports coach is like a psychotherapist, they are just there to help you look into yourself for what you already knew.

Post: #2302

(05-10-2016 10:55 PM)General Stalin Wrote:  Whats wrong with 16% BF? If your body looks good then who gives a shit. Getting to and staying at 10% BF or less would be a serious and very inconvenient lifestyle adjustment.

Also there is a Hydrostatic Weighing center in Denver, A2D, supposed to be accurate within 1% if you want a second opinion.

I personally know a girl who is a bikini fitness model/contestant whatever. She is a pro in this industry. She has very low body fat and keeps eating bland tuna/chicken and salad constantly... Fuck that shit! I'm not gonna eat tuna and chicken for 10 years just to get and maintain six pack....

Post: #2303

(05-11-2016 08:09 PM)Dominance Wrote:  

Quote:It's very simple, if you get stronger, you will get bigger. You have to lift progressively heavier weights. Are there other types of fitness? Of course. Speed, endurance, etc.

But for most novices, getting stronger will make them look better and fitter.

Not sure if that was related to my post. But I can say doing HIT is making me feel weak because to do it slow with zero momentum i've had to drop the weights a ton. But the benefit is when I build back up I know it's more real and not using momentum as much. Everyone else seems to be lifting so fast to me now though.

One fear I have though is HIT may slow me down and make it harder to move. I don't do it regularly now but occasionally I work as a bouncer and sometimes you just have to go physical so I hope it doesn't slow me down too much.

You have to lift heavier to get bigger and (my problem) EAT in caloric excess.

Thing is, I'm a lean guy who is strong, and even though eating is too much a chore, my maintenance of strength to some degree will keep that HGH flowing ... but I'll never be that BIG

Which just means that my wardrobe of custom fitting stuff makes me more attractive. It's sad that I didn't realize this a few years ago. What was the point in having fit figure with six pack if you just wear comfy clothes where no one can tell? They just say you're "a runner" or "skinny" or some other comment that I always took as a slight.

Post: #2304

(05-12-2016 08:12 AM)Wreckingball Wrote:  

(05-10-2016 10:55 PM)General Stalin Wrote:  Whats wrong with 16% BF? If your body looks good then who gives a shit. Getting to and staying at 10% BF or less would be a serious and very inconvenient lifestyle adjustment.

Also there is a Hydrostatic Weighing center in Denver, A2D, supposed to be accurate within 1% if you want a second opinion.

I personally know a girl who is a bikini fitness model/contestant whatever. She is a pro in this industry. She has very low body fat and keeps eating bland tuna/chicken and salad constantly... Fuck that shit! I'm not gonna eat tuna and chicken for 10 years just to get and maintain six pack....

That's one of her priorities. Unless you get confidence as a guy from having a real top level body/form, it doesn't matter for you. Just be somehwat fit. She on the other hand, gets way bigger bang for her buck, no pun intended. As on other threads, be reasonably or well fit with great personality confidence and resources (emphasis on latter) and girls won't care.

As Jim Wendler said, (ask a girl) "Performance trumps appearance every time."

Post: #2305

(05-12-2016 04:49 AM)germanico Wrote:  

(05-10-2016 04:02 AM)CrashBangWallop Wrote:  Michael Jordan had a coach. Lionel Messi has a coach. Floyd Mayweather has a coach. Tiger Woods had a coach...

Coaches should be judged on their coaching and nothing else.

An sports coach is like a psychotherapist, they are just there to help you look into yourself for what you already knew.

Nonsense. If only it were that simple.

Post: #2306

Been dead lifting 365 for 3x3 the past few weeks struggling to put on extra weight. I accidentally put on 35's instead of 25's today and did the same number of sets & reps. It did feel heavier but i still managed to do 3x3.

While re-racking the weights i noticed i just deadlifted 385 instead of 365. New PR.

It's all mental.

Post: #2307

This is out of curiosity and also just to bitch a bit, the gym I go to anyone who is there to lift is courteous enough not to stand in front of someone staring at themselves in the mirror.

Then there will be the middle aged dad/mom type who strolls in for their bi-monthly lifting session and despite there being room all over the gym, they choose to sit down right in between you and the mirror. This irks me to no end.
/rant

On a plus note, after not being able to/having little desire to bench I sat down and gave it a go the other day just to see where I'm at after hurting my elbow. Back at repping 225, was pretty happy to hit that benchmark again.

Post: #2308

Surprisingly good proper calf raise form demonstration.

Post: #2309

Calf raises are one of those exercises where I'm just thinking

Post: #2310

If you're calves are growing like an AIDs patient on a starvation diet, I recommend you try Chad Howse's solution for stubborn calves.

https://www.t-nation.com/training/no-wei...f-training

Post: #2311

(05-13-2016 01:41 PM)cascadecombo Wrote:  This is out of curiosity and also just to bitch a bit, the gym I go to anyone who is there to lift is courteous enough not to stand in front of someone staring at themselves in the mirror.

Then there will be the middle aged dad/mom type who strolls in for their bi-monthly lifting session and despite there being room all over the gym, they choose to sit down right in between you and the mirror. This irks me to no end.
/rant

On a plus note, after not being able to/having little desire to bench I sat down and gave it a go the other day just to see where I'm at after hurting my elbow. Back at repping 225, was pretty happy to hit that benchmark again.

Yep. It'll happen at those low price, mass marketed gyms like Planet Fitness, LA Fitness, etc. I only go to PF if I'm with a friend or to do cardio. The other gym I go to is a little more exclusive. You don't have to put up with idiots that have zero gym etiquette.
I will say some of the shit you see at PF will blow you fucking mind. 1/5th reps, ego lifting, and peacocking to the fucking extreme. Little guys walking around like they're carrying a fucking tv. They look so fucking stupid. There is a reason you rarely ever see a fit dude at PF. Although, I will say the one by my place is loaded with hot, fit 18-21 year olds. Just need to get the balls to approach them.

Post: #2312

(05-13-2016 06:56 PM)Anabasis to Desta Wrote:  Surprisingly good proper calf raise form demonstration.

I like that guy's weird synthol-looking bicep at 0:00 - 0:02.

Post: #2313

(03-07-2016 09:38 PM)Hades Wrote:  While I do like reading smart breakdowns of training and methodologies, nerds ruined lifting, nutrition science, and probably the game community too.

Stuff gets more and more nuanced, more intellectualized, and has greater appeal to the ass-sitting nerd lobby than it does to actual lifters. I argue that 95% of all lifting information on the internet and in books was written by people who didn't even squat 500, deadlift 400, and bench 300. Why bother vouchsafing the word of lifters (Bret Contreras, for instance) who would get stomped in a highschool powerlifting meet?

"Diminishing returns from information overload" is a real phenomena.

I would even posit that it has a regressive effect when put to action. It just gives neuroses to people who would otherwise have a lot of potential adhering wholly to a "flawed" training methodology. Lifting got "smarter", lifters have overall gotten weaker in the same timeframe.

This.

Martin Berkhan wrote an excellent article about this. The article is about 5 years old but still relevant:

http://www.leangains.com/2011/09/fuckarounditis.html

Post: #2314

I'm thinking about taking up rugby again for the first time in 14 years. I haven't played since I was 12. I've done a couple of sports to a pretty high level in the intervening years, and am a decent athlete. My main concern is whether through natural athleticism and coordination I can close the gap on years of not playing, and whether I am big enough to mix it with some of these guys. I know one of the blokes at the local club, who is a bricky, and he is a giant of a man - 6'2 17 stone with abs. I may have to put on a little extra weight to be competitive.

Post: #2315

What position would you be playing?

Post: #2316

Not sure. Think I'd shoot for fullback - requires less size than a centre, and less speed than a wing. Plus I have good hand eye coordination for catching the ball, kick well, and am quick enough to be useful. I was always a pretty decent tackler when I was a kid. I am only about 190 lbs, so I'm not big enough probably to play a lot of positions.

Post: #2317

One big thing you didn't mention but I think of when I think of a good fullback is the ability to read the flow of the opposing attack and time when kicks will happen and be in the best position possible. As someone that played scrum half and centre, this would be my biggest concern if they asked me to play back there. I don't want to get caught looking like an idiot in terrible position and then giving up a try.

You probably already thought of this though, and really the best way to do this well is having playing time.

Post: #2318

(05-16-2016 03:26 PM)Hallasan Wrote:  One big thing you didn't mention but I think of when I think of a good fullback is the ability to read the flow of the opposing attack and time when kicks will happen and be in the best position possible. As someone that played scrum half and centre, this would be my biggest concern if they asked me to play back there. I don't want to get caught looking like an idiot in terrible position and then giving up a try.

You probably already thought of this though, and really the best way to do this well is having playing time.

Absolutely. The big thing is that I will likely be shit at all of them initially. Fullback seems to have the shortest learning curve/require less of the sheer physical size/natural speed that other positions have. It may be that I could be a passable centre with time, I don't know.

Post: #2319

(05-16-2016 03:33 PM)H1N1 Wrote:  

(05-16-2016 03:26 PM)Hallasan Wrote:  One big thing you didn't mention but I think of when I think of a good fullback is the ability to read the flow of the opposing attack and time when kicks will happen and be in the best position possible. As someone that played scrum half and centre, this would be my biggest concern if they asked me to play back there. I don't want to get caught looking like an idiot in terrible position and then giving up a try.

You probably already thought of this though, and really the best way to do this well is having playing time.

Absolutely. The big thing is that I will likely be shit at all of them initially. Fullback seems to have the shortest learning curve/require less of the sheer physical size/natural speed that other positions have. It may be that I could be a passable centre with time, I don't know.

My personal opinion is that it all depends. On the level your team is at and the quality of your team mates.

The key I think will be having a team mate or coach that is willing to take control of you "in game" and tell you where you need to be. Full Back is a tricky position; a decent opposition fly half will make you look very silly if you don't know where you need to cover. Similarly, if your own 9/11/14 doesn't know what they're doing either and fails to sweep/fall back at the right times, you'll be horribly exposed.

"Hunting" newb fullbacks is a BackRow sport and is almost as fun as demolishing cocky little fly halves. I think the last thing you want is to spend 8 minutes having kick after kick after kick headed your way accompanied by 3 charging back rowers and the odd blood-smelling 12.

I think starting out on the Wing is the way forward. It's a much simpler position to get to grips with and will allow you to concentrate on enjoying yourself and playing with the ball a little; not just stressing out about whether you are standing in the right place every 10 seconds.

Even 12 is going to be easier than 15 as long, and this is vital, that either your 10 or 13 knows what they're doing and essentially tells you exactly what to do, in game.

Lots will have changed since you played...I played U18 a level below International and my brother, who is nearly 10 years younger played for a Prem Academy U21 (something that didn't exist when I was 18...who knew in 1998 that one could earn a living playing rugby??!!).

When we played together on the opposite flanks last year, he spent most of the game shouting at me, directing me to places and positions that I didn't realise I was supposed to be in. Instinct had been replaced with professional positional discipline in that decade. Even the lowly team that we were playing for seemed to have taken this stuff on board.

Post: #2320

Fullback would be an awful position to start off with, your lack of positioning experience will be really exposed. High balls will also put you under a LOT of pressure.

What height are you? 190lbs is a reasonable size for a lot of positions for amateur level rugby. Presuming thats a well built 190lb that is - but from seeing your posts around the place I think you are?

I played for years at around 200lbs at 6ft 0 and never felt particularly small on the wing. I'm a bit heavier (and slower) now (210-220lb roughly depending on season) so tend to get moved to 12 or backrow. Thats still with bodyfat between 10-15%, though, so relatively trim. If I was carrying much more fat I'd probably have to learn how to scrummage in the front row, which I'd rather not.

CrashBangWallop has already said it, but I completely agree with the wing/12 recommendation to start off with. You might be a little small for 12, or you might be a little too slow for wing...but hopefully one will suit.

Post: #2321

@CBW, Zatara, thank you for the advice. The trouble is that I may not be quick enough for the wing, or big enough for 12, as you say. I'm 6'1, 190lbs and lean. All I can do is go along and see what they reckon. I might bulk up a bit, maybe carry slightly more bf, as that might give me more options.

Post: #2322

I think you'll be OK at that size&weight. You could/should maybe put on another 5lbs relatively easily (fat and muscle). But otherwise at 6ft 1 190/195lbs you'll be a reasonably sized winger.

I know its tempting to look at the professional wings like George North who're absolute monsters, but thats way way less common at amateur level. At 6ft 1, almost 200lbs, and lean I'd say you'll be an average to slightly bigger than average wing, depending on the level you're playing at.

If you're lean you should be fast enough for wing at that weight too hopefully I'd say. Again, don't compare yourself to the sprinter-level athletes at pro level. Amateur level is a lot more forgiving!

Post: #2323

(05-17-2016 12:14 PM)zatara Wrote:  I think you'll be OK at that size&weight. You could/should maybe put on another 5lbs relatively easily (fat and muscle). But otherwise at 6ft 1 190/195lbs you'll be a reasonably sized winger.

I know its tempting to look at the professional wings like George North who're absolute monsters, but thats way way less common at amateur level. At 6ft 1, almost 200lbs, and lean I'd say you'll be an average to slightly bigger than average wing, depending on the level you're playing at.

If you're lean you should be fast enough for wing at that weight too hopefully I'd say. Again, don't compare yourself to the sprinter-level athletes at pro level. Amateur level is a lot more forgiving!

Thanks mate. I'm not slow, I'm just not rapid like some guys I was at school with were. I probably run about a 13s 100m. Maybe a bit better, I haven't timed a sprint since I was a kid.

I'm sure you're right. When I watch the local team occasionally from the sidelines I feel pretty confident I could mix it comfortably, but you never know once you're on the pitch.

Post: #2324

(05-17-2016 11:50 AM)H1N1 Wrote:  @CBW, Zatara, thank you for the advice. The trouble is that I may not be quick enough for the wing, or big enough for 12, as you say. I'm 6'1, 190lbs and lean. All I can do is go along and see what they reckon. I might bulk up a bit, maybe carry slightly more bf, as that might give me more options.

I don't know what level you're hoping to play at, but outside of the national leagues, I think you'll be alright on the wing. Obviously I don't know how quick you are, but as long as you have good defence (which judging by your posts, I imagine you will) that seems like a good fit.

Post: #2325

(05-17-2016 12:27 PM)Cyr Wrote:  

(05-17-2016 11:50 AM)H1N1 Wrote:  @CBW, Zatara, thank you for the advice. The trouble is that I may not be quick enough for the wing, or big enough for 12, as you say. I'm 6'1, 190lbs and lean. All I can do is go along and see what they reckon. I might bulk up a bit, maybe carry slightly more bf, as that might give me more options.

I don't know what level you're hoping to play at, but outside of the national leagues, I think you'll be alright on the wing. Obviously I don't know how quick you are, but as long as you have good defence (which judging by your posts, I imagine you will) that seems like a good fit.

Just at the local town level. Regional league stuff really - not got any designs on a late bid for the Australia tour or anything like that.