Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

try explosive/plyometric stuff for your calves... weighted jumps, hops, sled pushing etc

Would explain why quite a few tennis players seem to have decent calves for their body size...

elena+dementieva+calves+legs+muscle+calf+tennis.jpg

I would agree that it is mostly genetic. But I have also read others have had good results with using a combination of standing and seated calf raises, 3 times a week give or take. Also, to target the left/right sides of each calf, you can alternate between pressing up with the big-toe side of the foot and the pinkie side of the foot. But apparently it's not so good to actually rotate the foot (toe-in or toe-out).

Travel back in time, and find a way to be an egg in another ovary to your mums and also find a way for another person than your dad to exploded in there.

No wonder you have a 1 star rating on here..You honestly are just a dumb meat head.

Do you even lift brah ?

Daniel, you serious mate? TTT has a lot of experience...

I dont doubt that he has experience.

But his experience makes him look down upon the people who dont have as much experience.

Everyone has to start somewhere and I bet he didnt just wake up one day knowing the meaning of life

whatever you do with calves, do it until they burn, I find between 10-15 reps works well.

gaining size on your calves is difficult as TTT said, alot of it has to do with genes. With that being said mine have grown.

also what Birds said, hill runs or even just put a real heavy pack on your back 20kg+ and go bush walking, your calves will grow after a few months of doing that.

try explosive/plyometric stuff for your calves... weighted jumps, hops, sled pushing etc

Going to read into thise explosive training for calves, will try weight jumps tomorrow though. A lot of people say just squat to get calves, but I do that 3x a week anyway and not seeing any difference really.

Dont want to end up like dis.

GlBpu.jpg

Travel back in time, and find a way to be an egg in another ovary to your mums and also find a way for another person than your dad to exploded in there.

I'm assuming you mean genetics? I don't know, I don't really believe in that whole "I cant grow calves so it must be my genetics", they'll eventually grow with the right training, they just might take longer.

Edited by Dani Boi

Going to read into thise explosive training for calves, will try weight jumps tomorrow though. A lot of people say just squat to get calves, but I do that 3x a week anyway and not seeing any difference really.

Dont want to end up like dis.

GlBpu.jpg

I'm assuming you mean genetics? I don't know, I don't really believe in that whole "I cant grow calves so it must be my genetics", they'll eventually grow with the right training, they just might take longer.

Hahaha holy shit! Looks like a stiff breeze would blow him over.

I bloody love training legs.

Full range of motion needed for calves too. Mine often cramp up because they're so tight though.

of course you can improve the size and shape of your calves.

But take that guy in the picture above, he can throw everything he's got at calves, and they will grow a little and change shape a bit, but they will never look like the calves of a trucker as Birds said earlier.

your genes decide how your muscles are in regards to the width, length, where it ties in behind the knee and soleus.

depends on your make up of fast twitch or slow twitch fibres.

when it comes to calves you can improve what you have, but there will be people who have awesome calves by walking tot he kitchen and back.

Google "doggcrapp calf training"

try it out.

I strongly suggest you ease in to this and don't just go do the reps and sets suggested straight up.

I'm serious. you will not be able to walk.

doggcrapp training in general is pretty good stuff for those of you image inclined peeps.

I think higher reps ranges are the go for calves like people have said. I have crappy calves, my gastrocnemius are literally only 1/3 of the length of my shin so im never going to have big calves due to genetics. I usually pick a weight and go til failure, with both a seated and straight legged exercise . Calves would be predominantly slow twitch fibres due to there function in everyday life and your type IIa fibres will have taken on the characteristics of type I fibres if all you do is walk around.

Edited by Mitcho_7

higher reps for calves? the fckers are used to carrying your body weight for hours at a time doing god knows how many reps... you have to shock them, force them to adapt by doing something different

I have always had decent sized calves (nothing spectacular) not sure about my genetics but I've played basketball for nearly 20 years... just like tennis, basketball is played on your toes a lot and all the jumping and sprinting is demanding for the calves

This. Let the strength gains put on the kg. People get too caught up in weight figures when trying to get big, which are meaningless without BF% to back them up. It kind of mystifies me when someone says they would like to weigh xxxkg or set weight goals without knowing what they'll look like at that weight.

Also big on power to weight ratios. Putting on fat is only going to reduce this! I love being light at 79kg and benching the same (and sometimes more) than my 100kg friends.

Exactly, when I started I was the old...'I wouldn't mind being around 80 but it be muscle, not fat' Im not near there now and don't mind,

I'm still gaining strength.

Started back on deads and squats tonight after a six week hiatus (flu + cold, thanks). I decided that, rather than getting depressed over not being able to do the same weight/reps as before...or using shitty technique to obtain them...I would seize opportunity to start fresh with perfect technique and low weights.

Where I used to squat to parallel, I thought I'd give ass to ground a go at half my normal weights. My problem with squatting to parallel, has been that it's tough to judge if you are actually making it to parallel. It's also very easy to cheat, whether you are decreasing your range of motion later on in the set or involving more back muscles to help get it up (ala good mornings).

So I started with a warm up set of 10 @ 40kg. When I lifted the bar off the rack I laughed at how light it felt compared to 100kg+. In fact, the first rep felt like I had nothing on my neck. However, 10 reps later and I actually started feeling it. Up the weight went to 45 and then 50...the latter of which left my legs almost as sore as 100kg parallels did previously (probably helps that I haven't done squats for weeks).

The most satisfying thing about this experience, was knowing that my range of motion was at it's limits; that every rep in the set had the same ROM. I couldn't cheat in any way and my back stayed as straight as an arrow. The weight was also very much on my heels, where it should be. After I was done my legs felt much more comprehensively worked than parallel squatting.

Now I know the weights weren't high, but I was surprised at how much I could do considering I'm effectively doubling my ROM. I expected even half my normal weights to be a struggle and it wasn't...it just worked my legs much more thoroughly and satisfyingly - hard to explain. I urge everyone doing parallel to give it a go, I'm definitely a convert. Will be interesting to see how long it takes until I'm doing what I used to do to parallel.

Now mentally hypercritical of people doing half squats at high weights lol. Humans = hypocrites.

I remember doing 100kg to the point where you were effectively resting on maximum ROM for 3 seconds - ass on heels - and then standing back up BUT NOT LOCKING OUT KNEES. Repeat for 8 reps.

Then try to walk out of gym.

The walking part didn't work.

Legs said no.

I would love to be able to squat properly (ass to ground style), but my flexibility doesnt allow it at the moment and my right knee doesnt seem to be a huge fan of trying to go lower than parrallel either.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Latest Posts

    • I came here to note that is a zener diode too base on the info there. Based on that, I'd also be suspicious that replacing it, and it's likely to do the same. A lot of use cases will see it used as either voltage protection, or to create a cheap but relatively stable fixed voltage supply. That would mean it has seen more voltage than it should, and has gone into voltage melt down. If there is something else in the circuit dumping out higher than it should voltages, that needs to be found too. It's quite likely they're trying to use the Zener to limit the voltage that is hitting through to the transistor beside it, so what ever goes to the zener is likely a signal, and they're using the transistor in that circuit to amplify it. Especially as it seems they've also got a capacitor across the zener. Looks like there is meant to be something "noisy" to that zener, and what ever it was, had a melt down. Looking at that picture, it also looks like there's some solder joints that really need redoing, and it might be worth having the whole board properly inspected.  Unfortunately, without being able to stick a multimeter on it, and start tracing it all out, I'm pretty much at a loss now to help. I don't even believe I have a climate control board from an R33 around here to pull apart and see if any of the circuit appears similar to give some ideas.
    • Nah - but you won't find anything on dismantling the seats in any such thing anyway.
    • Could be. Could also be that they sit around broken more. To be fair, you almost never see one driving around. I see more R chassis GTRs than the Renault ones.
    • Yeah. Nah. This is why I said My bold for my double emphasis. We're not talking about cars tuned to the edge of det here. We're talking about normal cars. Flame propagation speed and the amount of energy required to ignite the fuel are not significant factors when running at 1500-4000 rpm, and medium to light loads, like nearly every car on the road (except twin cab utes which are driven at 6k and 100% load all the time). There is no shortage of ignition energy available in any petrol engine. If there was, we'd all be in deep shit. The calorific value, on a volume basis, is significantly different, between 98 and 91, and that turns up immediately in consumption numbers. You can see the signal easily if you control for the other variables well enough, and/or collect enough stats. As to not seeing any benefit - we had a couple of EF and EL Falcons in the company fleet back in the late 90s and early 2000s. The EEC IV ECU in those things was particularly good at adding in timing as soon as knock headroom improved, which typically came from putting in some 95 or 98. The responsiveness and power improved noticeably, and the fuel consumption dropped considerably, just from going to 95. Less delta from there to 98 - almost not noticeable, compared to the big differences seen between 91 and 95. Way back in the day, when supermarkets first started selling fuel from their own stations, I did thousands of km in FNQ in a small Toyota. I can't remember if it was a Starlet or an early Yaris. Anyway - the supermarket servos were bringing in cheap fuel from Indonesia, and the other servos were still using locally refined gear. The fuel consumption was typically at least 5%, often as much as 8% worse on the Indo shit, presumably because they had a lot more oxygenated component in the brew, and were probably barely meeting the octane spec. Around the same time or maybe a bit later (like 25 years ago), I could tell the difference between Shell 98 and BP 98, and typically preferred to only use Shell then because the Skyline ran so much better on it. Years later I found the realtionship between them had swapped, as a consequence of yet more refinery closures. So I've only used BP 98 since. Although, I must say that I could not fault the odd tank of United 98 that I've run. It's probably the same stuff. It is also very important to remember that these findings are often dependent on region. With most of the refineries in Oz now dead, there's less variability in local stuff, and he majority of our fuels are not even refined here any more anyway. It probably depends more on which SE Asian refinery is currently cheapest to operate.
    • You don't have an R34 service manual for the body do you? Have found plenty for the engine and drivetrain but nothing else
×
×
  • Create New...