Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

How big are you at the moment birds? I remember reading that you're 6ft+ and you were around the high 70kgs-low 80kgs lean.

If that's still the case, there's still plenty of room to add lean muscle to that frame!

6'3, 79kg and ~8% bf. Not saying I have a lot of muscle, but I'm naturally a thin framed person...used to weigh 62kg at the same height.

There's room for another 20kg if i want it, but that's not me. I like running, being nimble, playing sports where too much weight is a disadvantage...and looking good for girls, for whom there is such a thing as too big. If I gain another couple kilos of muscle along the way, I won't cry about it, but it's not a goal. I've achieved what I wanted to achieve at the gym! Now I'm just going with the flow...

Plus once you get old, it's tough not to get fat after weighing that much! Look at all the ex footballers and rugby players who were 95kg+ in their prime. I think I'm quite strong for my weight, when you take into account my height...and I'm happy with that. I know it seems like a waste of potential, but IMO, so too are bodybuilders who have so much muscle that it looks ugly to most people.

I definitely will hit the lean bulking hard again after summer once the shirt will be staying on haha, though gonna keep it as clean as possible. Try hard to work back towards 80kg without putting too much of the fat back on. Doesn't bother me though, as most of you agree being ripped looks better :P Really I want to aim for a 2.5x bodyweight deadlift, so putting on too much more weight isn't desirable.

Got 160kg 1 rep yesterday. Quite happy with that. Will make better gains when I'm stuffing my face again hahaha

P.S. Troy, expecting nudes of hot bimbos filling my inbox when you get back

I'll try my absolute best bro ;)

How long have you been lifting birds?

Ummmm

He doesn't?

Wow, I was expecting only like 2-3 yrs max.

I dont mean to sound like an ass when i ask this (im genuinely interested), but how have you not gotten massive in that 9 years? I know you stated that you didnt want to get huge so your training might not have been soley focused on hypertrophy, but in 9 years of lifting I would of thought you would get a really solid amount of size regardless?

I have been lifting for just over a year now and I would say im comparable in size to you, but im 6'1, weigh 83kg and would be at about 12-15% body fat. When i started lifting i was only like 73kg and probably still a similar/slightly lower amount of bf%. I know my growth over the next year probably wont compare at all to that, but it should still continue upwards providing diet etc are still in check.

p.s. sorry for hijacking your thread troy...

I reckon as you get older, if you're not into getting strong or full on body building, maintaining a lean phsique is a pretty good ideal to strive towards, with the alternative being this:

387_382980345111280_529584248_n.jpg

Birds has always said he's not much interested in getting strong or big, just being lean, which he's achieved, so can't really fault him for that.

I'm not trying to have a go by any stretch, I was merely asking what sort of weight training birds has been predominately doing for his 9 yrs of lifting to maintain rather than continue to grow in size.

If his goal was to get really big, then 9 yrs worth of hypertrophy training should be more muscle mass/size than he has. But he has stated he didn't want to get huge and I am wondering in what way he altered his training once he reached the size he was after, so that he maintained rather than gained more mass.

Edited by Mitcho_7

size comes from food.

it's been said many times before.

you want to get bigger or smaller then you adjust what you eat.

By lifting weights, he has kept his muscles active.

with cardio or diet he's stayed the same.

This^

I get what you're saying Mitch - not taking it the wrong way at all. The key to it is in the second part of my sentence, where I said I've had this physique for ~6 years. As in, it took me about 3 years to get here (probably longer than it should have taken, but I didn't have very good advice to go off back then). For years I have limited both what I could do in terms of weights (purposely not stepping up, when the muscles were asking for more) and my food intake.

I do modify parts here and there, where I think my body shape could do with adjustment or balancing...but these days it's all about maintenance, because I'm happy with it. I've already explained my motivations for this and, if I wanted to be really big, you would have found me on the juice years ago! My physique isn't for everyone...though I will say, I have a lot of people ask me for a routine or how to get what I have (just because I limit size, does not mean it's easy to get where I am or keep it). Troy was one such "customer", when he first started out, though his goals may have changed since then. My goals may change one day (many believe/hope this will happen at a lifting comp), but until then!

Side note: progress at the gym is not a linear thing...your biggest gains happen in the first couple years. Don't quote me, but I think it was Markos, who said in one of his newsletters, something along the lines of you having ~5 years to get most of your gains...because after that, gains become significantly harder.

Ultimately my goals remain very similar, though more defined and logical (rather than aiming for a bodyweight specifically etc). I moved on from the routine you gave me Birds only due to it feeling too repetitive for me. It was definitely delivering results as an appropriately structured push/pull should, though I just got mentally bored of the same routines. As of recently I took a fairly simple routine from BB.com which I think I've put in this thread before, but you can find it quoted again below for good measure. I've slightly modified it, but only in terms of reps/sets for certain things - bench press for example, where my sets are currently 60kg 12 reps, 80kg 6 reps, 90kg failure (usually 2-4 reps), 80kg failure, 60kg failure. Otherwise the daily structure remains the same. I've got some great strength and physique gains from it so far, and I don't feel as though it will get boring too soon.

Day 1

4x Squats: 5 reps

3x Ham Work: 8 reps

3x BB or DB Row: 8 reps

2x Bicep Curls: 10 reps

Day 2

4x Bench Press: 5 reps

3x Military Press: 8 reps

3x Tricep Isolation: 8 reps

2x Ab/Calf Work: 15 reps

Day 3

4x Deadlifts: 5 reps

3x Pullups: 8 reps

3x Leg Press: 8 reps

2x Biceps Curls: 10 reps

Day 4

4x DB or Incline Press: 5 reps

3x Chest Dips: 8 reps

3x Side Lateral Raise: 8 reps

2x Ab/Calf Work: 15 reps

Day 1: On

Day 2: On

Day 3: Off

Day 4: On

Day 5: Off

Day 6: On

Day 7: Off

Yeah I knew you'd moved on from my routine or at least modified / added to it. Just didn't know whether you were still aiming for the same physique you were a couple years ago.

Nothing wrong with a change up - what I do these days is pretty far removed from what I originally sent you anyway! I've kept the push/pull split going, but have modified exercises and principles along the way, depending which muscles needed more work etc.

In the end, as long as you're happy with what you've got and what you're getting, it doesn't matter what you do or how you do it...and no one can really tell you otherwise!

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



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • I know why it happened and I’m embarrassed to say but I was testing the polarity of one of the led bulb to see which side was positive with a 12v battery and that’s when it decided to fry hoping I didn’t damage anything else
    • 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.
×
×
  • Create New...