Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 300
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It's funny, when I was 50kg, I couldn't imagine getting to 60kg. When I was 60kg, I couldn't imagine getting to 70kg. When I was 70kg I couldn't imagine getting to 80kg. I'm now 80kg and in my mind still nowhere near where I want to be size wise, so the next goal is 90kg.

You were 50kg!! Lol f**k that is light man...how tall are you

Needless to say we would all be pretty damn light if we stopped training lol

How much extra body fat are you carrying from when u were 50?

Speaking of squatting, I've once again revised my squatting technique so I'm back to squatting relatively light..

One of a couple of things that has been pointed out to me is that at the bottom of a squat, if Your lumba ie ass tucks your doing it wrong as your not engaging your hamstrings and glutes properly...

It's fookin hard to stop especially when your used to squatting a certain way for so long but it can be done...

Next time get someone to watch you squat and I guarantee most people do it wrong.. Just sayin :)

One of a couple of things that has been pointed out to me is that at the bottom of a squat, if Your lumba ie ass tucks your doing it wrong as your not engaging your hamstrings and glutes properly...

Next time get someone to watch you squat and I guarantee most people do it wrong.. Just sayin :)

Not really an issue of doing it wrong, it just means your mobility isn't good... tight hip flexors etc will pull the pelvis forward at the bottom of a squat

Birds: tuck just means you lose the arch/flat lower back and your butt dissappears and 'tucks' under... also known as 'butt wink'... you tube it

If you saw someone do it you would see it straight away.

The best way I can explain it is that for the top half of the squat there's a nice straight line down your back to your bum... Though where most people's squat is floored is when they get to the bottom half of the squat and their bum tucks around under their body...

It is most noticeable when full range of motion is used as it generally occurs once the femur is past 90 degrees of the knee...

Grab a mate and get him to squat, you should see it

Edited by GTR_JOEY

Not really an issue of doing it wrong, it just means your mobility isn't good... tight hip flexors etc will pull the pelvis forward at the bottom of a squat

Birds: tuck just means you lose the arch/flat lower back and your butt dissappears and 'tucks' under... also known as 'butt wink'... you tube it

Call it what you will, at end of the day I'd wanna be activating as many leg muscles as I could... Most people will be too stubborn to change their technique cause they ll have to drop weight and their ego might be a little hurt. If these people choose to continue on then I couldn't care less :)

If all the muscles aren't used in a squat then your more likely to plateau before you really should.. So in the long run your better off

Your right in saying it is a result of tight hip flexors, probably glutes as well... I've started to do more stretching to make it easier on myself

I like that mikes log is also the squat talk thread.

If you are squatting to increase the size of your quads for the reason of looks, then don't worry too much about butt wink.

But the flexibility and mobility issue is something that we will all eventually need to sort out. Best to start BEFORE you're told to do it by a physio which you've gone to visit due to injuries or chronic pain.

Speaking of squatting, I've once again revised my squatting technique so I'm back to squatting relatively light..

One of a couple of things that has been pointed out to me is that at the bottom of a squat, if Your lumba ie ass tucks your doing it wrong as your not engaging your hamstrings and glutes properly...

It's fookin hard to stop especially when your used to squatting a certain way for so long but it can be done...

Next time get someone to watch you squat and I guarantee most people do it wrong.. Just sayin :)

Very interesting you happen to bring up the topic of revising your squat technique, because I have a similar story. I would say for the first few years of my training I was squatting wrong. I was doing the movement in a way where it focused mainly on the quads, and I seemed to stall around the 120kg mark for AGES. When I started training at PTC after a bit of a break from training, something changed and I started to use my hamstrings and glutes more, and it feels like the quads only come in at the top of the lift. That's when my squat weights started increasing and I am where I am now. The thing for me that backs up the notion that some change in motor pattern occured (or whatever) is the feeling in my legs after a squat session is quite different. Before I could literally feel the burn and pump all in my quads, now not so much in the quads at all. The DOMS pain in the legs the days after is still pretty epic though lol.

You were 50kg!! Lol f**k that is light man...how tall are you

Needless to say we would all be pretty damn light if we stopped training lol

How much extra body fat are you carrying from when u were 50?

I'm 5'7 (170cm)

When I was in school I was big intro cross country running, so you can see why I weighed f**k all and had not a shred of bodyfat on me.

That was quite a few years ago though, grown a lot since then and obvioulsy my training interests have changed lol.

I stayed very lean (visible hard abs, so <10% easy) up until about 65kg. Then I noticed I started to lose the abs. By 70kg abs were pretty much gone. At 80kg I guesstimate I'm sitting at 23% bodyfat and I'm the strongest I've ever been. I'm actually booked in for another dexa scan on Friday because I'm starting a new diet next week and the dexa will be the 'before' starting point etc. I've actually been trying a supplement called Res100 for the last month. A sponsor on AusBB forum gave it to me for free provided I got a before and after blood test and posted it up. The trial period ends this week so I've got the followup blood test booked for Saturday. Will be very interesting to see the results, mainly if free testosterone has increased and Oestrogen has decreased. I personally wouldn't spend any money on off-the-shelf supplements (except protein powder), but getting to try one for yourself for free is pretty cool.

Edited by GHOSTrun

Well that's exactly what I'm talking about mate, using more muscles=bigger lift... And let's be honest everyone wants to squat big and make progress.. Did you have trouble re adjusting your technique? Much extra stretching?

Will be interesting to see the results of your test and estrogen levels once you ve done a couple of weeks on this supp.. Will have to keep us updated mate... Though I still think we don't need test boosters in our early 20s but we'll see hey :D

461591_10150978499663945_588173944_9693717_1658831762_o.jpg

Dosage instructions are 2.5ml/twice daily and hold in mouth for 2+mins, coupled with 20-50ml extra virgin olive oil daily, for 30 days then get follow up blood test.

Here are the before blood tests (22/5/12):

1.jpg

2.jpg

3.jpg

4.jpg

5.jpg

6.jpg

7.jpg

8.jpg

Started taking the product on 30/5/12.

Well that's exactly what I'm talking about mate, using more muscles=bigger lift... And let's be honest everyone wants to squat big and make progress.. Did you have trouble re adjusting your technique? Much extra stretching?

It actually feels easier, probably due to the movement being more efficient.

I never strecth. My warmup is always

bar x 10

40kg x 10

70kg x 10

90kg x 10

120kg x 10

and that ensures the joints are warm and the muscles have plenty of blood in them before the heavy sets.

I have very tight hamstrings and lower back back, and I don't doubt that regular stretching would fix all this and probably fix my sore back issues, the sad truth is I'm just too lazy/cbf to do it lol.

Trying to tailor an eating plan close to 35% protein, 50% fat, 15% carbs, at a maintenance calorie level, to try and shed some fat. Can I get some of your opinions on the food plan to make sure I'm heading down the right track? Wanting to start next week :)

8087_10151043013193945_991636591_n.jpg

35% Protein, 49% Fat, 13% Carbs

Edited by GHOSTrun

*According to calorie counting program, the above is roughly this:

Protein - 1020.4 calories - 255.1g

Fat - 1405.8 calories - 156.2g

carbs - 381.2 calories - 95.3g

Total - 2807.4 calories - 36% protein, 50% fat, 14% carbs

Exercise level

3 heavy lifting sessions and 1 ptc-style cardio session a week

Edited by GHOSTrun

Did my shopping for the next few weeks

178044_10151050920258945_2121650594_o.jpg

Boring and routine begins Monday. I think I will miss 2,000+ calorie Pizzas & 1.25L Pepsi nights the most :(

Heavy lifting Monday, Wednesday & Fridays, with PTC-style cardio on Thursdays

Edited by GHOSTrun

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...