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

    • Hi all,   long time listener, first time caller   i was wondering if anyone can help me identify a transistor on the climate control unit board that decided to fry itself   I've circled it in the attached photo   any help would be appreciated
    • I mean, I got two VASS engineers to refuse to cert my own coilovers stating those very laws. Appendix B makes it pretty clear what it considers 'Variable Suspension' to be. In my lived experience they can't certify something that isn't actually in the list as something that requires certification. In the VASS engineering checklist they have to complete (LS3/NCOP11) and sign on there is nothing there. All the references inside NCOP11 state that if it's variable by the driver that height needs to maintain 100mm while the car is in motion. It states the car is lowered lowering blocks and other types of things are acceptable. Dialling out a shock is about as 'user adjustable' as changing any other suspension component lol. I wanted to have it signed off to dissuade HWP and RWC testers to state the suspension is legal to avoid having this discussion with them. The real problem is that Police and RWC/Pink/Blue slip people will say it needs engineering, and the engineers will state it doesn't need engineering. It is hugely irritating when aforementioned people get all "i know the rules mate feck off" when they don't, and the actual engineers are pleasant as all hell and do know the rules. Cars failing RWC for things that aren't listed in the RWC requirements is another thing here entirely!
    • I don't. I mean, mine's not a GTR, but it is a 32 with a lot of GTR stuff on it. But regardless, I typically buy from local suppliers. Getting stuff from Japan is seldom worth the pain. Buying from RHDJapan usually ends up in the final total of your basket being about double what you thought it would be, after all the bullshit fees and such are added on.
    • The hydrocarbon component of E10 can be shittier, and is in fact, shittier, than that used in normal 91RON fuel. That's because the octane boost provided by the ethanol allows them to use stuff that doesn't make the grade without the help. The 1c/L saving typically available on E10 is going to be massively overridden by the increased consumption caused by the ethanol and the crappier HC (ie the HCs will be less dense, meaning that there will definitely be less energy per unit volume than for more dense HCs). That is one of the reasons why P98 will return better fuel consumption than 91 does, even with the ignition timing completely fixed. There is more energy per unit volume because the HCs used in 98 are higher density than in the lawnmower fuel.
    • No, I'd suggest that that is the checklist for pneumatic/hydraulic adjustable systems. I would say, based on my years of reading and complying with Australian Standards and similar regulations, that the narrow interpretation of Clause 3.2 b would be the preferred/expected/intended one, by the author, and those using the standard. Wishful thinking need not apply.
×
×
  • Create New...