Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Possibly. I'm not as fussed about my physique as I used to be; guess I'm kinda over it now. I've been lifting weights for long enough that I feel as if I should have achieved my aesthetic goals by now. Birds said I would get a six pack once I did 10 pull-ups... Well I did that, no six pack. It's disappointing and I don't want the frustration to get in the way of my enjoyment of gym; hence why I guess I've turned to the strength aspect rather than looks. I looked much more defined a year ago than I do today, but I am stronger today...

Stop twisting my words female

I said when you were capable of doing 10 pullups...and I mean proper full range of motion pullups...that you would have enough abdominal muscle for a six pack. That doesn't mean you don't have to do the cutting to make it visible.

You are your own harshest critic and also throwing out a lot of ignorance here. I think that if people saw your physique and read what you wrote here they would think you're being a tad unrealistic. Some facts: you're eating literally twice as much as when you say you were more "defined". You're significantly stronger having increased weights by about 50-60%; you have more muscle now, despite training for less than 1/3 the amount of time/sessions that you used to. You've been plagued by injuries over the last couple years that we've had to rehab around. I think you need to add some perspective here before looking to your goals and saying "I give up" or "that didn't work" when you've actually only done half the work to get there.

If you go to the Arnold Classic on the weekend a girl i know will be competing and on a booth answering questions. Her name is Melissa Darmawan i believe she is on the Superior Supplements booth. Have a chat to her, very friendly and informative. You can't miss her she is the giant asian

Another woman you could email/Facebook is Renee Armstrong (i believe that is how its spelt) she either did or does compete on stage and focuses on strength and power lifting. Her fiance owns Bondi Strength.

But obviously she is in nsw

I'm not sure? It was my shoulder that was causing me pain. Basically now I have a lower back hyper extension. Can't walk up stairs properly, can't get in and out of a car without being in pain, stuff like that.

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...