aj_rock

Because I'm SUPPOSED to be good at estimating, I'm gonna say 24%, higher than Waldo's. Again, guessing female body fat is hard, because you can't get 99% of the picture from the abdomen area. Hips/thighs can be a big target too, so I think that should bump it by a couple percent at least.

This is actually very much in line with current thinking. The story goes that blood flow ends up being one of the biggest factors in where fat depots are, but not in the way you think! You see, blood flow 'shifts' given your current activity n stuff; your body naturally contracts and expands the blood vessels to alter where blood is being directed. Drugs can also alter blood flow (some substances like yohimbine are purported to actively re-direct blood flow via receptor interactions). But anyway so high traffic sites, such as your organs, will tend to grab a lot of fat out of the blood stream when storing; they also tend to give it up easily. So you have a constantly varying yet somewhat consistent amount of fat in this area (assuming you aren't highly obese). Other areas, like the lower abdomen, or hips/thighs for women, tend to get much less blood flow. So much less, that any time these areas DO grab onto fat... it doesn't leave. Like ever. It takes a general lack of fat in other areas and some body finicking around to really get the requisite flow to those areas, and even then the loss is slow and frustrating. The point being that, once these 'hard' fat deposits are removed (or if you're an ectomorphic bastard who just never had any), an adequate diet and exercise regime can prevent them from coming back, even if you do generally accumulate body fat. Storage will go up in the high traffic areas, but the stubborn fat build-ups take much more time to accumulate. TL;DR waldo's observation is correct. Once the stubborn body fat comes off, other re-accumulated fat will tend to other areas, and it takes a long time of sitting on your butt doing nothing to rebuild the fat deposits.

Do... do you always do stag flags in a nightie? Right yes errrr regardless, the form does look great, especially on the first couple reps. Keep it coming!

Is true, is true. The catspaw speaks truth.

I do biological engineering, and was told by my physiology professor that I could tooooootally do med school. I was like... yeah no. Four painful years of school was enough, why do four more?

Hmm. Even as an engineer, most of that went over my head. I'm gonna have to start revising my opinion of other majors... (kidding btw. I try not to judge academic pursuits, it's just stereotypical for engineers to do that.)

Hey! Sorry your game got cancelled (I didn't even know until I showed up for ours).Seems like we keep missing each other by a couple days :/ Relevant note about your dad: If he's anything like my parents, I'd suggest not having him come to watch games. Parent always seem to freak out when they see the contact I think 3x per week lifting is pretty ambitious, considering you're already practice + game for 3 days of the week. Re: the passing. Get the motion of the pop pass down before you start worrying about the spin pass. Considering that you probably won't have to pass further than 5-7 meters most time, that'll get you up to par without worrying about the niceties of spinning it out.

I've seen it said before that hangovers are primarily caused by dehydration. As such, strong beers will dehydrate your body faster than lite beers. All is fixed with a gatorade 2 before bed though (well, IMO )

Maybe I'll post... *click* *refresh*

Can confirm, Waldo is apparently a psychic wizard. o_O Might need your help doing my football lottery picks next season...

Living in toronto, I can say the #1 plus about this city is the sheer multitude of craft breweries up here. Next exam is in eight days for me so.... brb getting a pint.

Romanticized concept... I like how eloquently that puts my exact feelings on the topic.

I volunteer as proof-readerrrrrrrr

Well, at 200 pounds, losing 5 lbs would mean a net mass loss of 2.5%, more than enough to make an impact on ease of locomotion. It's weird yeah because most of it is water, but I've seen the same thing, especially in the vertical jump; I add an extra inch between day 1 and day 8 of a cut.

I'm mildly jealous. I just e-mailed my thesis to my prof without so much as a how'd'you do Either way, congrats! Can't wait for the video (which I assume you performed in costume for)

I gave up a loooong time ago on ever making the snap crackle pops go away :/ a couple separations will do that to them I hear... It's usually that internal/external rotation that buggers up too. So overhead presses end up feeling fine, dips are the worssst and bench might be tolerable.

Keep in mind that there ARE different types of hypertrophy. Strength training gets you this; that would be <=8 reps per set, your heavy compound squats n bench n OL's n stuff. Not very fast growth, but dense, hard muscles. BB training gets you this; that's generally seen as 12+ reps per set, and causes what is termed 'energetic growth'. What you are growing is the muscles capacity for unabated, unaided activity (aka it doesnt need to pull as much glycogen from the liver because the energy requirements are local), but they're also soft and squishy and not terribly strong. Not saying that sarcoplasmic growth isn't warranted in some situations (lot of mixed sport players will do SOME amount of this because you NEED to meet energy demands on game day), but the recent trend has been to more or less avoid sarcoplasmic training entirely in favor of only doing myofibrilic training. And just in case you think I'm leaving a rep-range out, both the 8-12 range AND isometric body holds tend to encourage a bit of both. Strength requirements to do BW in unusual poses are high, but you also try to max out hold time.

I hate how by the time I find anyone's thread, it's already three pages long >.> Lookin good! Taking my advice I see I hope it works out well for you! I find it helps you feel better overall with the breaks on weekends, because instead of counting down the days to the end of the diet, you only count away until the weekend... Which, of course, you already do, most likely

It is generally recommended that the ladies keep a longer feeding window, yes. Martin indicates that he believes that too long of a fast will have negative interactions on female hormone levels. So, that being said, if YOU feel fine, do what you do. Else, a small snack to start your feeding window should work fine.

Reading a few posts on that website made me feel dirty. I need a shower. Or an adult.

o_O how did I miss that one? Now I have a cereal I can eat besides cornflakes... As per above, anytime I have cereal its usually cornflakes and skim lactose-free milk. Natrel milk somehow has higher protein content, and I'm ALWAYS feeling ridiculously full after a bowl... No longer though. Must. Find. Kashi. golean to be specific. Although after checking their site, looks like the canadian version is still higher calorie than the US version... grumblegrumble It changes things on you? Remember that you have to manually set %age levels every time you change calorie goals.

It's still nowhere near the protein content of the SKP Not gonna lie, I do love protein powder recipes tho!

... this... this exists? I would buy the shit outta that. *checks online* WADDAYA MEAN NOT AVAILABLE IN CANADA.

got like a weight chart I might be able to take a gander at? this is gonna bother me now...

TFL! I know those cuz I literally tweaked mine two days ago. A good one is to stand, cross the affected side leg over the other and lean away. Any exercise to stretch TFL is gonna involve some serious lean. Thinking about your nutrition values... TEF is only supposed to be 10%! ... ok I just ran some numbers. This makes no sense. If I assume that you have a constant activity modifier for BMR (aka you dont change activity levels between bulking n cutting), your TEF becomes ridiculous, like 58%, and your TDEE without TEF is like 900... But if I allow for changes in activity level, and keep TEF at 10% intake, your cutting activity modifier drops like a stone (1.4 to like 1.06). sumting ain't right. Mind you, possible confounders include macro% make-up (the order of actual thermic effect has fat lowest, carbs mid, and protein the highest thermic effect), caloric mis-counting, and error in weight change/measurement, but nothing to explain why it requires an 800 calorie swing in intake to change weight gain vs loss by a pound. An 800 calorie swing should change rate of gain/loss by 1.5 (aka you should be gaining or losing .75 of a pound a week)