aj_rock

Please note that I don't CF at all. I was more pointing out Carjacks absolute loathing of CF.

More like, over six reps? Goddamn crossfit.

The only real joke here Brucey boy, is that you put any faith into IQ measurements it's just a bit of prideful wanking done by people who happen to score well on it, yet still seem to mess up their personal finances, love lives, career, etc. just as much as everyone else. And trust me on this one at least Bruce: if we ever had a full-out NF meet-up party, I'm sure there would be a line up out your bed room door bud Of course, you'll be passed out in drunken sleep because you're a clueless bastard But that's usually what the women find attractive anyway.

On a related note: nerdy celebrity figures. A lot of people point to Natalie Portman. But THIS. GIRL. SO FRIGGIN GODDAMN CUTE. Also loves WoW, old-skule video games, and writing comics. Yeah. Cue bugs bunny/babs.

You calculated your deadlift didnt you*? Start your deadlift much lower than that, if you haven't done it before. You need to get that form right. *if you read this and don't know how, the sum of squares of your squat and bench should equal your deadlift, ideally. If you only know one lift, then 3-4-5 in proportion for bench press, squat, and deadlift respectfully.

Regardless, I've definitely seen videos that start off that way... ... Did I just seriously admit that? Meh

I had a math teacher in high school with a legit stripper name. When you said it properly, it sounded like 'Mystery'. Looked like a stripper too. hafkldjfljsgfdfdg.

You could, and that is the point I was trying to make. Unfortunately, OP didn't mention anything about counting his calories, so inevitably his cardio would be adding to an already medium to large sized deficit. eating 4500 vs 5000 is still eating like a footballer. IMO of course Just wanted to say it would be a massive caloric intake is all...

Invisible Children has a terrible track record for actually instigating change, being transparent about their operations, and actually getting the relief funds where they're supposed to be going. I agree that it's a cause worth caring about, but I don't think I would ever get around to purchasing an 'action kit'. And don't for one second think that Kony and the LRA are the worst of the lot/should be prioritized over other criminals against humanity...

If OP wants to lose fat, but gain strength thru SL5X5, I would absolutely NOT recommend HIIT or interval training centered on running. Between the deads, squats, and high-impact running, it's jsut too much stress on the legs. You'll get a tear or simply overtrain your legs. Instead, maybe swimming, or some sort of full body plyometric system could help. High intensity circuits. Barring that, simple LISS, as we've all discussed before, can help you burn lotsa extra calories. LISS intensity is more like a fast walk/slow jog pace though, and in order to burn an appreciable amount, you need to spend a great amount of time doing it. But yeah, overtraining for a newb would be a bigger concern for me. Also, it's fine if you want to run your butt off like a football player IFFFFF you also EAT like a football player, which, if you're trying to lose fat, you almost certainly are not doing.

Are you looking to gain weight or lose weight? If gain, then eat away. Moar protein though. If lose, then cut some more calories, mostly from your CHO. Still need moar protein.

whewf. Very nice. So in relevance to what else I've said, I think I actually rated you incorrectly NORTH of where you were. Like I said, atypical body fat patterns, combined with a 6'3 frame. First off, every inch of height you add gives you an extra 3-4 lbs LBM just because of bigger bones, heart, lungs, etc. Given my initial mis-diagnosis of lower LBM, this makes much more sense for your height. I'd put that first picture closer to 21-22%. BF calculators would be thrown off by the tire around your tummy, but you were mostly just skinny-fat. Second picture, I'd actually put you a little lower than 10%. With tire-type BF patterning, you HAVE to get below 10% to get the abs, and, well... Anywho, 200 @ 10% gives you an LBM of 180, and with your most recent numbers, correcting for height, about 5 lbs would be muscle. You had most of the muscle base you see now in that first photo. But that gives you an old LBM of 175 (if you adjust that down to 165 for a 6', it makes sense), and 25 lbs of fat lost with 5 lbs muscle gained. Analysis aside, that is a very very nice transformation. Look into IF or calorie zig-zagging to try and keep the leanness you achieved, and you'll be absolutely monstrous in a year or so.

Woah. Regardless of other parameters, NOTHING is more toxic in terms of calorie intake than alcohol. Alcohol actually gets metabolized and expended preferentially because your body wants to be rid of it so badly. Not that I have anything against alcohol. But fructose is definitely not 'toxic' for the liver.

I do a cyclical keto diet, which means that I absolutely stuff my face with yummy carb goodness after a workout on wednesday. My house ends up looking something like this.

To be fair, even water can be over-oxidized.

Please point me in the right direction for this news because I'm not finding it. Capcom issued an apology and Buttfucktanians just keeps verbal diarrhea-ing about how much more fun video games are when you inform your opponent just how aesthetically attractive they would look with your fist up their ass. No, but really, this guy needs a used butt-plug for his pie-hole. It'll keep him from causing further damage and maybe get him to drop a pound or two.

The purported effects of anti-oxidants is that, well, they prevent particles from oxidizing. Oxidized particles in general suck, both in biology and elsewhere. Iron = strong, usable material. Iron oxide = rust = useless crap. Either way, yeah you don't want oxidized free radicals in your body, but you CAN oversupplement anti-oxidants. Most free radical damage occurs in the brain, so unless you have some sort of neuro-degenerative disease, you really shouldn't need too much excess anti-oxidants.

A lot the newer bars are not only removeable, but moveable within the door frame itself. Set it lower and do inverted rows

I see nothing new in this article. All I see is a 'renown' heart surgeon flailing his arms in the air while trying to write an article explaining what we already know. I say trying because this article's writing style is absolutely atrocious. But like I said nothing new. Wait, chronic inflammation is bad for us? whodathunkit.

Chromium is over-rated and over-priced for what it's proposed to do for you. Unless you have a deficiency, and/or are diabetic, don't bother. BCAA's are good under the right conditions, such as a lean athlete trying to get leaner by doing IF and fasted training. Not so much for a beginner, even less so if you still carry a fair amount of body fat.

As someone with a diabetic father, uncles, grandfather, great-grandfather, I consider GI and GL highly relevant But pendantics aside, controlling sugar intake helps some people for sure. Relations between insulin sensitivity and BF% seem to have pretty strong correlations. Because overweight people tend to have chronically elevated insulin levels, they become insulin resistant, which is the first step down the garden path towards diabetes in the first place. The body also tends to release insulin in relation to GL, but not in direct proportion. Essentially, too much GL and your body will secrete TOO MUCH insulin, which then drives blood sugar down to low-normal levels, which then instigates a lethargic feeling and stimulates hunger again. Non of which will directly prevent fat loss, but will wreck havoc upon you psychologically. If you have the mental fortitude to trudge past the insulin spikes and aren't afraid of insulin resistance, then by all means. One last note: if you're already fairly lean, and want to lose a bit more fat, then controlling insulin levels becomes a lot more important, as the physiology behind moving that fat changes once you get your BF% low enough.

Kwik-time responses: - a gallon of water weighs less than ten pounds. If you want to do rows, it's gonna quickly start taking up massive amounts of room if you don't use dumbells or something - if you can complete all the reps perscribed, time to move up. You then won't be able to do all of them, and you can work your way back up - don't worry about relative levels of strength between legs and upperbody. In the beginner stages you don't really run any risks of muscle imbalance. I'm no expert in bodyweight routines by any measure, but I'm sure the routine you're looking at will tell you ways to advance, so I don't think you need to worry about doing too many squats/lunges/whatever.

You caught me. I mixed GI and GL there; thanks for the catch! But eating your sweets right after a healthy meal does tend to not make you feel as crappy as if you just gorge on sugar on an empty stomach. Related note to your food choices: berries & coconut milk are both lower GI foods; cocoa's neutral (I think); cake and ice cream, depending on what brands you get/ingredient ratios, can be around white bread, if not higher. So yeah, if your insulin sensitivity is off, absolutely the high GI junk will make you feel bad. Making you miserable for days doesn't make sense though; the food has been cleared from your body, especially in the high GI case, within hours. Are you sure it's not just placebo effect? (like, OMG I can't believe I just ate that/that will set my progress back so much/I'm so weak etc etc.)

The biggest difference seen in sugar metabolization is in glycemic index. Lower GI = less effects on insulin and blood sugar. Using white bread as the standard at a rating of 100, apples sit around 52, grapes at 62 bananas around 76. Sucrose, usually seen in table sugar, is at 92. So it's still better for you than white bread Mind you, even honey has a rating of 104, instant rice is insane at 128. Even so, a lot of the reasoning for reducing sugar deals with GI and the related glycemic load, which is just a measure of GI times how much of something you eat. So you can still get a huge GL by eating a crapload of apples. You get the same load eating a heck of a lot less instant rice though. Anyway, GI and GL tables can be found all over the place, but if fat loss/controlling insulin is a goal, lowering your GL should be a goal, not lowering sugar intake in and of itself per say. You can artificially lower GL by consuming non-GL inducing foods with the foods that do. As an example, higher fat content in full milk makes it's GI lower than that of skim milk. Pro tip: this is why, if you really wanna indulge your sweet tooth, you eat dessert right after your regular meal. A good dinner with veggies and chicken will reduce the GL of whatever sugary crap you consume immediately after. Not that I'm endorsing excess dessert consumption or anything

Might be a little unrealistic. Adding more than 10 pounds to a lift a week will lead you to stall out early. Squats are jusssst beyond that. Deadlifting 315 from 225 will probably take 10 weeks, especially since you're doing 225 X 3. Bench, hard to say, because you typically add maybe 5 pounds a week. So you're definitely being ambitious. With a solid work-out plan involving enough rest, food, and protein, I think you could make 2/3 of these goals. Lower each by about ten pounds or maybe a rep, and 3/3 is definitely doable.