aj_rock

Generally, the more trained you are, the more stimulation your muscles will need to grow. As a newbie, one or two working sets will be enough to induce strength gains and muscle growth. Regardless of rep range. Really don't recommend high reps on compound movements though.

What? Ancient peoples had no concept of good vs bad bacteria... if the food started to smell bad and/or look funny, they threw it away. I didn't discuss all of them, but a quick check online on anthropological methods of preserving meat started out as simply burying meat. That was the very first preservation method; hell, wild animals use that to preserve food. But enhancing nutritional value? Like I said, we preserved our food long before we ever learned about bacteria. Here's a link describing in brief the history of preservation. Very few were done in the interest of improving nutritional profiles; they just wanted to be able to eat it weeks or days after acquiring it without getting ill. I also think that's a little unfair to conduct an ad hominem attack against all food scientists/engineers because you dislike the chemicals that huge committies of people decided to put in a food product to be sold. Try discussing your points with one of them and I'd wager money that a real food engineer would kick any one of our arses up and down the street in terms of a nutrional profile vs preservatives debate.

I would think they could? Just might be more difficult what with the excess mass and what not

TOOOOOOQUES. For those of us residing in northern climates.

Eventually, you'll need to move them to seperate days, just because both lifts will task your overall system a great amount. Like others are saying, you'll see better progress doing 5X5. Personally, I do three of each to split up the work between them. Same if I'm doing a workout with, say, incline and regular bench press; I try to get 5-6 sets between the two exercises.

They were in my gut before the thought crossed my mind she promised to make more some day, so I'll remember then!

Ok, so this is not a fitness w00t by any means. It's prooooooooobably kind of anti-fitness actually. But, this year, me and my girl are going to Ft. Myers for spring break, on me. As a result, I haz no money to spend on valentine's or her birthday. Her response to this? She made me a batch of bacon roses. BACON. ROSES. BACON MUTHATRUCKIN ROSES. Love that woman

Funny thing the overweight/skinny calves thing. Because of the way your calves take on load, they tend to not decrease in size in proportion to the decrease in weight for someone previously obese. Therefore, you can usually tell if someone used to be heavier by looking at their calves Just a random story. Another point to add though is that heavy strength training tends to improve muscle fiber recruitment and CNS signal strength preferentially over hypertrophy. AKA, you learn to more efficiently use muscle you already have.

CF aside, I read through his articles; this guy knows his shit. A lot of his articles pertain more to training, health, and fitness in general than CF, even if he wrote some of them for CF specifically. Like I said though, CF is a program, and like most programs, will give you what you put into it. I personally could never follow it, because I'm one of those specificity guys as a rugger, I'd rather streamline my training to knock other people over as efficiently as possible

I think a manly demonstration of NF-ness is in order to determine superiority. Best method would incorporate the man card Conk posted.

I'll admit, I have no interest in the CF games. I only came to find out spezzy's real name. You are now Ms. Ardison to me

Well, yeah makes sense. Marathon runners don't have muskuls.

Ok I want an NF las vegas meet up now. All the hookers and cocaine, none of the roofies and knives.

Do you initiate them on a roof-top in las vegas with roofies and the mingling of blood?

I'd get a new doctor. Ketoacidosis is a serious condition that would have killed you by now if it was really left un-treated. Unless you have some serious biochemical problems, the acidity of your diet won't affect anything but your teeth.

I do that now, even while working.. I'm up at 6 to work, but then I go out on the weekends and routinely sleep in until noon... also kinda sucks cuz i just dont have the energy friday night

Oldest woman ever to live smoked an average of two cigarettes a day, at least according to wikipedia. I mean, really beyond the cancer risks, moderate smoking really doesn't have huge health issues associated with it; always when you get people smoking packs a day. Not that I smoke. But anyways, you're absolutely correct. Why people bother arguing diet vs exercise always seemed silly to me. If you're going to make an effort, might as well do a bit o' both. Using a rather crude example: Assume you start with 10 fucks to give. You could give ten to exercise and none to diet, and vice versa. If you gave five fucks to each, I believe you would do better than in the either/or scenario. Giving 6, 7 , 10 to each would be better, but you really should just do both.

*shrug* you make some good points, but like I said, I think it's more preservation techniques that work by killing off other life that could be a risk. Like you said, beer and other alcohols used to be the safest thing you could drink, and in fact, in older times many things were preserved in alcohol. However, we can acknowledge that alcohol is, in fact, inherently toxic to the body. Very large quantities at a single time can kill you, and large enough quantities over an extended periods of time can have devastating effects on the body as well. All because alcohol is, in fact, toxic to life, in general. You're right that the negative effects are imperceptible, mostly, on a day to day level. But the same way you get a hangover from too much alcohol in one sitting, you get bad side-effects from over-eating processed food in a single setting. At the same time, long term effects of some forms of processing are largely unknown. Even if you don't notice anything wrong now, I will contend that eating a significant portion of your food intake from significantly chemically preserved food will, perhaps not be the single factor in death and/or disease, but be a contributor to the fact. Mind you, I've always been a proponent of moderation. Life is gonna kill all of us someday, and if, by eating a couple pieces of chocolate every couple days, I shorten my lifespan by two minutes, well I didn't want those two minutes anyway. You're right that a lot of people over demonize processing in general. I'm sure the anxiety and stress people feel over the concept of processing does much more damage to their systems than the processing itself You address a lot of issues at once here Waldo, and non of them are really all that isolate-able. One flaw I did notice was where you address continually rising life-expectancies. Not sure about you, but I don't see many over-weight/obese senior citizens. The people of the World War generations had a much more active, healthy lifestyle, and it remains to be seen whether life-expectancy stays where it is, or drops drastically with the diabetically inclined generations.

There's a lot of psychological fluff behind snacking. Boredom, ritual... you just gotta look at your triggers and be more conscious of them. .. I say this as I try not to eat leftover valentines chocolate >.>

Im sure every student on NF knows EXACTLY what you mean. I always fixed it by just forcing myself up at the right time, and if that meant being up all night, well, I'll be tired enough that following night to sleep

Here's to compensation for doing the things you love! Congrats spezzinator!

@ Waldo: mind = blown. I bow to your statistics skills good sir.

Anyone who takes the analogies seriously will be subjected to darwinism at it's finest

Exactly what I was thinking. This guy may be the king of the back exercise, but I'd like to see how much he can bench And yes, I saw the one-armed push-ups. Those are more technical and don't actually require huge chest strength.

Hmmm I looked at their website quick time. How the hell does 23g carbs + 5g protein + 1g fat = 100 calories? should be like 120. But that's kind of a side point. I'm always wary of the 100 calorie van. The idea is good on paper, but where someone used to eat one muffin at 400 calories, they'll eat 4 of these for the same, or according to my math, about 80 more. It's the same confectionary crap you find everywhere else. Except either in smaller portions, or filled with undigestible fluff. Sorry, I don't mean to rain on your parade. But you always have to be skeptical. Make sure you keep track of how much you're eating.