Muscle Basics [Archive] - Kung Fu Magazine Forums

blooming lotus

03-25-2004, 09:22 PM

That is the single most exciting piece of work I have come across for a long time. It's not so much new information...but it's kinda beginning to make me look credible;) :p

I'm only up to about pg 5ish, but thisd is exactly what I'm talking about when I speak about my ab-workouts. I guess I should've said smaller fibres than smaller muscles but if you apply the work outs I've posted to this information,...or is that vice-versa??LOL...I think you might understand why I train the way I do and get the results I do.

What I want to know is what dietary research correlating to the reported studies is available? obviously different tul/mu programmes in relation to individual body size and again, relativety to particual objective ( or sport like body building and weight lifting vs ma)....

while we're here...so sifus know di*k ha Iron???lol....why is then after reading pg 4 was I rflmao and remembering grandmaster chans' website ( talking about how he ..and no doubt so many other sifus...allocate form for training prioritally to body size and shape of individual students?)p :D :D :cool:

also what about qigong...being that fajing apparently comes from group II....and ...sh*t hey...

I could go on for freakin hrs on this paper!!

cheers

very excellent piece of reccommendation :cool:

IronFist

03-25-2004, 10:26 PM

I still haven't read it yet.

Toby

03-25-2004, 10:34 PM

Originally posted by blooming lotus
That is the single most exciting piece of work I have come across for a long time. It's not so much new information...but it's kinda beginning to make me look credible;) :p

I'm only up to about pg 5ish, but thisd is exactly what I'm talking about when I speak about my ab-workouts. I guess I should've said smaller fibres than smaller muscles but if you apply the work outs I've posted to this information,...or is that vice-versa??LOL...I think you might understand why I train the way I do and get the results I do.
How does the article apply to how you train? I see no relevance and it doesn't help me understand your training methods. Can you explain? :confused:

If you're saying that e.g. your 2 hours a day on the ab machine is training your slow twitch fibers, then yeah, I think most of us knew that. But 2 hrs is still much more than necessary to train those fibers. The time frames that people talk about for training fibers are:

Type IIB: < 20s
Type IIA: 20-(I don't remember) 60ish s.
Type I: > 60ish s.

The 60s boundary isn't necessarily 60s. It might be 45s or 1min or 2min, but it's not e.g. 1hr.

I didn't really get anything new from the article. It's pretty much saying what I already knew: strength people train IIB fibers with short sets and heavy resistance. Bodybuilders train IIA fibers for hypertrophy with medium sets and medium resistance. Endurance people train long time frames with light resistance.

blooming lotus

03-26-2004, 05:43 PM

Originally posted by IronFist
I still haven't read it yet.

dude...you don't know what you're missing here...I think this could give you a whole new level of understanding.....

as for Tobes s' comment

ok ...the crux is that when you train your ft fibered muscles, you are physiologiacally to expect early fatigue of those groups, or the ft function...( being max strength for short periods)..however, if you train your fb and st fibre groups ( endurance and speed ) as their mu derecuitment kicks in you can trade off intermittently with your fts ( which has a shorter span of performance and will provide power to compliment or ake the overload of foresaid)...

the article also states that "the need to decrease tul (time under load ) as one grows stronger, also makes sense. As one grows tprogressively stronger, and the adapting Ft fibers hypertrophy ( >than St fibres), one will see a greater lvl of fatigability"...henmce the need to de-volumise load...so what are you going to do with your extra time???...you're going to work your St and fb fibres to optimal and you'll still get your ft fibrers working at max complimentary rate.

so especially for maers, the optimal way to train your muscle fibers and groups is EXACTLY like I've been saying the whole time...train your endarance, speed to carry and your strength to support..if you don't get me after this, and agree 100%...someone needs to go back to school ;)

cheers

Vash

03-26-2004, 05:49 PM

Finished reading the thing. Ugh, I'd forgotten how dry this stuff really is. I'm so used to reading laymen-speak I'd lost my tolerance for this. But anyway . . .

BL, I like your summarization. Of course, I don't exactly recall where you offered advice which was EXACTLY in line with the article cited . . .

It's not exactly revolutionary, but it does kinda say "check me out. I'm relevant."

blooming lotus

03-26-2004, 05:54 PM

Originally posted by Toby

How . Bodybuilders train IIA fibers for hypertrophy with medium sets and medium resistance. Endurance people train long time frames with light resistance.

Bs it says that!!....it says for optimisation overload your Fb and sts and compliment on your fts at decelerating vol....

and for the record...they are advocating with the science can I smugly add :p lol...that high vol sets of gruoups like your cross-section groups is training at optimum...especially for women who have predispostion to maximimastion of these groups as opposed to men who are pre-dissposed to strength in lieu;) :p

what I want o hear about is studies relating to nutrional research apparently carried out simultaeneously, particually glyco use, supply and longeveity of...I also want to hear about peoples opinions on qigong and nuerual motor influence..like pulse control and general nueral-chemical stillness and what the physiological account of this phenomena is...like has anyone done any documented clinical research here???

and I also want to see some charts relating to specific fibre types for ea muscle group..I know this is subjective to training to there is an av appearance of and I'd like to see exactly what I'm talking about...

Ford, I'd llove to talk shop on this with both you and Iron...M/a in mind... I think someone might learn something:p :D

Vash

03-26-2004, 06:31 PM

That's a good idea in regards to nutrional management studies in conjuction with the training studies. I want to say I had a link to something in regards to that, but I don't.

I'll dig through my stuff, see if there's something about that in there.

IronFist

03-26-2004, 10:00 PM

Originally posted by blooming lotus
Ford, I'd llove to talk shop on this with both you and Iron...M/a in mind... I think someone might learn something:p :D

Ok. Let me read it first. :D

Toby

03-27-2004, 05:04 AM

Originally posted by blooming lotus
...so what are you going to do with your extra time???...you're going to work your St and fb fibres to optimal and you'll still get your ft fibrers working at max complimentary rate.

so especially for maers, the optimal way to train your muscle fibers and groups is EXACTLY like I've been saying the whole time...train your endarance, speed to carry and your strength to support..if you don't get me after this, and agree 100%...someone needs to go back to school ;)

You've misunderstood the article. Read this bit from near the end:

... the concurrent maximal hypertrophy of all fibers seems unlikely. Incompatibility of different modes of training is a strong possibility (as has been proposed in 14, 60), so that attempts to maximally stimulate all the different components of a muscle (as has been suggested by some authors) is very likely not possible. One cycle or protocol that may be optimal for stimulating certain fiber sub-types and/or enzymes may compromise the development of other fiber sub-types and/or enzymes. In fact, one may speculate that under conditions of competing exercise stimuli (where there is fatigue of both glycolytic and oxidative fibers), one's physiological adaptive processes may shift optimal hypertrophic adaptation towards the fatigue-resistant fiber spectrum. Fiber adaptation/transformation studies already suggest this.

In essence, you can't train all fiber types simultaneously. So for someone like me or Iron or lots of other guys on here, we have a strength focus and trying to train slow twitch fibers in addition to IIB fibers would compromise the IIB fiber performance and possibly cause atrophy of IIB's. So in one workout program it is very difficult to train type I, IIA and IIB's effectively. We just choose to train with a IIB bias, you choose a I bias.

I'm glad you're so stoked on the article. Nothing new for me, though.

Toby

03-27-2004, 05:20 AM

Originally posted by blooming lotus
Bs it says that!!....it says for optimisation overload your Fb and sts and compliment on your fts at decelerating vol....

No b.s. Read the article:

S(slow-twitch or type I)-these fibers are generally innervated by smaller, slower conducting neurons ... Endurance athletes often display a higher relative percentage of these fibers (15, 35).

FR (fast-twitch, fatigue resistant, or type IIA)-these fibers are generally innervated by medium diameter neurons, have medium firing threshold, produce medium or high force and are also rich in oxidative enzymes ... Many bodybuilders seem to have high relative amounts of these fibers (33).

FInt and FF (fast-twitch, intermediate fatigue and fast-twitch, fatiguable or type IIAB/IIX and IIB)-these fibers are generally innervated by the larger, fastest conducting neurons, have the highest firing thresholds (i.e. last to be recruited) and produce the greatest force ... Sprinters and Olympic lifters often have a higher relative percentage of these fibers (2, 63).

I already knew this, and the article says it clearly. Why do you think that e.g. sprinters and Olympic lifters have a higher % of IIB fibers? Do you think that they ever do endurance work for their type I fibers? No way. Why would they care? Type I fibers do nothing for them. Same with bodybuilders with a propensity towards type IIA fibers. Do they care about type IIB? No. They care about how good they look and their program is geared to that, sarcoplasmic hypertrophy through IIA fiber recruitment. They don't care at all about their 1RM. I once read an article about a female U.S. Olympic 100m sprinter. Her track work regime consisted of never more than 400m total broken into short distances twice (or maybe 3 times) a week.

IronFist

03-27-2004, 12:26 PM

Like Toby said, I was going to add that that is why powerlifters don't run marathons, and why marathoners don't need to lift weights.

IronFist

03-27-2004, 01:16 PM

Whoa, I just noticed that I have the book cited as reference 21: Fleck and Kraemer "Designing Resistance Training Programs." Good book. I haven't looked through it in a while, tho.

Serpent

03-27-2004, 05:49 PM

Well said, Toby. bl - you need to calm down and cencentrate for a minute. It's you that might learn something.

mickey

03-28-2004, 03:51 PM

Greetings,

This looks like a term paper that has too many ideas, none of which are new. And it fails to offer a new perspective on anything. The writer offers nothing to his research. My feeling is that he is trying to demonstrate a working knowledge of "something" for purposes of certification.

Ironfist, I hope that this isn't your work. You are much sharper than this.

mickey

blooming lotus

03-28-2004, 04:03 PM

you know...different people of different intellegence perceive information differently...if you still don't get it and want to train your ft fibres as priority, relevant to ma performance:confused: ..well..good luck to you all....

see you comp time;)

IronFist

03-28-2004, 04:13 PM

Originally posted by mickey
Ironfist, I hope that this isn't your work. You are much sharper than this.

:eek:

I read the first couple pages of it. It just seems to be a summary or compilation (hence the huge amount of sources he cites) of ideas.

blooming lotus

03-28-2004, 04:19 PM

exactly!!! check out that list of references

all those folks to tell you what I been saying myself :rolleyes:

in his defence though, people will argue, so the more documented support you have, the more credible your argument ;) :D

Vash

03-28-2004, 04:33 PM

BL

As has been pointed out earlier, your hypothesis on training all types of muscle fibers in an equal manner is not supported by the cited document; it is refuted.

Despite it's short comings, I like it. Indeed, not revolutionary, but handy none the less.

blooming lotus

03-28-2004, 04:41 PM

I'm not saying that all....what I'm saying is because that's not possible, and because you only have a limited amount of potential with your ft fibers, before max mus are recruited and you lose stength...if you concentrate on training the other 2 ( couple/compliment that with your skill and application), and after having reached peak on yuor fts...talking training for a sec..., go for a devol on the ft, pick up the st/fb ( which does according to the paper optimise that fibre, even as recovering)....it will be in prime to bear the overload when the st/fb are in recovery, injecting intermitent bursts of supportitive strength, as opposed to maxing out on your short lived strength, and comming up untrained because you neglected your other 2.

then, if you add your hard qigong skills to your training, the strength fiber issues should be totally irrelevant, because we're now running a nueral override etc etc

how do you not get that??

Serpent

03-28-2004, 04:55 PM

Originally posted by blooming lotus
I'm not saying that all....what I'm saying is because that's not possible, and because you only have a limited amount of potential with your ft fibers, before max mus are recruited and you lose stength...if you concentrate on training the other 2 ( couple/compliment that with your skill and application), and after having reached peak on yuor fts...talking training for a sec..., go for a devol on the ft, pick up the st/fb ( which does according to the paper optimise that fibre, even as recovering)....it will be in prime to bear the overload when the st/fb are in recovery, injecting intermitent bursts of supportitive strength, as opposed to maxing out on your short lived strength, and comming up untrained because you neglected your other 2.

then, if you add your hard qigong skills to your training, the strength fiber issues should be totally irrelevant, because we're now running a nueral override etc etc

how do you not get that??
Man, I see a post like this and I can only picture bl's desk, with overturned coffee cups all around the place and bl vibrating in her chair as she types at a million miles an hour, gently foaming at the mouth! ;)

blooming lotus

03-28-2004, 05:01 PM

what the?? I don't vibrate....and I am no where near as untidy or erradic as you think...I'm like fastidiously tidy.....

but if you're looking for a conveinient throw off to compensate for your or their lack of knowledge........

what ever:rolleyes:

mickey

03-28-2004, 05:11 PM

Blooming Lotus,

I had to go back and reread that termpaper. That guy does not make the argument that you are making at all. Yet, your creative use if the information provided is really good. You are much bolder than that writer.

Your point of view has been understood in the area of strength development when it comes to reaching strength limits -- when one cannot make additional gains in strength in a particular area until he/she makes an overall gain in body strength. It was great to see that concept applied to slow and fast twitch fibers: much food for thought.

mickey

mickey

03-28-2004, 05:17 PM

By the way Blooming Lotus,

What you are arguing is already being implemented in high performance sports using the macroperspectives of strength, power, and endurance trainng: attributes develped through periodization. I guess that author does not know about this.

mickey

Toby

03-28-2004, 07:36 PM

Originally posted by blooming lotus you know...different people of different intellegence perceive information differently...if you still don't get it and want to train your ft fibres as priority, relevant to ma performance:confused: ..well..good luck to you all....

see you comp time;)
No need to get personal. Just because I don't:

Originally posted by blooming lotus
happen to pull one of the highest iq's in my country but lets not go there shall we..

I'm sorry I'm so stupid. I was just reading the article. I wasn't intelligent enough to extrapolate my own (undocumented) argument and assume everyone else was thinking the same. I've read the article for the 4th time now, and I'm yet to find any evidence of your argument at all.

As to your hard qigong argument - I'm understanding you're saying we shouldn't worry about strength training because hard qigong training will allow greater application of force than any strength training could? :rolleyes:

Here's some more quotes from the article for your enjoyment:

There is experimental evidence to suggest that chronic long-term stimulation can transform type IIB fibers into IIA and even to type I (8, 15). In fact, "chronic stimulation of a FT muscle at a frequency resembling that in a nerve to a ST muscle causes as complete a transformation of the muscle fibers as cross-innervation."

Conversely, while endurance training and/or high volume, low intensity, resistance training may induce hypertrophy of the S units and some of the more fatigue-resistant FR units, it may result in atrophy of the larger fatiguable units.

... some of the extremely high % FT subjects seem to display even a strength decrement with the 50% of 1-RM training protocol

Whether the simultaneous optimal hypertrophy of all the different fibers is physiologically possible, is debatable. There are however, some data to suggest incompatibility and compromise between different modes of training.

I've searched high and low to find any quotes supporting your argument, but I can't. Please, if you can find any, cut and paste them in. Otherwise, shut up and stop insinuating how brilliant you are and how stupid the rest of us are.

One more time for those willing to listen - several of us train strength. My personal reasons are I subscribe to the idea of having a base level of endurance with capability to generate extremely high levels of strength (for me ;)) for very short periods of time. I don't like the idea of having maximal endurance but not being able to generate high levels of strength. That's my focus. I do do endurance work, just try to balance out my training in favour of strength.

blooming lotus

03-29-2004, 06:05 PM

lol...dude..I just was subjected to a 3 day in house mental health assessment where they did another IQ test..and I'll be freaked if wasn't a whole lot higher than I thought....we'll just leave that one alone though ( even though brilliant/borderline genius probably would sum it up pretty well:p :D lol)

your right, my argument is spectulative maching a+b and if you dont get how it goes toegether I really don't have alot of time to spell it out.

as for hard qigong and its relevance/irrelevance to that material ..to disreguard your strength training or try to say that that's what I'm avocating is just stoopid and kinda academically immature or something:rolleyes: ...part of your hard qigong ( especially iron skills etc) shoud involve some strength training anyway;)

so now ( according to mickey ) we've decided I was onto it after all..I just wanna thank you all for playing:p ...just kidding...No one knows everything, and f I thought I did I wouldn't be on the constant search for better teachers and more complete knowlege;)

cheers

oh and the macro term crossed my own mind this morning...I guess it's a charactristic of intellegence to seek out the macrocosm of the subject in lieu of a singular larger

like training muscle fibers vs muscles groups :D :cool:

bl

Serpent

03-29-2004, 06:46 PM

Can someone stick a pin in bl's ego - it's blocking the door and I wanna get out.

Vash

03-29-2004, 07:08 PM

Originally posted by Serpent
Can someone stick a pin in bl's ego - it's blocking the door and I wanna get out.

Dude, what're you talking about? Some dude is subletting space in her ego, and I've got a three bedroom, three bathroom room with a view because of it.

Toby

03-29-2004, 07:10 PM

Originally posted by blooming lotus
as for hard qigong and its relevance/irrelevance to that material ..to disreguard your strength training or try to say that that's what I'm avocating is just stoopid and kinda academically immature or something:rolleyes: ...part of your hard qigong ( especially iron skills etc) shoud involve some strength training anyway;)

But you said:

Originally posted by blooming lotus
then, if you add your hard qigong skills to your training, the strength fiber issues should be totally irrelevant, because we're now running a nueral override etc etc

Now being a mere mortal and nowhere near your genius level :rolleyes:, please spell out your argument:

Originally posted by blooming lotus
if you apply the work outs I've posted to this information,...or is that vice-versa??LOL...I think you might understand why I train the way I do and get the results I do.

Since I don't understand how this information is relevant to your workouts. I want to know (a) your workouts and (b) what results you get. The only thing that sticks in my mind from your posts was the whole ab machine thing, so refresh my memory.

This argument of yours:

Originally posted by blooming lotus
... what I'm saying is because that's not possible, and because you only have a limited amount of potential with your ft fibers, before max mus are recruited and you lose stength...if you concentrate on training the other 2 ( couple/compliment that with your skill and application), and after having reached peak on yuor fts...talking training for a sec..., go for a devol on the ft, pick up the st/fb ( which does according to the paper optimise that fibre, even as recovering)....it will be in prime to bear the overload when the st/fb are in recovery, injecting intermitent bursts of supportitive strength, as opposed to maxing out on your short lived strength, and comming up untrained because you neglected your other 2. is wrong. Sure it may work that way short term, but in the long term the Type IIB fibers will atrophy and strength will go down. Your ideas don't simultaneously optimise Type IIB fibers. From the article:

3. Regardless of loads employed (at least, within reasonable limits), a set of any exercise movement carried to momentary muscular failure (or close to failure) will normally recruit the maximal number of MUs available for that exercise. This includes the entire spectrum of muscle fibers, from the most fatigue-resistant, slow-twitch (ST)-oxidative or type I muscle fibers, to the moderately fatigue-resistant, fast-twitch (FT)-oxidative or type IIA fibers to the most powerful, fatiguable, FT-glycolytic or type IIB fibers. In fact, in a set taken to or close to momentary muscular failure, as the % of a 1-RM used decreases (at least, within reasonable limits), one is effectively fatiguing a greater percentage of available fibers (including the larger units). This explains why one is momentarily weaker when training to failure with a set involving a lower % of a 1-RM. It also explains the greater level of strength decrement that occurs in successive sets carried to failure, when the initial set employs higher repetitions or TULs. Effectively, you have exhausted a greater % of total fibers (including the larger fibers) when employing a higher set duration or TUL in the first set. Furthermore, if a set using a lower % of a 1-RM (taken to failure) recruits the same number of fibers (and fatigues a greater number of them) than a set with a higher % of a 1-RM taken to failure (as has been suggested in 15, 18) and yet, one finds a lower level of strength and/or hypertrophic adaptations with the lower % of a 1-RM protocol (as has been suggested in 13, 21, 43, 48), then, the concurrent maximal hypertrophy of all fibers seems unlikely. Incompatibility of different modes of training is a strong possibility (as has been proposed in 14, 60), so that attempts to maximally stimulate all the different components of a muscle (as has been suggested by some authors) is very likely not possible. One cycle or protocol that may be optimal for stimulating certain fiber sub-types and/or enzymes may compromise the development of other fiber sub-types and/or enzymes. In fact, one may speculate that under conditions of competing exercise stimuli (where there is fatigue of both glycolytic and oxidative fibers), one’s physiological adaptive processes may shift optimal hypertrophic adaptation towards the fatigue-resistant fiber spectrum. Fiber adaptation/transformation studies already suggest this. If this scenario is accurate, then, if one is primarily interested in maximizing muscle strength and hypertrophic adaptations, it may be necessary to seek out a training protocol (through experimentation) that optimizes adaptation of one's most abundant pool of fibers and adjust training parameters accordingly as has been suggested in point 2. above.

So again, (paraphrasing) endurance training hurts strength training.

Here's some more quotes:

Originally posted by Vash
BL, I like your summarization. Of course, I don't exactly recall where you offered advice which was EXACTLY in line with the article cited . . .

Originally posted by Serpent
bl - you need to calm down and cencentrate for a minute. It's you that might learn something.

Originally posted by Vash

BL

As has been pointed out earlier, your hypothesis on training all types of muscle fibers in an equal manner is not supported by the cited document; it is refuted.

Originally posted by mickey

Blooming Lotus,

I had to go back and reread that termpaper. That guy does not make the argument that you are making at all. Yet, your creative use if the information provided is really good. You are much bolder than that writer.

So either we're all correct and you're wrong, or we're all stupid and you're a genius :rolleyes:. I'm going with the former, since generally geniuses can spell and have good grammar.

Vash

03-29-2004, 07:26 PM

Toby just pimped all over this thread.

And the thread liked it.

03-29-2004, 10:27 PM

BL
Why is your only defensive coping strategy to repeatedly point out that you think(confirmed by those tests ofcause) you are a genius?
Do you think such typed out references would give you a higher degree of respect on an internet forum?

Ethier way I would like to buy you a bag of humility and a can of mellow out.

blooming lotus

03-30-2004, 04:32 PM

lol...all fair comments...the reason I refer to my Iq is because I want you to understand that I freakily get sh*t and differently that alot of other folks just dont.

yes, endurance fiber training does comprimise your strength fiber hypertrophy, but my argument is that, we can not only afford to loose that bit of strength ( providing we cylce on an in and decreasing vol, lighten the load of resistence and increase reps a little for strength, alternately in the one sesh with higher vol for endurance, then up pace intermittently during the endurance section for speed )

I also do a sh*t load of weighted/unweighted isometrics

..you know..I don't wanna give away too much here because I am planning to compete but the creazy high vol reps ( alah shaolin training methods) are similar to what I do myself..and while I think your Qigong for the most part makes your stregth training irrelevant, it is definately complimentary and what say some time you can't quite find your flow and need to rely on strength?? you want some there right???...though asked the aged practioner...sometimes..skill'll get you there anyway.

so recap : crazy high vol/ low load + interval speed throughout + occassional but serious lighter loaded high light - low med weightd load = optimally performaing muscle fibers.

as for the respect..It really doesn't matter to me if you respect me or not...I guess I just right it off as uniformed and unable to comprhend, I don't take offence and I don't hold it against ya;) :p :D lol...:cool:

as for my results : I have, while being in sevreral truthfully life and death situations as a little chick, and/or needing to protect others lives ( running bad neighbourhoods when necc..saving the helpless and all:rolleyes:), no one has died in any of these situations and no-one sustained more injury than me, which I weighed up and accepted in lieu of another persons harm they couldn't deal with...like the crazy speed - psychosised child abusing freak chick who ate a chunk of my leg which I traded for her safety , or taking a light cut to the throat from the dude who tried to rape me ( knowing tha's all it would be) until the opening came up, or the armed weirdo who came into our home to KILL my lil bro ( who got tackled and held down upstairs while I dealt with the dude with the....???what was that weapon?? ..I dunno, but it was long pointy and he was willing to use it)...or the fight I had to have with the 450 lb Samoan who was molesting my little sister/...and so on and so forth...crazy but true...

as far as muscularly, I rarely ( time present aside) see anyone male or female anywhere near competitve for tone, I out cardio and endure 99.5 % of the instructors/teachers I know, and I have flexibilty that makes most people go :eek: :eek:

my relative strength is higher than most weight lifters or body conditioners and ...what else do you want here??? I pump out 500 pushups in good sesh, can train happily for up to 11hrs a day.......

as tacky as this might sound ...It was good enough to nude/bikini/ sports model ( until I got serious about buddhism ) and has never not produced enough power to keep my environment death free( .....in assault)

I don't really like to talk about his jazz...but there it is

;) cheers

Ps..still paying the ego perception but.....everybody living has the same potential, harness it or don't....

blooming lotus

03-30-2004, 04:39 PM

ps..Ill take my humilty to go ;) cheers

in fact..make it a double:rolleyes:

Serpent

03-30-2004, 05:33 PM

Rabid.

Vash

03-30-2004, 06:44 PM

BL

Until you are seen in pictures or on video, you don't exist.

Kind of like your ego . . . :eek:

IronFist

03-30-2004, 07:00 PM

Originally posted by blooming lotus
my relative strength is higher than most weight lifters or body conditioners and ...what else do you want here??? I pump out 500 pushups in good sesh, can train happily for up to 11hrs a day.......

How much can you bench, squat, deadlift, or overhead press in relation to your bodyweight? Don't give lbs if you don't want to, but like "bench = 2x bodyweight" or something.

See, when you say "relative strength is higher than most weight lifters," everyone's going to assume you're talking about lifting weights. BW exercises like pushups aren't measured relative to bodyweight (as far as I know).

So, if you can do 500 pushups in one set, your weight doesn't really matter (at least I've never seen a record that said "x pushups @ y bodyweight"). But for weight lifting, it does. Records will say "250lb bench press @ 120lbs or whatever."

That's how you can tell (relatively) how good someone is. A 300lb bench press isn't all that impressive, unless the person doing it weighs 100lbs!

Toby

03-30-2004, 07:54 PM

Originally posted by blooming lotus
... I want you to understand that I freakily get sh*t and differently that alot of other folks just dont.
It's called delusional fantasy. AKA "I make up **** and when people don't get it, I pretend they're too unintelligent to get it and act all superior".

Originally posted by blooming lotus
( providing we cylce on an in and decreasing vol, lighten the load of resistence and increase reps a little for strength, alternately in the one sesh with higher vol for endurance, then up pace intermittently during the endurance section for speed )

Again, you are just plain wrong. You can't "lighten the load of resistance and increase reps a little for strength". I don't know how else to put it to help you understand - it's wrong. Also, you can't "up pace intermittently during the endurance section for speed)" and hope to optimise your fast twitch fibers. As the article says, your overall fiber composition will take on more Type I fiber characteristics.

Originally posted by blooming lotus
so recap : crazy high vol/ low load + interval speed throughout + occassional but serious lighter loaded high light - low med weightd load = optimally performaing muscle fibers.
Not that that sentence makes any sense whatsoever, but the last part - "optimally performaing (sic) muscle fibers" - almost makes sense. Sure, optimally performing for an endurance athlete. Optimally performing Type I fibers. Not optimally performing Type IIB fibers. If OTOH you're insinuating that you're optimising Type I, Type IIA and Type IIB fiber performance simultaneously, you're wrong again.

Originally posted by blooming lotus
as for the respect..It really doesn't matter to me if you respect me or not...I guess I just right it off as uniformed and unable to comprhend, I don't take offence and I don't hold it against ya;) :p :D lol...:cool:
The reason you get no respect is you come on here and blow your own trumpet by telling fairy tales and then pretend that the rest of us are stupid?! But that's OK, you just "right it off as uninformed and unable to comprhend". The only thing I'm "unable to comprhend" is your spelling and sentence structure.

Other reasons you get no respect? Well, since you came on these forums, you've told us:

(a) you've got one of the highest IQ's in your country. Borderline genius.

(b) you could represent your country in the Olympics.

(c) you've taken out 450lb boxers and 450lb Samoans and ...

(d) you weigh 100lb.

(e) you were offered and turned down a $10000 a week modelling job.

These are classic symptoms of an internet fantasy persona. I mean, people tend to overestimate their achievements, but you take the cake.

Originally posted by blooming lotus
as far as muscularly, I rarely ( time present aside) see anyone male or female anywhere near competitve for tone, I out cardio and endure 99.5 % of the instructors/teachers I know, and I have flexibilty that makes most people go :eek: :eek:
Here's the money shot: "I out cardio and endure". That's what your "theory" will get you, not strength.

Originally posted by blooming lotus
my relative strength is higher than most weight lifters or body conditioners and ...what else do you want here??? I pump out 500 pushups in good sesh, can train happily for up to 11hrs a day.......
500 pushups and 11hrs is endurance. Glad you've got good endurance. Not optimised Type IIB fibers. Then again, your "relative strength is higher than most weight lifters". Uh huh. :rolleyes:

Toby

03-30-2004, 08:01 PM

Originally posted by Vash
BL

Until you are seen in pictures or on video, you don't exist.

Kind of like your ego . . . :eek:
Here's the thread where she posts a pic. Found it while searching for some of her more outlandish claims:

http://forum.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27991&perpage=15&pagenumber=3

Vash

03-30-2004, 08:19 PM

Ah, okay. Certainly not the physique I'd've figured from her boasts . . . I mean, her posts.

blooming lotus

03-30-2004, 10:00 PM

ok...fair enough...not the fabulous body I've ever been in....was probably even a too light and wasn't so big the arm/back and strength work ....what ever..like I said..been busy as a mofo..an to be honest, I'm just a lil upset that for 2 wks now, my whole workout routine haseen unavoidabley interupted....when I get back into it, I'll be happy to post a current clip ( maybe of my 500 pushups or something:rolleyes: ) or a few pics min..

as for the ego and winning the argument, I really don't give 2 sh*ts who I convince...I would never call another person stupid because I dont do deep personal insult.....

as for being rabid...dude..If a personal insult is the best comeback you've got for the request I didn't deliver, as with ka, as with toby being proven wrong elsewhere etc etc...well sweet as...I have no intention of playing fan clubs with any of you......

as for respect...besides the fact of respecting people for being peole...not many folks have given me any reason to pedestal them either...which is just as well because pedestals su*k

Vash

03-30-2004, 10:19 PM

Looking forward to the training pics/vids, BL.

Referrencing your last post. Consider the way you present yourself. That will tell you why the comments to you are made and why they are made in that fashion. Perhaps you don't wish to come across as having an ego. Maybe you do. But, whichever it is, you do.

Also, your claims are, for the most part, laughable. yeah, it's the internet, there's room for embelishment. But to keep it in realistic boundaries is to make oneself viewable as knowledgeable on a given topic.

Regarding your training methodology/physiological hypothesi. Consider the material available, and how little of it meshes with your ideas. These are people who, for the most part, know a bit more about this subject than you or I. I consider myself knowledgeable on things associated with physical activity, but I don't know it all. Indeed, Ford, Iron, Toby, and several others on the board know a hella lot more than I do. So do those guys who get paid to do lab research. And field research. Don't know where I'm gonig with this paragraph, so I'll late it trail into . . .

Well, suffice it to say that if you would speak more from personal experience, and not from universal generalization which is in conflict with most other available data, you would be taken a bit more seriously.

And you're female, it won't take that long for people to forget you acted like an @$$ sometimes.

03-30-2004, 11:30 PM

Yeah its all been said
BL Most of your posts deal with your beleifs and perceptions about yourself.BL talking about BL in relation to BL.Often you are not even considering/addressing or perhaps understanding other debates/arguements/ perceptions.

It would seem the only person desperately trying to prove something is BL, to what end I don't know.

But its been fun/difficult reading.

blooming lotus

03-30-2004, 11:42 PM

if your saying I have a high opinion of myself...you're right...but I also have a high opinion of amost everyone i meet....

the minute you folks don't understand what I'm talking about you procede to troll.....which is sweet

I don't really get personal about my past but if you're really interseted the bio will be out sometime in the future:rolleyes:

ps. appologies for a$$ like behaviour past....and for those I called stoopid, I was refering to your attitudes...whatever boys..whatever :cool:

03-31-2004, 12:06 AM

Originally posted by blooming lotus
if your saying I have a high opinion of myself...you're right.
Nope I was hinting that your focus is inward to the point that anything that does not fit into your picture of reality is veiwed as incorrect and dismissed as inferior.
Infering these qualities
Delusional Thinking(holding beliefs that are inconsistent with reality)
Tangential concretisms(illogically following one highly concrete idea or feeling with another)
Preoccupation(reacting with considerable emotional intensity to a random assortment of people and situations)

In short you like many people have a few issues,which can clash with the superior being theory.

Toby

03-31-2004, 02:11 AM

Originally posted by blooming lotus
...I would never call another person stupid because I dont do deep personal insult.....

Originally posted by blooming lotus
...and for those I called stoopid, I was refering to your attitudes...

Not true. The reason I got so ****ed off wasn't just because you were wrong, but because you were insulting:

Originally posted by blooming lotus
if you don't get me after this, and agree 100%...someone needs to go back to school

Originally posted by blooming lotus
Ford, I'd llove to talk shop on this with both you and Iron...M/a in mind... I think someone might learn something

Originally posted by blooming lotus
you know...different people of different intellegence perceive information differently

Originally posted by blooming lotus
if you dont get how it goes toegether I really don't have alot of time to spell it out

Originally posted by blooming lotus
the reason I refer to my Iq is because I want you to understand that I freakily get sh*t and differently that alot of other folks just dont.

Originally posted by blooming lotus
...I guess I just right it off as uniformed and unable to comprhend, I don't take offence and I don't hold it against ya
You repeatedly implied how superior you were and how stupid the rest of us were. And yet, ironically, you were wrong the whole time. Admittedly it took me a while to even decipher what you were talking about, but your whole argument was erroneous from the start.

Goddam, where's GDA with a full-size version of his avatar?! Why do I let myself get trolled like this?!

scotty1

03-31-2004, 07:39 AM

BL is GDA. :)

Never been online together. ;)

blooming lotus

03-31-2004, 04:25 PM

Originally posted by Ka
[B]
Nope I was hinting that your focus is inward to the point that anything that does not fit into your picture of reality is veiwed as incorrect and dismissed as inferior.

COLOR=blue]dude...I don't know what you understand an intellence quotient to mean but reguarding that, it's extremely unlikely[/COLOR] that I missunderstand anything I consider, in fact, I'm more likely to undrstand than over 95% of all people everywhere :eek: :o:D as for writing other folks arguments off as inferior...tht's just not true...that's why I'm here, because I know there are some peeps on these boards that have some good information and can give me a good clinical debate

Infering these qualities
Delusional Thinking(holding beliefs that are inconsistent with reality)
] [did you not understand..i just had a 3 day in-house mental health assessment and grandiosity and delusionary thought is not something I suffer :rolleyes:

Tangential concretisms(illogically following one highly concrete idea or feeling with another)

[/Byes..in the real world we like to call this inovative thinking!!!

Preoccupation(reacting with considerable emotional intensity to a random assortment of people and situations)

man...you are the ones who keep trying to get personal!! you're just pis*ed 'cause I wont meet you for coffee and do the whole pm exchange thing.....
1st I get harrassed fo photos, then get bombarded with pms and emails THEN ( as if that wasn't enough) I get harrassed for personal info and/or judged for not providing it...and you wonder why:rolleyes:

In short you like many people have a few issues,which can clash with the superior being theory.

dude...I am a committed buddhist ok...and the only superior being I acknowlege is the universal buddha nature...sorry to dissapoint :cool:

and to toby: If you are insulted when people don't agree with you, I feel you dude....'cause that's gonna happen alot in life;) :cool:

blooming lotus

03-31-2004, 04:54 PM

Originally posted by IronFist

How much can you bench, squat, deadlift, or overhead press in relation to your bodyweight? Don't give lbs if you don't want to, but like "bench = 2x bodyweight" or something.

See, when you say "relative strength is higher than most weight lifters," everyone's going to assume you're talking about lifting weights. BW exercises like pushups aren't measured relative to bodyweight (as far as I know).

So, if you can do 500 pushups in one set, your weight doesn't really matter (at least I've never seen a record that said "x pushups @ y bodyweight"). But for weight lifting, it does. Records will say "250lb bench press @ 120lbs or whatever."

That's how you can tell (relatively) how good someone is. A 300lb bench press isn't all that impressive, unless the person doing it weighs 100lbs!

Hows 250???to be honest, I only did like 250lbs and that was only a leg press....weight at the time 95lbs ish
like I said every now and then I I throw a kid on back and do some pushups or lower back extentions or something...ends up normally being abot bw x2.???(something).... I just I'd have to train specifically to lift if I want to top that, but when I posted the q. of what everyone else was lifting a few weeks back, I was still doin ok ;)

Ford Prefect

03-31-2004, 05:03 PM

I just caught on to this thread (because of the rising post count). I read the article and its nothing ground breaking. I have charts at home referring MU recruitment based on fiber types, volume, and intensity. I even have charts on how to develop the best program for somebody of a prodominant fiber type based on goals (hypertrophy, strength defeicit, etc). Both charts are stemming from the same place this article is. If I remember when I get home tonight, I'll look them up and see if I can find what study they came from.

Can somebody sum up what the other 40+ posts are about. I sense an argument. ;)

IronFist

03-31-2004, 05:21 PM

Leg press doesn't = squat at all.

A leg press of 250lbs is maybe a squat of 80-100lbs.

I've seen people who regularly leg press 600-800+lbs and can't even squat 225 all the way down once.

03-31-2004, 07:12 PM

Originally posted by blooming lotus

[QUOTE]Originally posted by blooming lotus Tangential concretisms(illogically following one highly concrete idea or feeling with another)
[/Byes..in the real world we like to call this inovative thinking!!![/B]

I think you missed the word Illogically.

Originally posted by blooming lotus Preoccupation(reacting with considerable emotional intensity to a random assortment of people and situations)

man...you are the ones who keep trying to get personal!! you're just pis*ed 'cause I wont meet you for coffee and do the whole pm exchange thing.....
1st I get harrassed fo photos, then get bombarded with pms and emails THEN ( as if that wasn't enough) I get harrassed for personal info[/B]

Bombarded = 2 pm 3 weeks ago, one asking whether you are an Australian and a reply saying I live and train in Sydney??? There's an example of that reacting with considerable emotional intensity.....

Like I said I'm not sure if you understand how aggressive and condecending your posts come across as but given the reaction of a number of others wouldn't this give you an idea to address the manor in which you communicate on this medium.In truth I am only posting as I am amazed at the way you react and rationalize others questions and arguments.I'll stop posting as it seems to just escalate the cycle
FP
We are just *****ing about BLs attitude to others and life in general I think.

Toby

03-31-2004, 07:12 PM

Originally posted by blooming lotus
Hows 250???to be honest, I only did like 250lbs and that was only a leg press....weight at the time 95lbs ish
like I said every now and then I I throw a kid on back and do some pushups or lower back extentions or something...ends up normally being abot bw x2.???(something).... I just I'd have to train specifically to lift if I want to top that, but when I posted the q. of what everyone else was lifting a few weeks back, I was still doin ok ;) So really, you were just making **** up when you said:

Originally posted by blooming lotus
my relative strength is higher than most weight lifters or body conditioners and ...
because as Iron said, 250lb leg press @ 100lb body weight = nothing impressive. You had no quantifiable evidence of your rel strength being higher than "most weight lifters". I used to do at least 2.5 x bodyweight on the leg press and my relative strength sucks. I consider my strength much higher now than then and I'm barely at 1.7 x bw on the squat. You had no quantifiable evidence of your rel. strength being higher than "most weight lifters".

The pushup comment is subjective too. Where was the kid sitting? Near your bum or on your shoulders? Did you take into account how much weight your legs support during a pushup? Does the kid weigh at least as much as you (i.e. your 2xbw comment)?

Originally posted by blooming lotus
and to toby: If you are insulted when people don't agree with you, I feel you dude....'cause that's gonna happen alot in lifeI posted why I was insulted, with quotes. It was your superior air that was insulting, not that you didn't agree with me. You're still keeping up the superiority complex w.r.t Ka. Plus, I get ****ed off (not insulted) if someone doesn't agree with me and continues to claim their point when they are clearly wrong and have no evidence to support their argument. It's like arguing with Homer Simpson.

As to this:

Originally posted by blooming lotus
and to toby: ... I feel you dude....That's why spelling and grammar are important. Wouldn't want to send the wrong message ... :eek: ;)

BTW, like the new colour scheme. Matches your personality profile as described by Serpent.

Vash

03-31-2004, 07:51 PM

Check me out. (http://www.i-a-r-t.com/articles/shocktraining.html)

Shock it to ya.

FatherDog

03-31-2004, 10:14 PM

Originally posted by Ford Prefect

Can somebody sum up what the other 40+ posts are about. I sense an argument. ;)

Blooming lotus: Aha! See, this article demonstrates that my claims that 2 hours of 3000 rep ab exercise are the best way to a six pack are correct!

Toby: What? No, it doesn't. You're totally incorrect.

blooming lotus: No, it does; you just don't understand because you're not a genius like me. Also, I am smokin' hot and you should all stop stalking me.

Toby: No, see, you're wrong, and here are dozens of quotes from the article that demonstate that you are.

blooming lotus: Dude, did you miss the part where I'm a genius, despite my inability to post a sentence without a spelling or grammatical error?

FD: :rolleyes:

Vash

03-31-2004, 10:37 PM

FatherDog has taken the correct and forced it, under oath, to incriminate itself.

Toby

03-31-2004, 11:54 PM

Originally posted by FatherDog
...
I can't believe I wasted the last 2 days of my life for so little benefit :(. You summed it up perfectly. *bows*

Toby

04-01-2004, 12:04 AM

Originally posted by scotty1
BL is GDA. :)

Never been online together. ;)
:eek: :eek: :eek:

It's all starting to make sense. Seriously, I've always wondered about the whole multiple account thing. BL has such a unique style that I would imagine it would shine through in other personas. If e.g. GDA (or anyone) could write "BL-style" and troll me so completely, I would be mightily impressed.

scotty1

04-01-2004, 04:06 AM

Yeah good point.

Its amazing someone can be so academically enlightened but such a social retard. :D Just kidding BL. Kind of.

dwid

04-01-2004, 08:10 AM

blooming lotus: Dude, did you miss the part where I'm a genius, despite my inability to post a sentence without a spelling or grammatical error?

I was waiting for someone to comment on this. This is the funniest thing I've read all day.

Re: genius - IQ tests generally assess one particular facet of intelligence. Current models of intelligence popular among cognitive scientists don't support these tests as having a great deal of projective validity in terms of cognitive functioning across the board.

Jesus Christ BL, I graduated summa cum laude from college and got a perfect score on the logic/analytical section of the GRE (standardized test for applying to graduate school), but I don't assume that I can better understand all things than "95% of all people." You have serious issues - either you're really immature and inexperienced or you're a bit of a megalomaniac. Either way, your claims of being a devout Buddhist just don't jive with your matter of fact statements about how much smarter you are than anyone else.

Ford Prefect

04-01-2004, 09:04 AM

lol! Thanks, FD.

BTW, I did forget to check those charts last night if anybody is interested. I quickly checked this morning on my way out the door and didn't see any references, so I'll check the surrounding text tonight.

blooming lotus

04-01-2004, 05:16 PM

Besides you Ford, no one here is even talking about the topic anymore...so I'll look forward to hearing anything you've got to add;)

cheers

ps...so WHAT if my typing skills s*uck a*s!!!

blooming lotus

04-02-2004, 06:36 PM

ok...here we go again and I'm sure some of you will still have reason to argue but checked out Vash's article rec. and check this out

This may explain why power and Olympic lifters increase strength (via skill acquisition/adaptive coordination) without the characteristic hypertrophy of bodybuilders.

strength increase without hypertrpohy

What is occurring are strength increases due to neuromuscular coordination and volitional effort.

alah Iron body

Furthermore, past a certain level, it is more the extent or magnitude than the intensity of tissue damage that stimulates cortisol production, the hormone responsible for catabolizing inflammation due to (exercise) stress; the hormone that, likewise, catabolizes muscle protein. Consequently, performing multitudinous sets in order to annihilate a muscle is both unnecessary and very unproductive. Doing so proceeds past the point of stimulation into over-stimulation, a factor that negates precision of dose/response measurement while espousing ambiguity.

What is more, some periodization proponents suggest that there is an increase in growth hormone (gH) production after 45 minutes of training. However, they fail to indicate the significance of a correspondingly higher cortisol release, nullifying any potential benefits of a gH boost. Excess cortisol actually inhibits the function of gH. Moreover, the increase in gH from exercise is not analogous to that of potent injections taken by some bodybuilders, the former being too diminutive to notably accelerate or positively influence muscle hypertrophy beyond norms _ at least it has never been proven otherwise.

strength w/out hypertrophy

seated calf raises

ahhh...what exactly is that??? :confused: :D

The higher repetitions, together with a different training environment of a much longer load time, was a needed change (disturbance) to my homeostasis and, likewise, the growth appeared to reflect an abundance of slow twitch fibers in my thighs.

??train ft fibers not to hypertrpohy but to nueralmuclular strength ( only option as advanced trainee when ft fibers already built to optimim) under different stimuli to sustain growth already accumulated, training st/fb to growth resulting in overall optimial muscular function and strength if needed for a real use as opposed to bodybuilding objective

muscular adaptation was fairly quick, realized within 3-5 workouts

to obtain optimum results the intensity variable must be ideal for the muscle group in question.

as the st s' go into decompensenation cycle back and up intensity load to ft s' and vice versa

if training the remaining, non-hyper trained body parts on a maintenance/modest improvement basis......

muscle/exercise receiving a hyper approach may need to be down-regulated in frequency to once every second workout (half as often than is typical) to accommodate the unusually high demands and to better allow for localized recovery of the affected soft tissues.

and I guess this is what I'm really debating...that you can't train a different fiber group during this period....IE: body builders who run or HMMM...M/a ers who do a heavy sesh

make anymore sense???

Vash

04-02-2004, 06:45 PM

Originally posted by blooming lotus
and I guess this is what I'm really debating...that you can't train a different fiber group during this period....IE: body builders who run or HMMM...M/a ers who do a heavy sesh

make anymore sense???

First, OMG . . . Paragraphs. Not a whole lot of . . . well . . . you know . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

So, different cycles necessitate specialized training of both systems and muscles in a method specific to those cycles. Makes sense.

IronFist

04-03-2004, 01:04 AM

What is occurring are strength increases due to neuromuscular coordination and volitional effort.

alah Iron body

Um, that's not iron body. Iron body has nothing really to do with neuromuscular coordination or strength. You can do iron body to the top of your head, and there's no muscles there.

blooming lotus

04-04-2004, 05:38 PM

so Iron body has nothing to do with volition and will???

well ok then :rolleyes: :cool:

Vash

04-04-2004, 05:55 PM

Originally posted by blooming lotus
so Iron body has nothing to do with volition and will???

well ok then :rolleyes: :cool:

That's neither here nor there. The inference from your iron body post is that strength increases from weight training are gained through the same mechanisms as iron skill from iron practices.

Indeed, strength can and does increase even without muscular hypertrophy. Please elaborate how these neuromuscular adaptations correspond to the effects of iron skill.

blooming lotus

04-04-2004, 05:59 PM

I dont think I undestand the question...in Iron skills and advanced training it is neccessary to have certain nueral fortitude that over-rides the "apparent" muscular/physical capability...that's the difference between an intermediate and advanced student and again for each lvl higher thereafter....

In the end, it all comes down to heart and will...

blooming lotus

04-04-2004, 06:03 PM

oh, the strength increase is applicational, as in a will-when-you-need-it thing.....ie: even though you dont go around with jing ready to break boards all day, if you had to do it, you could summon some will for whatever amount of force was neccssary

Vash

04-04-2004, 07:18 PM

Originally posted by blooming lotus
I dont think I undestand the question...in Iron skills and advanced training it is neccessary to have certain nueral fortitude that over-rides the "apparent" muscular/physical capability...that's the difference between an intermediate and advanced student and again for each lvl higher thereafter....

The question was, "what is the relation between iron skills and neuromuscular adaptation and coordination?" Sorry if I didn't make that clear.

Neural fortitude? Are you referring not so much to the biological development as you are to the will of the trainee?

In the end, it all comes down to heart and will...

Ah, I guess you are.

Of course, heart and will are necessary elements in training, particularly when it's time to get over a plateau. But, I fail to see how that ties the iron and strength training into an interrelated concept.

oh, the strength increase is applicational, as in a will-when-you-need-it thing.....ie: even though you dont go around with jing ready to break boards all day, if you had to do it, you could summon some will for whatever amount of force was neccssary

Okay. But again, how does this relate? If one has the ability to strike with a lot of focus, that doesn't translate to higher levels of strength, and having a hooj powerlean max isn't gonna guarantee a whole lot of striking power.

I've been hit by some little guys with hella lot of focus, but who couldn't bench press their bodyweight.

blooming lotus

04-04-2004, 08:05 PM

Dude, if you still don't understand I can only reccomend that you read some budhhist texts, and explore cultivation of qi as an intellectual concpet. There are books and texts bigger than the bible dedicated to discribing the intracies......sorry dude

Vash

04-04-2004, 08:09 PM

I was under the impression this was a discussion of purely physiological concepts. My bad.

blooming lotus

04-04-2004, 08:29 PM

see.... with hard qigong, you're working on a larger scale of smaller units.....explore the concept of the void...it explains how nothing is really there, and made of smaller and smaller units of the universe on into the cycle of creation and back...sounds crazy but check it out.....you owe it to your fu :D

Toby

04-04-2004, 08:29 PM

This is a discussion of whatever unrelated concepts BL chooses to talk about. Remember, you just don't have a high enough IQ to understand what the topic is at the moment, Vash :p.

Vash

04-04-2004, 08:35 PM

Ahh, indeed.

Just finished rereading Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning. Funniest thing, not one allusion to qi.

WE ARE ALL INFERIOR!

blooming lotus

04-04-2004, 08:36 PM

dude...can you stop being so freakin sardonic ???

do you think??

can we talk like grown ups here for a minute??

If you think that the laws of physics and qigong are unrelated to kungfu...you are totally entiled to your growth

peace

blooming lotus

04-04-2004, 08:38 PM

how about reading something on hard qigong and its relevance to strength training and conditioning

Vash

04-04-2004, 08:40 PM

Originally posted by blooming lotus
dude...can you stop being so freakin sardonic ???

No.

do you think??

I'm not sure.

can we talk like grown ups here for a minute??

You mean in a mature fashion, or staying on topic?

If you think that the laws of physics and qigong are unrelated to kungfu...you are totally entiled to your growth

Not so much talking physics as physiology. And qigong . . . I'd ask when this came into relevance of neuralogical and muscular growth/development, but I would suppose I'd have to be in the same conversation as you.

blooming lotus

04-04-2004, 08:42 PM

ok...since you have all the information anyway, we'll just leave it there

:rolleyes:

you're making idiots of yourselves but go right ahead ;)

Vash

04-04-2004, 08:47 PM

Originally posted by blooming lotus
ok...since you have all the information anyway, we'll just leave it there

You are thusly enlightened.

:rolleyes:

you're making idiots of yourselves but go right ahead ;)

Indeed. This, I must admit. We are basing physiological arguments on scientific research and personal training experience, whereas you are basing your case upon personal experience and qigong.

We should be ashamed.

Toby

04-04-2004, 08:48 PM

Originally posted by blooming lotus
you're making idiots of yourselves but go right ahead ;)
Well, I dunno about Vash, but I've pretty much resigned myself to being an idiot. I could never hope to reach your level of intelligence, for example. So maybe just let us idiots chatter amongst ourselves next time a discussion on strength training comes up, OK?

Vash

04-04-2004, 08:58 PM

Originally posted by Toby

Well, I dunno about Vash, but I've pretty much resigned myself to being an idiot. I could never hope to reach your level of intelligence, for example. So maybe just let us idiots chatter amongst ourselves next time a discussion on strength training comes up, OK?

I never really considered myself an idiot. A fool, most assuredly, but not an idiot. I've no village that'd claim me.

That suggestion, though, is a sound one. Of course, BLs presence would be welcomed if it were in the spirit of cooperative learning as opposed to enlightening the non-Renaissance peeps.

Vash

04-05-2004, 10:40 AM

I got it two semesters ago from my school's library. For a dollar. A DOLLAR. It's the print previous to the one listed on Amazon, but, it's frigging awesome. I'm gonna start re-reading the thing after Friday.

Definetly a most-own for anyone that does anything with training.

Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0736000895/qid=1081186593/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-4883409-0654328?v=glance&s=books)

IronFist

04-05-2004, 03:27 PM

Clearly you want to become learned in the methods of internal strength development which are not unlikely related to the basic premise found under a disource of neurological efficiency as it pertains to muscular tension, jing force, and the somewhat related articles of will and the mental power to stay focused on the task at hand (like the lift, for example), which all come into play regardless of what the person is doing with their muscular skills, such as weight lifting, or iron skills training, which happens to be related on a subatomic level to the core principles of irridiation as well as the Golgi tendon reflex.

^ Did I do a good job? :D :D :D That paragraph is about as logical as the last two pages of this thread. :D :rolleyes: :eek:

Serpent

04-05-2004, 03:33 PM

I think bl has some strange monitor that always shows people's posts differently.

For example, if Vash types something like, "Please explain how your hypothesis relates to strength training", bl's monitor shows, "bl, I'm simply a man of low IQ and need to you to reinforce your intelligence, beauty and enlightenment, regardless of the topic at hand".

This must be the case, as it's the only explanation for the large portion of this thread.

blooming lotus

04-05-2004, 05:52 PM

dude, I shouldn't respond to that, but lets face it...the dudes are like 20 ish yrs old and couldn't have half the information I do if they studied since they wee in nappies, let alone be able to process it.....

and intellengence in buddhism gives open to a concept called "trancendental inetellegence"...now can we all spell that :rolleyes:

Vash

04-05-2004, 06:15 PM

Not 20-ish, just plain 20. And indeed, I don't have half the information as you. But it would appear that the tidbit I have is a bit more closely related to the correct than your substantial hypothesi . . . er . . . I mean, physiological/qi-logical laws.

IF:

Monkey Cheese!

Serpent:

has taken the correct and exploded it with a no-touch K.O.

BL:

In regards to spelling . . .

You can't, apparently.

blooming lotus

04-05-2004, 06:23 PM

no...but I try....really hard :D

i think thats just my brain going too fast for my hands :D :D

Vash

04-05-2004, 06:48 PM

Ah, that must be what it is. ;)

IronFist

04-05-2004, 07:01 PM

Originally posted by Vash
Ah, that must be what it is. ;)

Yes, that is be what it must when one cannot spell properly it may have something to do with the lacking neurological efficiency of the muscles from resultant sarcoplasmic hypertrophy due to less that optimal training which may have something to do with the qi infusion that relates from iron body training as a result of muscle contraction and contractile strength

Agree...?

:confused:
:confused:
:rolleyes:
:rolleyes:
:confused:
:eek:
:confused:
:eek:
:eek:

Toby

04-05-2004, 07:19 PM

Originally posted by blooming lotus
dude, I shouldn't respond to that, but lets face it...the dudes are like 20 ish yrs old and couldn't have half the information I do if they studied since they wee in nappies, let alone be able to process it.....
BL, I'm older than you according to your profile. So, by your logic, you could only have 93.55% of the information I have. Then again, maybe your processing is just better than mine.

Originally posted by blooming lotus
and intellengence in buddhism gives open to a concept called "trancendental inetellegence"...now can we all spell that :rolleyes:
At least be consistent in your spelling mistakes i.e. "intellengence" vs "inetellegence".

If your brain is going too fast for your hands, then please have the common courtesy to read what you write before posting. Or try the "Preview Reply" button. It hurts my poor idiotic head to read your posts.

IronFist

04-05-2004, 07:24 PM

Wow, I didn't know we had a "Preview Reply" button!

Vash

04-05-2004, 08:16 PM

Holy Crapples! We got buttons now?!

:confused: :confused: :D :D :o :o

Serpent

04-05-2004, 08:38 PM

Originally posted by blooming lotus
dude, I shouldn't respond to that, but lets face it...the dudes are like 20 ish yrs old and couldn't have half the information I do if they studied since they wee in nappies, let alone be able to process it.....

and intellengence in buddhism gives open to a concept called "trancendental inetellegence"...now can we all spell that :rolleyes:
You've got to be kidding, right?

Every single person on here has a greater understanding of their information than you and everyone, without exception, disagrees with you.

You are wrong almost all the time.

But apparently it's us that are wrong because you have transcendental intelligence. <-- spelled correctly, you'll notice. Also, I'm older than you too.

Well, I guess transcendental intelligence must mean that whatever you want to be true is correct, whether it's relevant or backed up by evidence of any kind or not.

Brain going to fast for your fingers, eh? Your brain is spinning in neutral, slowly burning out its transaxle.

How very Buddhist of you, bl - with your thoughts you make your world. It must be kinda lonely in your world, though, what with just you and your ego wrestling for space so far above everyone else.