Thread: sorry to bug you, but i have a few more training questions.

There is no way you can be that accurate predicting arm size. Id like to see the research of whoever told you that. Besides, 100lbs of muscle is a ridiculous amount of muscle, lol.

As for the training, just do some circuit training if you dont want to take the rest. Perhaps pick up some training bands, theres a shit-tonne you can do with those and you can fit them in your pocket.

i have no idea about your training questions, but remember muscle memory is a great thing. i would just do some cardio and just be fresh when you get back to the gym, but thats me.

I know this sounds extremely old school, but if all else fails you could still use some of the dynamic tension techniques that Charles Atlas used to promote.

Dynamic tension - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This would at least help you maintain whatever progress you have made up to this point.

Id throw in some pushups and crunches in there too. There is alot you can do with pushup position to work different muscles.

Originally Posted by UFC rocks

i am 5'7" and 155 pound, my arms are 13.5", (i know what your thinking SMALL ARMS),

thats not true.. i have 13.5" forearms too

Originally Posted by Gazhole

There is no way you can be that accurate predicting arm size. Id like to see the research of whoever told you that. Besides, 100lbs of muscle is a ridiculous amount of muscle, lol.

i cant remember who told me that, but i know i read it from someones post on this site. i know that you cant accurately predict what size your arms are going to be, that was just a esimate.

as for gaining 100lbs of muscle being ridiculous, i totally agree with you, thats why i dont belive that you have to gain 25lbs muscle around the rest of your body for 1 inch to your arms. because the maths doesnt add up, if it was ture then how the fuck would there be bodybuilders with 22" arms who are under 250lbs.

thats why i asked if it was ture, id doesnt seem right to me. does anyone know how much weight you accually have to gain to add a inch to your arms?

as you training, what about the pullup and chinup question. i can only do about 7 wide grip pullups, and about 9 close grip chinups. i want to be able to get to 15 reps for each, so then i can start adding wieght to them. so what would be the best way to improve on them. should i do like 6-7 sets then rest for like 4-5 days, or do i do like 2-3 sets ever day.

Originally Posted by UFC rocks

i cant remember who told me that, but i know i read it from someones post on this site. i know that you cant accurately predict what size your arms are going to be, that was just a esimate.

as for gaining 100lbs of muscle being ridiculous, i totally agree with you, thats why i dont belive that you have to gain 25lbs muscle around the rest of your body for 1 inch to your arms. because the maths doesnt add up, if it was ture then how the fuck would there be bodybuilders with 22" arms who are under 250lbs.

thats why i asked if it was ture, id doesnt seem right to me. does anyone know how much weight you accually have to gain to add a inch to your arms?

as you training, what about the pullup and chinup question. i can only do about 7 wide grip pullups, and about 9 close grip chinups. i want to be able to get to 15 reps for each, so then i can start adding wieght to them. so what would be the best way to improve on them. should i do like 6-7 sets then rest for like 4-5 days, or do i do like 2-3 sets ever day.

For the 100lbs thing, i think very few people in the world will even have that much muscle. I dont know about backup for this, but i think skeletal muscle makes up 30-40% of your bodyweight, so you can kinda see just how much muscle 100lbs is! Lol.

There were a few topics here about pullup improvement search for them, my favourite technique is when you take your max for BW (so for you its 7) and multiply it by three (21) and just try and reach that number in however many sets it takes with 0:30 RI's.

It'll be pretty knackering, doesnt take very long, and you end up doing a LOT of pullups. I would use the same technique for squats and pushups aswell for a pretty brutal overall session. Especially in your case with limited equipment.

Combine it with some good stretching before and after, maybe some fullbody exercises like Burpees, Squat Thrusts, Jumps Squats, Lunges, Jump Lunges, Jumping Jacks etc...you could really make a good program out of it with no equipment at all.

Mon - Plyometric circuit training.

Wed - Squats/Pullups/Pushup target sets (what i explained up there)

Friday - Dynamic Tension, running...

For four weeks i think that would be more than enough to maintain, even improve in some areas like conditioning.

thanks for the help Gazhole, good advice, i will defiantly try most of it.

one more quick question, hope you dont mind.

when i got my bench about a year ago it came with a 5 foot barbell. which is the only barbell i have and have been using. my question is if i was the try a 7 foot bar like the ones in the gyms, is it liky that the weight will go down for me because the bar is longer so it will be harder to balance. i can do 70kg on bench for about 5 reps and 45kg for shoulder press for about 6 reps. if i was to try with the 7 foot bar would the weight go down a bit.

Yeah but only cos it's heavier. I don't think length per se is going to make any difference if you're using proper form.

+1 for the 'max by 3' thing, do some as negatives if you have to.


B.

Originally Posted by UFC rocks

thanks for the help Gazhole, good advice, i will defiantly try most of it.

one more quick question, hope you dont mind.

when i got my bench about a year ago it came with a 5 foot barbell. which is the only barbell i have and have been using. my question is if i was the try a 7 foot bar like the ones in the gyms, is it liky that the weight will go down for me because the bar is longer so it will be harder to balance. i can do 70kg on bench for about 5 reps and 45kg for shoulder press for about 6 reps. if i was to try with the 7 foot bar would the weight go down a bit.

Is it an Oly bar? Because they weight a lot more than standard bars.

well gazhole and biggly you guys are talking about the weight of the bar. sorry i wasnt clear, i should have said befor, i will take the weight of the bar into account, and put less weight on so that the total is the same as i am doing now. my bar is 5kg and well i think the ones at the gym are 7 foot, olympic size and weight about 15kg.so for bench press i put on 65kg to my 5lk bar totaling 70kg, if i use the 7 foot olympic size bar which weights 15kg and put on 55kg, then the total is still 70kg.

my question was more about the lenght of the bar, and weather that would make it harder to balance, meaning i would have to lower the weight, maybe down to 60kg.

to answer your question arnold said "you need to gain about ten lbs to gain one inch in your arms." that was in a interview he did a long time ago. i am not sure who said 25lbs. i am also not sure if you really need to gain ten pounds either.

Originally Posted by UFC rocks

well gazhole and biggly you guys are talking about the weight of the bar. sorry i wasnt clear, i should have said befor, i will take the weight of the bar into account, and put less weight on so that the total is the same as i am doing now. my bar is 5kg and well i think the ones at the gym are 7 foot, olympic size and weight about 15kg.so for bench press i put on 65kg to my 5lk bar totaling 70kg, if i use the 7 foot olympic size bar which weights 15kg and put on 55kg, then the total is still 70kg.

my question was more about the lenght of the bar, and weather that would make it harder to balance, meaning i would have to lower the weight, maybe down to 60kg.

It shouldnt make much of a difference, but if you want to be sure theres no harm in trying a lower weight first

Ever seen a tightrope walker? Long bar. Why? For balance. Mmm..

A longer bar is probably more stable?





B.

Originally Posted by Biggly

Ever seen a tightrope walker? Long bar. Why? For balance. Mmm..

A longer bar is probably more stable?





B.

But more prone to instability because the weight is further away - deviations from the centre of gravity will have more effect

Yeah, if you were only holding one end. For the left side to drop an inch the right side has to rise an inch. Moving them further away from each other would make them more stable, not less.

One way to view the high-wire act is to see the wire as an axis and the center of mass of the performer as having the potential to rotate about the axis. If the center of mass is not directly above the wire, gravity will cause the performer to begin to rotate about the wire. If this is not corrected, the performer will fall.
The artist often carries a balancing pole that may be as long as 12 meters (39 feet) and weighs up to 14 kilograms (31 pounds). This pole increases the rotational inertia of the artist, which allows more time to move his or her center of mass back to the desired position directly over the wire. This effect can be magnified by making the pole as long as possible and by weighting its ends.

Show 1302 Circus High Wire

An Olympic bar is about the same weight - and has weights on the end!

I rest my case.



B.

Originally Posted by Biggly

Yeah, if you were only holding one end. For the left side to drop an inch the right side has to rise an inch. Moving them further away from each other would make them more stable, not less.


Show 1302 Circus High Wire

An Olympic bar is about the same weight - and has weights on the end!

I rest my case.



B.

Eh?

Im saying if i took two barbells each with the same load on either end, one barbell was 5ft and the other was 10ft, and i held them both at the centre of gravity, they would both obviously balance fine.

Then if i moved and held them each a foot to the right of the centre of gravity, the longer one would be less stable because it is longer. The same amount of deviation from the COG means more when the bar is longer.

In the case of the 5ft bar i'd be 3.5ft away from one of the ends, and the 10ft bar id be 6.5ft away from the ends...so the 10ft is gonna be more off balance...

you guys are makin muh head hurt.

Originally Posted by tomuchgear

you guys are makin muh head hurt.

Light is a wave made up of particles with waves inside them.

the molecular weight of gold is 196.97

Originally Posted by tomuchgear

the molecular weight of gold is 196.97

Carbon's fourth single electron bond sometimes manifests itself as a hybrid energy-level bond with the other three single electron bonds all at once.

ONLY GOD SHOULD HAVE THE POWER TO BE ALL PLACES AT ALL TIMES.

In a preceding paper (Kaya, 2004), we presented expressions for the scattering function and radius of gyration of a cylinder with globular end-caps. The deduction of this model was motivated by rod-like micelles, for which experiments (Bernheim-Groswasser et al., 2000) and theory (May & Ben-Shaul, 2001) suggest that the radii of the end-caps are greater than the radius of the cylindrical mid section, as illustrated in Fig. 1. By setting the length of the middle cylinder to L = 0, one obtains the scattering function of a dumbbell, a geometry of importance in colloidal (van Blaaderen & Vrij, 1992) and biological (Shi et al., 1996) systems. The barbell form factor represents an extension of the spherocylinder form factor deduced by Cusack (1981), where the radius of the spheres defining the end-caps, R, equals that of the cylinder, r. In the original paper (Kaya, 2004), the end-cap radius R was constrained to be larger than or equal to r, so that the end-caps appeared as hemispheres or bulbs appended to the flat ends of the cylinder, as shown in Fig. 1. The scattering amplitude is related to the directly measured form factor by P(Q) = , where the integration represents the averaging over all orientations of the barbell, given by the angle between the vector Q and the long axis of the barbell. The scattering amplitude of a barbell was found to be



where r is the cylinder radius, L the cylinder length and R (r) the radius of the end-cap segments. The auxiliary variable h is given by (R2 - r2)1/2 and gives the distance from the centre of the circle defining the end-cap to the cylinder end, as illustrated in Fig. 1. The natural progression, however, is to consider smaller end-caps, which would appear as semi-lenses attached to the cylinder ends. In this case, the zero-cylinder case (L = 0) would give the scattering amplitude of circular disks with a lens-shaped cross section, shown in Fig. 2(b). A close inspection of equation (1) actually reveals that the only modification necessary to include these small end-caps is to allow h to take negative values. In this case the absolute value of h [= -(R2 - r2)1/2] still gives the distance between the cylinder end and the centre of the circle defining the end-cap, with the difference that the centre is now located inside the cylinder, as illustrated in Fig. 2(a). Summarizing, one now has R h -R. The lower limit (h = -R) applies when R >> r, in which case the end-cap contribution to A(Q) disappears, leaving the scattering amplitude of a regular cylinder with radius r and length L. In the opposite limit, h = R (r = 0), the scattering amplitude is that of two full spheres whose surfaces are separated by a distance L.

the speed of light is 299 792 458 m/s

Originally Posted by fufu

what? haha

man you guys are well educated, you really know your suff, im impressed.

a matrix is only invertible if its determinant is not zero and its inverse can be written as a product of elementary matrices each of which can be derived by applying a single elementary row operation to the identity matrix.
throwing some math in there...lol

cows say moo