How to get abs

In Dally wrote:
Sarah Jane wrote:

In Dally wrote:
Sarah Jane wrote:


Leaving you enough time for a social life, right?
Or something that passes for one.
Beats mine.
That's kinda sad.

Yeah, I was going for "pitiful" there. It's tax season and I'm
chained to my desk.

You do get up and walk around and stretch every once in a while though,
right? Cuz if you don't it can be really hard on your neck and back.

He hasn't dated enough women for me to be able to determine his
"type" of look, but it might be big-boobed blondes with long legs
and tiny hips.

Uhh, that ain't me.

Well, I figured you weren't a blonde dying your hair brown to see how
the other 90% live.

But I figure that *most* men go for the stripper-type. Which is why
strippers are that type.

Not exactly. It depends on what you mean by "go for". For someone to
date seriously or potentially marry, most men go for someone who's
attractive but not slutty looking, and not too high maintenance. For
someone to just look at and drool over, or maybe screw around with,
they'll go for the stripper type.

(Cue Lyle for more insight here, I honestly
don't know all that many strippers.)

I think he'd tell you pretty much the same thing.

I think "love at first sight" is pretty silly anyway. In most cases
it turns out to be more like "lust at first sight".

Yup. But lust at first sight at least gives you a hobby while you get
to know each other. :-)

Sometimes. But sometimes it keeps you from getting to know each other.

Won't Ian just be thrilled if he ever googles all this!

That probably depends on one's definition of "thrilled".

Sort of like "****ed" is the one I was thinking of.

Hey, me too!


Um, maybe here's a good time to mention that he doesn't know I'm using
this name online? In other words, don't give him enough info to
google his sister, please.

I never mentioned your "Dally" alter-ego. He could probably find us here,
but only if he really cares about it a whole lot, and has a whole lot of
time on his hands. I wouldn't worry about it.

(And I'll return the favor by declining to
mention your google-ability.)

Thanks. But I'm sure if he wanted to for any reason he could figure it
out.

(Though you mostly show up as smart
and I mostly show up as overbearingly stupid (and fat), so I have
more to lose here than you.)

Just overbearing, not overbearingly stupid. And shouldn't your brother
already know that about you?

Dally

Sarah Jane wrote:
In Dally wrote:
Sarah Jane wrote:
In Dally wrote:

Yeah, I was going for "pitiful" there. It's tax season and I'm
chained to my desk.

You do get up and walk around and stretch every once in a while though,
right? Cuz if you don't it can be really hard on your neck and back.

Yes, I haven't figured out how to discreetly pee in front of clients
yet. (I had one here from 9:30 to 12:30 this morning and I was just
dying, doing the potty dance as I picked up printouts, etc. I finally
just had to excuse myself.)


But lust at first sight at least gives you a hobby while you get
to know each other. :-)

Sometimes. But sometimes it keeps you from getting to know each other.

Good point. My most successful relationship to date was the one I had
with my boyfriend's friend. We were able to get close and be friends
without all the boy/girl thing getting in the way. One day I dumped my
boyfriend and started dating his friend and we've been together 18 years
now.

I never mentioned your "Dally" alter-ego. He could probably find us here,
but only if he really cares about it a whole lot, and has a whole lot of
time on his hands. I wouldn't worry about it.

That's the way I figure it. It's a little like Harriet the Spy's
notebooks. I'd get in a world of trouble for indescretion but only by
people who care enough about me to bother reading it. I keep wondering
if my DH will ever google me. If he has he hasn't mentioned it.

(Though you mostly show up as smart
and I mostly show up as overbearingly stupid (and fat), so I have
more to lose here than you.)

Just overbearing, not overbearingly stupid. And shouldn't your brother
already know that about you?

Oh, good point. All my other younger brothers think I'm overbearing,
but he's the one closest to me in age and more a companion than a
lackey, if you know what I mean. But come to think of it, he knows
about the fat part, too. :-)

Dally

"Derek N.P.F. Juhl" wrote in message
om...
"determined" wrote in message
...

And as far as what specific % you will see your abs... it depends on
how
you carry your fat. I'm a female and carry most of my fat around my
middle - I'll probably never see my abs, even if I drop my overall
bodyfat
pretty low. Most men will see ab definition at 15% I believe.

My body fat is 12-13%, but I have noticeable abdominal fat. Well,
noticeable to me, anyway. Everyone else tells me not to worry about
it. I am six feet tall and 155 pounds.

Derek Juhl

My DH is also 6' and we happened to buy a copy of Muscle & Fitness magazine
just today. We were looking at a photo of a guy with the sharpest cut 6
pack of abs I've ever seen and I asked DH if when he was his skinniest (I
didn't know him then) if he ever had abs anywhere like that. He said no but
he could have if he'd tried to develop them. His skinniest weight was 150
and from the few old photos I've seen he was a bean pole. YMMV but work
those abs and see what happens.

Tonia

Bingo wrote:

Right, high reps for "tone" is wrong, because there's no such
thing as tone. High reps are good for endurance, and for
depleting muscle glycogen. Low reps are good for strength, and
moderate reps for hypertrophy. More than 10 is high.

Bingo, you're wrong, she's right. My guess is you're believing the
uncertified trainers at your YMCA. Easy mistake to make, but try not to
compound it by making fun of Geek-girl. She's got a long memory and
will hassle you about being so very wrong for a very long time.

At www.fitnessmanagement.com you'll find a lot of
research. There are many others as well, but that's a good start.

No, at that site you find a lot of ARTICLES written for the idiotic
uncredentialed personal trainers we are complaining about. Sometimes
the articles CITE research, but the research is in flux and we're
talking about what's real and new not "well-known to personal trainers".

Articles aimed at gym management does not equal research done into
muscle phisiology or obesity management.

Dally

Bingo wrote:

Exercise Prescription
www.exrx.net

Did you read this?
http://www.exrx.net/Questions/MuscleMass.html

And I went to several other of your consumer-oriented wellness sites and
didn't see ANY research on weight-lifting or muscle physiology.

I'm getting tired of arguing with you. I BELIEVE you heard it somewhere.

It's still not true that a single set of 8-12 reps in a Nautilus circuit
combined with long-slow cardio is a good way to combat obesity. It's a
decent way of staying at the fitness level you're already at, but that
didn't sound like your goal.

Dally

"JC Der Koenig" wrote in news:9IAQb.10127
:

"Bingo" wrote in message
. 77...


And no, *I* am not the pone defeationg myself.

Could you translate that into English please? TIA



Su Typo

Dally wrote in
:

Bingo wrote:

And you weren't involved in the discussion, so to call me a
moron only means that you, too. are an ASSHOLE.

Bingo, my dear, drop MFW from your posts and you'll be much
happier. You're still arguing with me that you need to run my
info by a nutritionist. You're not ready for MFW.

And no, *I* am not the pone defeationg myself.

Uh, sure, if you say so.

Dally


The nutrionist was a couple of years ago. ANd I have idea what mfw
means.

Are your fingers too fat to fit the keyboard?

--
JC

Eat less, exercise more.

--
"Bingo" wrote in message
. 17...
"JC Der Koenig" wrote in news:9IAQb.10127
:

"Bingo" wrote in message
. 77...


And no, *I* am not the pone defeationg myself.

Could you translate that into English please? TIA



Su Typo

Hugh Beyer wrote in
:

Bingo wrote in
news:Xns947A9DA5648AFbillmicrosoftcom@ 216.148.227.77:

Hugh Beyer wrote in
:

3x /week (that is, 3xweek is doesn't give
you half again the gains of 2x week).


This is what I was referring to, and only as a footnote to the
main point. And you weren't involved in the discussion, so to
call me a moron only means that you, too. are an ASSHOLE.

You poor, misunderstood darling, what you said was "It's better
to work out twice a week than three times." No qualifiers at
all. And when SJ suggested some qualifiers, you posted a broken
link. And I didn't call you an ASSHOLE, though if you wish to
take that name on yourself, be my guest.



And no, *I* am not the pone defeationg myself.

Quick, somebody, get the meds, he's going non-linear.

Hugh




You called me a moron when weren't even in the discussion.

Quick, somebody, get the meds, he's going non-linear.

And comments like this prove it.

wrote in
:

In Bingo
wrote:
Hugh Beyer wrote in
:

3x /week (that is, 3xweek is doesn't give
you half again the gains of 2x week).


This is what I was referring to, and only as a footnote to the
main point.

I can't figure out what your main point is. You're the one who
came into the discussion saying that most people didn't have
enough time to stay in shape. I said that three hours a week was
enough, and you said you were doing triple that. I then pointed
out that 3 hours would be enough if you trained more
efficiently. Then you came up with the one set is as good as
multiple sets, and twice a week is *better* than three.

I have no idea where you're getting the twice being better. The
studies showed that 3x/wk doesn't give 1.5x the gains of 2, but
it's still more gains than 2x/wk.

From Study One:

"The subjects who trained once and twice a week had similar
strength improvements (24.7 lbs. vs. 22.8 lbs.), which
represented about 73 percent as much strength development as the
subjects who trained three days per week (32.7 lbs.)."

73% is less than 100%, right?

Study Two:

"Surprisingly, the men and women who trained just twice a week
experienced 88 percent as much muscle gain and 87 percent as
much fat loss as those who trained three times per week (see
Table 2). "

88% and 87% are less than 100%, right?

Study Three:

"Although they performed only two-thirds as much weekly
exercise, the two-day trainees achieved 73 percent as much
strength improvement as the three-day trainees."

73% is less than 100%, right?

"Because better results were attained with three weekly
workouts, this is the recommended strength-training frequency
for new exercisers."

Better is better, right?

And you weren't involved in the discussion, so to call me a
moron only means that you, too. are an ASSHOLE.

This is USENET, sweetie. Anyone who wants to be involved in the
discussion is involved in the discussion.


And no, *I* am not the pone defeationg myself.

Care to try again?

You've morphed Id's again!

You related to Nixon by any chance? You've managed to twist
everything I say and then employed selective memory to make it look
like I'm the attacker.

I said that I was having trouble losing pounds.
You said that I wasn't working hard enough.
I pointed out how hard I was working
You shifted gears to tell me that I should do it your way
because, in spite of training using the techniques of one the best
experts in the country who happens to run the facility I use,
apparently you know better.

Then you told me I took too long because I wasn't using free
weights and that I was in "poor condition" and using "light
weights" (150-200lb is apparently light on your planet)

I posted an off-hand refernce to a study that shows the third
workout in a week gives you only a 12 percent benefit, and you and
every other anal nit-picker in the group are quibbling about that

I gave you real references, and despite a link that was fairly easy
to figure out, that might lead to actual truth, so you didn't try.

I placed your "other" ID in a killfile, so you changed ID's,
painted me as the "aggressor" and now you have all your little
clique pals piling on, point out typo's and making big issues
points out of minor points.

Have I missed anything here? I look for knowledge from reputable
source, not people who think their crap is perfume. I posted
references, you didn't. You haven't shown yourself to be reputable
or knowledgable. And you chosen to breate me on every point with
nothing to back it up.

I'm not interested in continuing this discussion. I'll relearn and
admit when I wrong. (See the peanut butter thread.) But I have
zero tolerance for know-it-alls.