How to get abs

"Mick Russell" mickndeb at westserv dot net dot au wrote in
:


"Bingo" wrote in message
. 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.

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

singing

The was a dog that licked his ass
And Bingo was his name - oh!

\singing




FOAD

"DRS" wrote in
:

Sarah Jane wrote in message

In Hugh Beyer
wrote:

[...]

I didn't find the article your moron is referencing

Oh, so when he does something wrong he's *my* moron?

Well, you do have the moron magnet at the moment.


I thought was a good group, but the assholes just keep popping up!

Bingo wrote:
"DRS" wrote in
:

Sarah Jane wrote in message

In Hugh Beyer
wrote:

[...]

I didn't find the article your moron is referencing

Oh, so when he does something wrong he's *my* moron?

Well, you do have the moron magnet at the moment.


I thought was a good group, but the assholes just keep popping up!

Nah Bingo opinions are like assholes. Everyone has got one. It was an
interesting post by the way about training frequency. Don't get mad at the
assholes keep the good posts coming. If you are right someone will learn
from you. Don't argue with someone picking at you all the time. It is a
waste of time and usually you get nothing from it.

Dally wrote in
:

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



I wasn't arguing with you, just Ms Knowitall, who what asking "what
research" (in spite of posting none of her own). This is the guy
I've been rferring to, and apparently doing a bad job job of
paraphrasing, so I'll post the link and you can come to your own
conclusion. He's also written several books.

Wayne L. Wescott, Ph.D

http://ssymca.org/quincy/westcott/we...tness_info.htm

There are many ways to get in shape, but all I'm hearing here is
one narrow view over and over. I came here to get dieting
information, so that's what I'll stick to.

I more than enough stress right now facing homelessness than to get
sucked into arguing with people who just want to argue (I don't
mean you).

Bingo whined:

I thought was a good group, but the assholes just keep popping up!

Have you happened to notice that you are posting to two separate groups?
One of them has SUPPORT in the name and is trying to help you.

The other one is MFW and you have been WARNED to stay out of there. If
you keep posting there you're going to have to deal with the
consequences, and I don't see the point in exposing you to that much
ridicule. Seriously. Quit cross-posting to MFW and you'll be much happier.

Dally

Bingo wrote:

Dally wrote in
:

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.

The nutrionist was a couple of years ago.

Actually, it was this morning that you said you doubted my advice and
wanted to run it past a nutritionist.

ANd I have idea what mfw means.

You cross-posted the previous post (and several others) to that group.
It's full of the REAL physiology researchers and scientists and serious
weight-lifters who follow the science. They don't suffer fools easily
ans you're being foolish in your newbie-ness. ASD (alt.support.diet)
will be kinder to you as you learn.

Dally

Bingo wrote:
Dally wrote in
:

Bingo wrote:


Exercise Prescription
www.exrx.net

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

My point with this is that your own cites back up Sarah-Jane. She's not
a Ms.Know-It-All, she just happens to be right when you are wrong.

And the way you can tell is that no one is agreeing with you, everyone
is arguing with you, and you aren't getting the results you want with
the plan you're on.

Do you suppose I'm telling you this to get some sort of midnight chuckle
out of your woes? Or some pathalogical need to argue? No, it's because
you seem to need to hear it and seem ALMOST ready to hear it.

I wasn't arguing with you, just Ms Knowitall, who what asking "what
research" (in spite of posting none of her own). This is the guy
I've been rferring to, and apparently doing a bad job job of
paraphrasing, so I'll post the link and you can come to your own
conclusion.

As others have mentioned, your link doesn't work. In fact, it crashed
my browser.

Nautilus makes nice machines. They're perfectly fine for general
conditioning. But you want to lose a bunch of fat and that's where they
don't' do the job. I did Nautilus for 8 years before I changed over to
free weights. I just got fatter and fatter the whole time I did
Nautilus. Changing my routine to free weights was key to shaking up my
muscles and improving my metabolism.

There are many ways to get in shape, but all I'm hearing here is
one narrow view over and over. I came here to get dieting
information, so that's what I'll stick to.

Yes, granted, you're a different person than me. You keep proclaiming
that there are lots of ways to get fit and we don't all have to choose
the same one. I agree with you. But the way YOU happen to have chosen
is NOT WORKING FOR YOU. You're still fat. That's why it seems
indicated to try something different.

I more than enough stress right now facing homelessness than to get
sucked into arguing with people who just want to argue (I don't
mean you).

Fair enough. Focus on what you need to focus on. There's time enough
to get around to dealing with this whole food/exercise thing when you're
in a better place. I guess I was just working with you on it because
you're hear posting about it.

Dally

"Oldman" wrote:
Bingo wrote:
"DRS" wrote:
Sarah Jane wrote:
Hugh Beyer wrote:

[...]

I didn't find the article your moron is referencing

Oh, so when he does something wrong he's *my* moron?

Well, you do have the moron magnet at the moment.

I thought was a good group, but the assholes just keep popping up!

Nah Bingo opinions are like assholes. Everyone has got one.

And you and Bingo seem to be the only ones who are offering your
personal (and scientifically unsupported) opinions that high-volume
routines are the best way to acheive hypertrophy.

In Bingo wrote:
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.

Attacker? WTF are you talking about? Why don't you respond to what I
actually wrote? Y'know, about *your* reference.


I said that I was having trouble losing pounds.
You said that I wasn't working hard enough.

Right. You complained about how much time you were spending working out,
so I told you that you could get better results in less time with higher
intensity.

I pointed out how hard I was working

No, you pointed out how much time you were spending. Not the same thing.

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.

You said you were following his program, but according to the article at
the site you sent me to, you're not.


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)

Yes, if you can lift it 10-12 times, it's light for you. Which part of
that is confusing to you?


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

You said 2x/wk was *better*, and then gave references showing that it's
not.


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 did read it, and it didn't say what you wanted it to.


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.

What the hell are you babbling about now?


Have I missed anything here?

You missed a lot.

Bingo wrote in message

Dally wrote in

[...]

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.

Jesus wept. She explained it to you several times and you still don't get
it. It's not rocket science.

--

"Posting at the top because that's where the cursor happened to be is like
****ting in your pants because that's where your asshole happened to be."
Andreas Prilop