-
Join the Ausbb - Australian BodyBuilding forum The Ausbb - Australian BodyBuilding forum is dedicated to no nonsense muscle and strength building. If you need advice that works, you have come to the right place. This forum focuses on building strength and muscle using the basics. You will also find that the Ausbb- Australian Bodybuilding Forum stresses encouragement and respect. Trolls and name calling are not allowed here. No matter what your personal goals are, you will be given effective advice that produces results.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Please consider registering. It takes 30 seconds, and will allow you to get the most out of the forum.
What do you think is a begginers major error?
Z
Zarkov
Guest
Ah, homophobia! Who says we've evolved since the 50's, folks?
As told to me by a gay person, a fag is the real wimpy wussy type or a weirdo.
So even the gays say fag!
Off topic but in one of the funniest exchanges in a movie,Boondock Saints, Willem Defoe`s character and his bum buddy are in bed when Willie slaps his mate and says "What a fag!"
Goosey
.
this is an interesting article written 30 years ago, still relevent today.
*An old saying put it very well, " . . . figures don't lie, but liars figure." Commercial interests in the field of body building constantly point out a few outstanding examples of muscular development as proof of their claims that great advancements have been made within the last few years -- and it is certainly true that there some outstanding individuals on the scene at the moment, men like Sergio Oliva, Arnold Schwarzenneger and Casey Viator; but it is equally true that such men are almost literally freaks -- the average man could never hope to duplicate their physical development, regardless of how he trained. Thus such individuals represent nothing apart from expectable deviations from the average.
*Out of a group of a hundred individuals selected at random, the average body weight might be 160 pounds -- and one or two subjects might weigh as much as 190 pounds. But if the sample was increased to a thousand individuals, then you could reasonably expect to find at least one subject with a body weight of 200 pounds -- while the average for the group remained as before. And out of a group of a million subjects, you could reasonably expect at least one individual with a body weight of 250 pounds or more -- but again, the average would remain 160 pounds.
*Thus proof of improvements in method must come from an increase in the average -- and in the field of body building, the average production of results has steadily declined during the last twenty years; the average results being produced today are NOT better than they were twenty years ago -- instead, they are worse. And exactly the same thing is true in the fields of Olympic lifting and power lifting -- in spite of vast propaganda to the contrary; certainly the records have increased -- but that is only to be expected when dealing with a far larger number of subjects. But even that is misleading -- because the performances really haven't increased as much as most people think; in the case of the Olympic press, a great deal of the so-called "progress" has been produced by relaxation of the rules, to the point that the press has now degenerated into an outright jerk with little or nothing in common with the press as it was practiced twenty years ago -- and at least one man, Douglas Hepburn, was capable of bench pressing near-record poundage's over fifteen years ago, and at a body weight far below that of the present record holders. Thirty years ago, Bob Peoples deadlifted well over 700 pounds at a body weight below 180 pounds -- today, men weighing twice as much have finally been able to add approximately 100 pounds to his record. Some of Paul Anderson's lifts -- performed over fifteen years ago -- will probably never be duplicated.
*The really outstanding men of today are exceptions -- as such men always were, and as they always will be; there are larger numbers of such outstanding individuals in view at the moment simply and only because a much larger number of men are now training with weights. But what about the average trainees?
*The simple truth of the matter is that the average trainee of today could not hope to compete on equal terms with the average trainee of twenty years ago; and it is equally true that most of this decline in the average production of results is directly due to commercial bias in the field of weight-training.
Posted via Mobile Device
Posted via Mobile Device
*An old saying put it very well, " . . . figures don't lie, but liars figure." Commercial interests in the field of body building constantly point out a few outstanding examples of muscular development as proof of their claims that great advancements have been made within the last few years -- and it is certainly true that there some outstanding individuals on the scene at the moment, men like Sergio Oliva, Arnold Schwarzenneger and Casey Viator; but it is equally true that such men are almost literally freaks -- the average man could never hope to duplicate their physical development, regardless of how he trained. Thus such individuals represent nothing apart from expectable deviations from the average.
*Out of a group of a hundred individuals selected at random, the average body weight might be 160 pounds -- and one or two subjects might weigh as much as 190 pounds. But if the sample was increased to a thousand individuals, then you could reasonably expect to find at least one subject with a body weight of 200 pounds -- while the average for the group remained as before. And out of a group of a million subjects, you could reasonably expect at least one individual with a body weight of 250 pounds or more -- but again, the average would remain 160 pounds.
*Thus proof of improvements in method must come from an increase in the average -- and in the field of body building, the average production of results has steadily declined during the last twenty years; the average results being produced today are NOT better than they were twenty years ago -- instead, they are worse. And exactly the same thing is true in the fields of Olympic lifting and power lifting -- in spite of vast propaganda to the contrary; certainly the records have increased -- but that is only to be expected when dealing with a far larger number of subjects. But even that is misleading -- because the performances really haven't increased as much as most people think; in the case of the Olympic press, a great deal of the so-called "progress" has been produced by relaxation of the rules, to the point that the press has now degenerated into an outright jerk with little or nothing in common with the press as it was practiced twenty years ago -- and at least one man, Douglas Hepburn, was capable of bench pressing near-record poundage's over fifteen years ago, and at a body weight far below that of the present record holders. Thirty years ago, Bob Peoples deadlifted well over 700 pounds at a body weight below 180 pounds -- today, men weighing twice as much have finally been able to add approximately 100 pounds to his record. Some of Paul Anderson's lifts -- performed over fifteen years ago -- will probably never be duplicated.
*The really outstanding men of today are exceptions -- as such men always were, and as they always will be; there are larger numbers of such outstanding individuals in view at the moment simply and only because a much larger number of men are now training with weights. But what about the average trainees?
*The simple truth of the matter is that the average trainee of today could not hope to compete on equal terms with the average trainee of twenty years ago; and it is equally true that most of this decline in the average production of results is directly due to commercial bias in the field of weight-training.
Posted via Mobile Device
Posted via Mobile Device
Goosey
.
For exercise to benefit there must be overload, this sort of exercise is not pleasant it's hard- if it isn't hard there is no benefit.
Exercise is very simple, but very hard to do.
How hard do you work? You work hard like your life depends upon it because it does.
Intensity? That's subjective but results are tangible.
Posted via Mobile Device
Exercise is very simple, but very hard to do.
How hard do you work? You work hard like your life depends upon it because it does.
Intensity? That's subjective but results are tangible.
Posted via Mobile Device
Goosey
.
Markos, there was a I think- lifestyle in springvale full of nautilus.
Was the one in frankston before of after.
I remember playing squash at the one in springvale when I was much younger I think 16yo, I remember looking in the gym and seeing a mass of this (at the time) brown funny looking equipment.
I think they went broke and sold of their equipment, some of which ended up at bodytalk nunawading.
Posted via Mobile Device
Lifestyle in Frankston never had Nautilus.
There was a Nautilus gym in Frankston later on, it was situated a few floors up in the Peninsula Centre building. It too went broke, I'd never been in there.
The Nautilus equipment I used was at Golds in Venice, it was the original equipment, far different to the stuff I later tried at gyms back home.
I was lucky enough to get a demonstration on how to use the single arm curl machine by Mike Mentzer. I didnt know people could train that hard, it was a real eye opener, November 1990.
It redefined "failure" for me.
There was a Nautilus gym in Frankston later on, it was situated a few floors up in the Peninsula Centre building. It too went broke, I'd never been in there.
The Nautilus equipment I used was at Golds in Venice, it was the original equipment, far different to the stuff I later tried at gyms back home.
I was lucky enough to get a demonstration on how to use the single arm curl machine by Mike Mentzer. I didnt know people could train that hard, it was a real eye opener, November 1990.
It redefined "failure" for me.
BoyFromAus
New member
As a beginner, the root cause to all the mistakes i made was lack of knowledge combined with lack of discipline and the quick-fix attitude.
There's far too much bullshit info out there and I used a lot of it and got nowhere. Not to mention every fukn designer supplement company trying to sell their garbage to us, amongst other BS programs.
Amongst the bullshit info, there was very good info but it's irrelevant to beginners. Examples were the Fiber Damage Fiber Saturation training which I wanted to do, and the Ultimate Diet v2.0 by Lyle McDonald.
There's far too much bullshit info out there and I used a lot of it and got nowhere. Not to mention every fukn designer supplement company trying to sell their garbage to us, amongst other BS programs.
Amongst the bullshit info, there was very good info but it's irrelevant to beginners. Examples were the Fiber Damage Fiber Saturation training which I wanted to do, and the Ultimate Diet v2.0 by Lyle McDonald.
Christian
Active Member, June10MOTM
Yes but there is a difference between a 30yo with lifting experience who has fialing test levles because of age as opposed to someone who hasnt even hit peak yet..