You know, the truth is that I have given a great deal of my personal time through the years training people at no charge. Helping people in the hopes that they will pay it forward, and to see them succeed has always been the only reward I really wanted for it. I don't mean that to be goody two-shoes, I'm just being honest. But there should be an old saying. "If you want to find out who your friends are; start a web site!"

Well I've found out who my friends are and it hasn't gone unnoticed. We have poured so much of our time and passion into this thing so far and I want to thank Anuj, Joe, and of course Phil for being there with me and making it possible. I've taken a lot of chances and made a lot of sacrifices to do this and without those guys there would be no GUS and we certainly wouldn't have come as far as we have. It's actually hard to believe it hasn't even been a year because it feels like five years of work!

I used to be into the muscle mags and for the past few years have grown to hate them and their ridiculous 'training routines'. But this sort of thing is not exclusive to muscle mags, we also have the 5x5s, HSTs, 5/3/1's and Westside's floating around. ALL of which are, essentially meant to 'not be f*(&ed with'. You may have some choice in exercise selection but in the end you're still just a cookie on a baking sheet.

It still amazes me that:

1) People still buy muscle mags and believe that the routine will work and

2) Believe that the program was written by some bodybuilder rather than some scrawny little guy sitting in an office chair

3) That people think the bodybuilder actually used that program to get to the level he is at.

4) That every month there is a new way to add inches to your arms and shred your abs in 6 days.

I've read most of, but not all of his books. My favorite probably being "A Dirty Job" but all of them have been a romp. He has a website and a blog but I'm not much on reading authors's blogs as I tend to think that detracts from, rather than adds to, their work. His thing is taking these various mythos and whacking them up. Think in terms of what Douglas Adams did for the space opera.

His novel Coyote Blue could be compared with Neil Gaiman's Anansi Boys but I liked Coyote Blue a lot better. I found Anansi Boy's to be tedious and couldn't get through it. Not get down on Neil Gaiman since I've only read that and "Coroline" and Coroline was just downright spooky althouh I think the comparisons to Narnia are just a bit much. But the "other" element is very disturbing in Coroline, and it is much more so than the "other" in science fiction as in Invasion of the Body Snatchers, etc..I think though someone compared it to Philip K. Dick's "The Father Thing" which is such a great example of that.

Coyote Blue is about "Old Man Coyote" which is a Native American myth whereas Gaiman's is about Anansi the Spider God from native African mythology. I don't know enough about Gaiman to get further into what he writes. I will definitely give him another chance, though.

Incidently, Moore lists Neil Gaiman's site on his blog's "friends list" and Neil Gaiman wrote "Don't Panic: The Official Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy Companion" so connections, connections…

Christopher Moore

Myth: Eat Small Meals Every 3 Hours - Contrary to Michelle May claim this is not based on any observation of skinny people eating like this. Rightly or wrongly the theory behind this "many small meals idea" is that when you reduce total calorie intake over the day, you can biochemically fool your body into thinking that it is not starving, thus preventing it from going into "famine survival mode" (i.e. ramping down BMR). That is you eat every three hours to let your body know that there is still plenty of food around and that it doesn't need to conserve energy to survive a famine. You eat small meals because many big meals won't exactly help you lose fat.

"Myth: Don’t Let Yourself Get Hungry" and "Myth: Follow Your Diet Six Days a Week Then You Can Have a Cheat Day" are for the same reason as above, i.e. not letting your body go into "survive a famine" mode, by trying to convince it that there is no famine to defend against (by conserving energy).

When you put in a link put an asterisk right before the url like this: [*http://url.com]

That will cause the link to automatically open in a new tab even if the person doesn't right click and select new tab. Very useful when reviewing videos and especially since youtube hangs up the back button. At least it does for me.

Also remember that you all can embed youtube videos directly and also a few others..Daily Motion, I think. Just copy and paste the embed code (you can customize it with the youtube settings as well), select the text, and hit the little video camera in the menu. Or just surround the embed code with:

 [[embed]] video code [[/embed]] 

I can embed pretty much any other video with a bit more rigging so let me know if you are using services other than youtube and want to be able to embed videos (and I can instruct anyone who is willing to learn). Remember that if you embed TOO many videos in your journal it will cause the page to load very slowly.

I picked up Patricia Cornwell's novel (I am so used to saying "story book" lol) featuring Dr. Scarpetta and I have to say…although both authors write in the gruesome crime genre, I like Patterson a lot more…with Cornwell I get bored easily.

I haven't been reading enough over the last week but I plan on picking up some cool science fiction / fantasy books this weekend if my college library has them.

Yes, I am a nerd.

Contact:
Dave Dixon
888-795-0444

FDA Press Release - Oviedo, FL – November 12, 2009 -IDS Sports announced today that it is conducting a voluntary nationwide recall of five of the company’s dietary supplement products sold under the following names: Bromodrol, Dual Action Grow Tabs, Grow Tabs, Mass Tabs, and Ripped Tabs TR.

The Food And Drug Administration (FDA) has notified IDS Sports that the recalled products contain the following undeclared substances, which FDA considers to be steroids: “Madol,” “Turinabol,” “Superdrol,” and/or “Androstenedione.”

Acute liver injury is known to be a possible harmful effect of using steroid-containing products. In addition, steroids may cause other serious long-term adverse health consequences in men, women, and children. These include shrinkage of the testes and male infertility, masculinization of women, breast enlargement in males, short stature in children, a higher predilection to misuse other drugs and alcohol, adverse effects on blood lipid levels, and increased risk of heart attack, stroke, and death.

The recalled products listed below were distributed in either black boxes containing blister packs of 60 capsules or white bottles with black labels containing 30 or 60 capsules.

Although no illnesses or adverse events have been reported to the company to date in connection with the products listed above, customers who have these products in their possession should stop using them immediately and contact their physician if they have experienced any problems that may be related to using one or more of the products. Any adverse events that may be related to the use of these products should be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting program online [at www.fda.gov/MedWatch/report.htm] or by returning the postage-paid FDA form 3500 [which may be downloaded from www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm] by mail [to MedWatch, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20852-9787] or fax [1-800-FDA-0178].

The FDA has been apprised of this recall and IDS Sports is cooperating with the FDA in this recall process.

I was wondering if any of you have had experience with athletic pubalgia (incorrectly called sports hernia) ? I'm in the middle of conservative treatment/PT and I'm not convinced my Physical Therapist is right on. He says the main structural issue that caused the wear and tear in my groin/lower ab, eventually causing the tear (which is essentially what athletic pubalgia is) is from lack of TVA activation in stabilizing my pubic bone. I'm concerned because I've talked to no one that the conservative treatment has worked on, and everyone says they eventually get surgery which I obviously don't want.

I'm 29, 6'2, 200 played small college hoops. Never had any real injury's except for a couple ankle sprains, but I gotta a mean anterior pelvic tilt. I hurt myself playing flag football, but the injury is a gradual one that I did sprinting, playing flag football, etc. Love to train and was finally getting close to my goal of double BW squat before I hurt myself! Now I haven't trained in 3 weeks! No surfing, basketball, football, weights, nothing!!

Sorry for the long post I'm eager to learn about this condition as much as I am eager to heal from my injury. Have learned a lot about it but want to get more input from others. Anyone?

As a for instance, you will get more potentially carcinogenic chemicals from a cup of coffee, organic or otherwise, than you will from a year of exposure to chemical pesticide residues. All the chemicals presents in the foods we eat…same picture. There are also many PROTECTIVE chemicals in the foods we eat. Including in coffee (bold statement seeing that coffee is supposed to have around 1000 chemicals of which twenty something have been investigated).

However there is no significant evidence that coffee, carrots, peppers, kung pao chicken, etc pose a real cancer risk.

Realize that when scientists are investigating chemicals for their carcinogenic properties they are NOT trying to "prove" that the chemical causes cancer. They are looking for potential. And they are certainly not, by extension, trying to prove that the associated food causes cancer.

Even though you get so many potentially harmful organic chemicals form the food you eat, so much so that that exposure might be said to pose a greater risk than pesticide chemical exposure, it is no where near the ridiculously large amounts that laboratory rats are exposed to! Also, a fact that many people don't know is that "strains" of rats that are "prone" to certain types of cancer are chosen for many of these trials. The idea being is that if you think a chemical causes skin tumors you pick a strain that is prone to skin tumors (not saying much since rats are particulary prone to skin tumors).

As a by the by..rats go down with cancer a dime a dozen. Even your really nice pet store rats. Simply put, they were never meant to live the cushy lives they do in captivity and thus their small and short lived bodies have few defenses against the toxic chemicals that build up in their tissues when they live unnaturally long lives.

For those of you who know me, here's a chance to see me keep it to 255 characters or less. Bet you didn't think I could do it!

Feel welcome to start threads here on any of the individual tips if you would desire further discussion.

Bartender says "Sure, but why the big pause?"

Panda says "These? I've always had these."

There are a LOT of stupid things in that article.

Point #1:

The caption below the photo is "Chad weighing in at a thick 286"

How the heck is Chad at 286 lbs? Is he 8 feet tall??

Point #2:

There's no substitute for chins and dips from rings.

What? How about chins and dips from normal places to do chins and dips? And so everyone who doesn't have access to rings is spinning their wheels doing dips for parallel bars and chins from regular bars?

Point #3:

Pushing an athlete when he wants to be pushed doesn't do any good. You must push him when he's off balance.

Chad's claim to fame is making his trainees fall down when they least expect it. Great.

Point #4:

If I decided to put back on 30 pounds of muscle, I'd have one helluva time getting female clients in this town. That's something I don't want.

So putting on 30 pounds of muscle is that easy? LOL….

LOL Waterbury is such an idiot…

Don't view the pictures if you're a dog lover or if you love pit bulls.

http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2009/10/leaked_photos_of_dead_pit_bull.php

Especially regarding the fact that you became "Too Flexible" to perform RDLs optimally.Another good write up for sure.

Now for the article on Janda situps!!! (these are a mystery to me : )) or did I miss that one??

I'll provide the absract, conclusion and then a link to the full article.

Calories Do Not Explain Extension of Life Span by Dietary Restriction in Drosophila

William Mair, Matthew D. W. Piper, Linda Partridge

Centre for Research on Ageing, University College London, Department of Biology, London, United Kingdom

Abstract

Dietary restriction (DR) extends life span in diverse organisms, including mammals, and common mechanisms may be at work. DR is often known as calorie restriction, because it has been suggested that reduction of calories, rather than of particular nutrients in the diet, mediates extension of life span in rodents. We here demonstrate that extension of life span by DR in Drosophila is not attributable to the reduction in calorie intake. Reduction of either dietary yeast or sugar can reduce mortality and extend life span, but by an amount that is unrelated to the calorie content of the food, and with yeast having a much greater effect per calorie than does sugar. Calorie intake is therefore not the key factor in the reduction of mortality rate by DR in this species.

Conclusions

The response of Drosophila life span to nutrition is not governed by calories, but rather by specific nutritional components of the food. This finding represents a departure from the generally accepted model in rodents, where it has been suggested that the level of calorie intake per se, not the source of calories, is critical for life-span extension [1]. The apparent disparity between the factors in the diet that affect life span in fruit flies and rodents leads to two possible conclusions. First, the mechanisms by which these organisms respond to food shortage could be different. Second, the long-held view that calorie intake is the critical variable in the response of mammalian life span to DR may require further evaluation.

Despite some reports in the literature that DR did not extend life span [38,41,42], the overwhelming majority of data support the idea that DR in some form extends life span across diverse taxa. However, it is still unknown if life-span extension under DR is achieved through common mechanisms in different species. A case for conservation of the mechanisms by which DR extends life span can be made from evolutionary considerations. It has been suggested that, during times of famine, diversion of resources away from reproduction towards somatic maintenance will increase the chances of an organism surviving to more plentiful times and thus increase long-term reproductive success [43–46]. The selective advantage of shifting resources from reproduction to maintenance when food is restricted could be the “public” factor shared between diverse organisms. However, the mechanisms by which extension of life span is achieved could be an example of convergent evolution, producing the same plasticity of life span in response to food shortage through mechanisms at least to some extent specific to different organisms, dependent upon their diet, experience of food shortages, and life history. More work is needed to elucidate the precise relationship between the composition of the diet and life span in different organisms, including mammals. Our results suggest that it may be possible to obtain the full extension of life span by DR by reducing critical nutrients in the food without any reduction in overall calorie intake.

http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.0030223

This comes with "Sony Ebook Store" software. But you can get books all over the place. Whats more..you can check out books from you local library! I checked out two yesterday..you HAVE to download the Adobe Digital Editions for this and you need to have an adobe account but it's pretty killer. Hard to find books that aren't checked out but still…of course you can get audio books for your mp3 that way as well.

I thought about the kindle and it IS nice but the Sony lets you do things the kindle doesn't. The sony doesn't have wi fi but that is no big deal to me.

I read a while on the reader in bed last night just like a regular book. Didn't take long to get used to it. The screen simulates a page very nicely and you can even use this in the sun with not glare.

So far I'm pretty jazzed with it.

This is the one I have:

The pain in my jaw had grown so bad I was having trouble eating. Massaging the pterygoid resolved this pain completely for me and it still hasn't come back.

I remember writing a blog post where in a nutshell I was talking about all or nothing type goals. There is so much focus on "long term" goals and also, as Anuj, pointed out so recently, so many people don't stick to training yet "progress" very quickly.

Yes, except that so many of those people who progress so quickly and then drop out just as quickly after injury or just plain burnour or the inevitable brush with "reality"…they can't do hardly any pullups. How many guys have we known who get defensive about their lat pulldowns and use the 'I don't care about strength' excuse? Lot of guilt riding on the inability to handle your own bodyweight well.

You take some of these people who are so focused on far off numbers. The bar, the scale, etc.. and start them out just with the goal of getting good with their bodyweight pullups and then adding weight to that..I have a theory they will 'stick' longer for all sorts of reasons.

This is a reason I get so down on "programs" and their promise of results. People expect so much so fast but are left dissapointed and unfulfilled when they get their. Yet a SIMPLE goals such as "I'm going to get that first pullup" can mean everything.

The Boise, Idaho warehouse was raided by federal agents on September 24th.

Full story here

Height 6'4". Weight 185lbs.
Squat : 195 3x5
Deadlift: 225 1x5
Press: 70 3x5
Power Clean: 90 5x3
Bench Press: 115 3x5

As far as weight goes, It doesn't matter as long as I dont end up obesce. But for an example. Lets say i add like 40 pounds and im at 225. My goals for lifts would be. Bench 225, Squat 335, Deadlift 450 and all other lifts accordingly. So basically Benching body weight, squatting 1.5 times bodyweight and deadlifting 2 times my bodyweight for whatever weight im at is my all time goal. If i can progress past that, great. But those are my long terms goals.

Im motivated to reach my goals and i'm open to all advice and input on how I can reach them. Currently i have access to a gym on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays afterschool. It might be open sometimes in the morning but I would prefer not to go in the morning :). I'm currently eating between 3400 and 3800 calories (depending on cardio days when i go on the excercise bike and burn 400 calories between 26-30 minutes when im not lifting). To gain about a pound per week.

If there is anything else you guys need to know, ask away!

Maybe things would become clearer if we pointed out that a squat, in a foundational sense, is not an exercise it is a position.

Not only is their no real meaning to the term there is not standard purity for pharmaceutical ingredients. Pharmaceutical ingredients are manufactured to purities appropriate for their use in drug preparations, i.e. the "requisite" purity.

Websters defines a pharmaceutical as a MEDICINAL DRUG.

I wish I had read this before I made my gf do band assisted pull-ups today.

Now that the topic has been 'thrown out there' our readers can ask, comment and discuss. With input from readers this topic will really become a monster. And, from what I've seen, its a monster that you won't find anywhere else.

These ranges all come down to a couple of factors. The first is the word "optimal". I HATE the word optimal. Optimal is like duct tape, man. Sure it "works" in a pinch but it ain't permanent. It frays around the edges and when you go by what is supposed to be optimal your training ends up looking like your old duct-taped bench…screwed up.

It is also an expression of the ranges that are most commonly used. In olympic lifting 1 to 3 reps is standard business. Unfortunately, for those of use who practice primarily the slow lifts, it is not. But you will get different recommendations from different sources and the thing that MUST be recognized it that it is all JUST RECOMMENDATIONS. It isn't truth or fact.

I think maybe people get the idea that certain practices are more prevalent than they are because of the internet. For instance westside and its propoganda machine would make it seem like everybody is doing similar things. But really only a small fraction of those that are engaged in strength training do any one thing. There is a whole world of trainees out there and it is a BIG world.

To me, like you, singles seems like the definition of maximal strength training. But this is really a common viewpoint!

I remember a few years back an article by Steven Plisk where he talked about how the ways that Olympic lifters train the snatch and the clean and jerk should be emulated in general. He was actually talking some revolutionary stuff. At the same time look at how, much of the time, olympic lifters training the assistance lifts like squats…3 reps and up.

Not that lower rep ranges for the slow lifts is unheard of but I think it is a symptom of this when something like Dinosaur training, with all it's flaws, can seem revolutionary and exciting simply by virtue of incorporating much higher intensities.

No matter whether you are a rank beginner or an advanced man seeking the ultimate in strength and development: the number of sets and repetitions you use or will be using in your training will be a source of aggravation and discussion - Anthony Dittilo

Two minute rest periods for strength? Yeah, read the post Joe mentioned. That's just asinine like Joe said.

I've never looked at the numbers (just figured most of their stuff is mumbo-jumbo) but when I read the article, Alan has really broken it down in such a way that it shows how unbelievable these "results" seem to be. On first glance 35 lbs weight gain seems like nothing. But Alan's thorough analysis of such a claim really shows how outrageous these claims tend to be. I still can't get over CT's "results"….LOL….Judging by that I'd be Deadlifting 600 lbs in a month! :-P

You know I talk about word service a lot. Well "training movements" or "training lifts" is a BIG example of word service. Trainees get so focused on numbers and training the lifts or movements just means getting bigger numbers. Weight, reps, etc…

Every time you turn around you see another article about "breaking through plateaus" and again, it's just doing whatever is necessary to get one more pound. How many times have you seen someone ACTUALLY talk about consciously spending time on improving the quality of a lift? When, the reality is, all this hyper-focus on numbers means quality decreases as our desperation to to hit those numbers increases. Which means, in the end, our ability to hit those numbers hits a lower ceiling than would otherwise have occurred.

2.

Getting stronger out of fear of becoming weak is bad. It's purely negative reinforcement.

Hell yeah!!!!!!!!!

Great insight.

3. OH squats versus shrugs: I recognize a thought trap here.

A. OH squats are SIMPLE. There is nothing really technical or difficult about the maneuver itself. It is simply "hard". That is, the symphony of muscular interactions needed are very complex but the conscious act of going through the movement is simple.

So this simple exericise is HARD to learn. It takes a great deal of dedication and you have to be able to deal with some frustration.

By comparison shrugs seem so primal and simple. Much less going on. So you automatically assume that shrugs should be a no-brainer and if your form breaks down it has something to do with brute force that makes your form break down.

The biggest difference is that OH squats by virtue of their nature are unforgiving. You have to do them pretty darn close to correct or you basically end up with technical failure. In this way they are different than many other exercise and certainly different than shrugs.

So what you have here is the dichotomy between an exercise that forces you to do it right and and exercise that you can do any old which way..much to your detriment.

All you need to do is let go of the assumptions and expectations and accept that any movement may need some attention paid to quality.

With shrugs you were letting the weight pull your shoulder forward and then pulling primarily back instead of up. This is very damaging to the shoulders. Incidentally, however, this is a "method" that was touted by many muscle mag types as a way to grow bigger traps.

So that is another aspect of certain exercises that give a lot of wiggle room in performance. They open the door for people coming up with their own 'versions' of the exercise. Those versions float around and become "correct form", usually by nature of how big the guy was who came up with it…whether in reputation or muscle. It becomes difficult to know what is correct without resorting to learning more in-depth biomechanics and kinesiology, etc…which most would rather not have to do.

This is even true with something like the back squats, and we all know that you can do back squats wrong for years and get away with it. Which means that any jerk can get away with selling you any crapola about a back squat because by the time it becomes a problem…the problem cannot be traced to him.

Which is why I love things like overhead squats. There is just not enough room for people to play around with them. Yes, I think it is possible to do them "wrong" but there is a very finite cutoff in terms of load where wrong becomes failure. Not so with back squats and all sorts of other things. You can do a goodmorning, call it a back squat, and be none the wiser until someone points it out to you.

Large washers also make good micro-loaders. Get a pack of largish washers from the hardware store or Home Depot and just set a couple on top to add very small amounts of weight.

Another tip: Don’t fall for the “premium price” necessarily means better quality party line. Quality and purity are important, but you can get molecularly-distilled, mercury, PCB, Dioxin, Organochlorine-free, 3rd party tested-to-meet-label-claims fish oil for less than ten bucks per bottle of 400 (one gram) capsules… yet I have seen “fish oil gurus” selling the exact same thing for $50 to $60 claiming that everyone else’s products are “contaminated” and “inferior” in quality. If that’s true, then I’d like to see those products submitted to consumer lab for voluntary 3rd party independent analysis and head to head comparison on purity AND cost effectiveness. If they come out superior and cost effective, I will gladly publicize the results myself.

I can almost guarantee you that if these ridiculously overpriced fish oil brands were submitted to Consumer Lab and tested alongside the common and more cost effective brands they would NOT be shown to be superior. The kind of thing I'm talking about is overpriced stuff such as Biotest and the many so-called "pharmaceutical grade" fish oils and "ultra concentrated" fish oils on the market.

In terms of rancidity:

These highly processed fish oils will be JUST as prone to rancidity as ANY fish oil and they are quite likely to have a GREATER chance of being rancid. Fish oil begins the process of oxidation immediately. As soon as the fish body begins to be processed then the manufacturer is fighting the clock. The more complicated and prolonged the processing the greater the degree of oxidation. Most fish oil brands add an anti-oxidant such as Vitamin E to fish oil after processing. BUT this will not STOP the process of rancidification once it is begun. When it comes to fish oil, the faster and simpler the processing is the better.

In terms of yield:

It is a matter of opinion (and dubious opinion at that) whether more DHA or EPA respectively means a superior product. Consumer lab tests to make sure that products meet their label claims. Most products when touting an very high proportion of one constituent tend to fall short of the mark. This is especially true of DHA. However, this has nothing to do with QUALITY. Just quantity.

A moderately priced fish oil brand of the type Tom mentions, which contains the typical yield of DHA and EPA will meet your needs when it comes to a fish oil supplement. Do not fall for the swindlers trying to take your money. Most of the common store brands test well and very cost effective brands such as Puritan's Pride, Kirklands, and Berkley and Jenson will both meet your budget and give you are very dependable product.

For a more in-depth look see Fish Oil Quality