XenonRadon's forum posts

Avatar image for XenonRadon
XenonRadon

63

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 XenonRadon
Member since 2005 • 63 Posts

Let me just add one more reason why not to bulk: When you gain fat on a bulk, your fat cells increase in size, but also multiply (create new fat cells). When you lose fat during a cut, they only decrease in size, but not in number.

So after a bulk/cut cycle you now have more fat cells than you had before and if those cells multiplied in your belly (as they tend to do with guys), you are now going to get a visibly fat belly more easily than you would have before you have bulked. For the rest of your life (unless you get liposuction).

Avatar image for XenonRadon
XenonRadon

63

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 XenonRadon
Member since 2005 • 63 Posts

Lots of great advice, thanks guys.

Would I be good if I continue to add cardio (which is something I haven't done till now because before I started working out I was very skinnny) and maybe remove two meals from my diet?

My main concern is not losing any of the mass that I have spent so many hours trying putting on.

megadeth1117

I think you should add cardio. First, it's simply good for your long-term health. Second, you will actually have some athletic ability to back up your appearance. Being able to exert yourself for an extended period of time is one of the best benefits you can gain from working out. You'll have a sports car appearance and the engine to back it up. And last, personally I've been able to hold onto muscle more effectively by running a lot and lifting weights as opposed to reducing calories strictly through diet and lifting weights (with minimal cardio). Bodybuilding message boards will tell you to just use diet, but having done both (without anabolic steroids), in my experience exercise trumps counting calories.

Think about how ripped athletes got that way. By working their butts off in the gym and on the track, not by weighing their celery.

For running, you should work your way up to 10:1 intervals (walk 1 min for every 10 minutes of running). Invest in a good pair of running shoes from a running store (the sales person can watch you run and tell you what kind of support you need).

Avatar image for XenonRadon
XenonRadon

63

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 XenonRadon
Member since 2005 • 63 Posts

I started lifting seriously around 2003 and got my information mostly from the internet.

At the time, alternately bulking and cutting was advocated on the net absolutely, and any other approach was ridiculed. The web seems to be more open to other ideas now, but bodybuilding.com, wannabebigforums.com and other sites will still often recommend bulking and cutting cycles.

After doing it for several years and now trying a completely different approach, I would advise you to avoid 'bulking and cutting' unless you are a chemically-assisted competing bodybuilder.

I would advise you to focus on getting lean (and healthy!) now, and then just stay lean and work on slowly building quality muscle in the future without getting fat again. Don't bulk again.

As for what to actually do to get lean: Run 20-35k a week, keep lifting 2-3 times a week, don't eat garbage, and only eat when you actually feel hungry. Don't fast if you feel hungry, actually eat, but stop once you feel full.

I've had better progress in the past year doing this (lost 35 lbs since January and am the strongest I've ever been) than I did when I was counting and restricting calories and macros like most bodybuilding forums would advise you to do. I always lost a bunch of strength and muscle when doing that.

Avatar image for XenonRadon
XenonRadon

63

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 XenonRadon
Member since 2005 • 63 Posts

[QUOTE="DivergeUnify"][QUOTE="hydralisk86"] Aikido was never done in MMA, so you can't say it's not effective. Am I right? It might be what TC is looking for. I am doing an Aikido class in school, and the basic principle is being able to take down larger opponents, without using resistance or physical strength. TC, I think you should do research on the martial arts that you want to do. Asking on a forums is not going to get you much info, unless those people actually do the martial arts. hydralisk86

There's not a single video, or shred of evidence Aikido is effective against someone who knows how to fight. Wrestlers don't go running in throwing s***ty punches standing up at full height, and neither do other martial artists who box, do muay thai, or whatever it may be.

That doesn't mean that Aikido is ineffective. I'm no expert, but I get the feeling an Aikido practitioner was challenged to some kind of fight that was an exhibition, he would back down, because Aikido is a peace martial art. I dunno if there was even a time when some guy who was an Aikido practitioner listened and took a challenge...

True, hydralisk86, there are a few Aikido vs. whatever matches on youtube, but it has largely been a no-sho from competitive fighting. And I think you're right, it does have a lot to do with the philosophy taught along with the technique. But Judo (the gentle way) is similar philosophically, and that hasn't stopped Hidehiko Yoshida, Karo Parysian, Remco Pardoel, and others from fighting in high-level international MMA. So I think in this case, the absense of evidence is quite telling. And we can also look at the components of Aikido and see that they are not likely to be effective based on what types of techniques and training methods have been successful. Wrist manipulation is very low percentage, as is compliant training. So it is highly unlikely that Aikido is secretly very effective. I'm not saying that no Aikido practitioners can fight, but given equal training time, a wrestler, judoka, muay thai fighter, etc. would be the heavy favourite and for good reason. And there's no reason to think that would change on "the street" vs. in a ring.
Avatar image for XenonRadon
XenonRadon

63

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 XenonRadon
Member since 2005 • 63 Posts

[QUOTE="DivergeUnify"]Well to be honest if someone knows how to fight, Aikido isn't going to do s*** so you're better off going with a martial art that isn't so purely defensive. Not sure what Wing chun is Zensword
You don't know Wing chun ? I'm sure you know Bruce Lee, he's a disciple of the legendary Ip Man, master of Wing Chun.

While it's true that Bruce Lee studied under (Y)ip Man, he outright rejected most of the training methods, techniques and theory behind Wing Chun. He was one of the first to embrace what is now called a Mixed Martial Arts mindset -- taking the best methods and techniques from all available styles, and discarding everything else.

If you are interested in Bruce Lee's training, read the Tao of Jeet Kune Do, and you will get a sense for what he advocated. That said, he did not actually learn the full Wing Chun curriculum before rejecting it.

As for effectiveness, neither Wing Chun or Aikido have had success in modern Mixed Martial Arts competition, or the No Holds Barred/Vale Tudo (anything goes) fighting that preceded the sport we see today. If you consider the ring to be like a laboratory for testing fighting techniques and training methods, neither Aikido and Wing Chun appear to not be very effective.

The most important factor that make a martial art effective seems to be training against freely-moving, fully resisting opponents (called "aliveness" by Matt Thornton, a famous Jeet Kune Do Instructor), a training style which is not typical in Aikido or Wing Chun. Sound technique develops in styles that train with aliveness, evolving in a way similar to natural selection. Better technique will continually beat inferior technique, and will become the norm taught in that style.

Styles that have been successful in full contact competition (including early, unregulated contests complete with eye gouges, groin strikes, headbuts, etc.) also tend to be those styles that train with aliveness: wrestling, brazilian jiu-jitsu, submission wrestling, judo, boxing, kickboxing, muay thai, and to a lesser extend tae kwon do and kyokushin karate.

To answer your question more directly, I would think 1 year of Wing Chun training would prepare you for self defense slightly better than 1 year of Aikido would, but not by much. A wrestling, kickboxer, or BJJ player with one year of training would eat you for breakfast either way.

Avatar image for XenonRadon
XenonRadon

63

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 XenonRadon
Member since 2005 • 63 Posts

Hey guys, quick question: what key do you press to talk to your squad/team/everyone?

I swear I've mashed my whole keyboard but haven't been able to figure it out.

Avatar image for XenonRadon
XenonRadon

63

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 XenonRadon
Member since 2005 • 63 Posts

Having done karate for many years, as well as a few years of shootwrestling and some BJJ, here are my thoughts:

I have noticed this trend too, especially in karate. A lot of short guys, as well as a lot of dorks, guys with ponytails, etc.

I think it's honestly because most of the tall, athletic people are playing hockey, football, baseball, basketball, or wrestling instead.

A lot of short and dorky guys, who aren't competing in other sports, are looking for an exotic martial art (usually Japanese, Chinese or Korean) to make themselves feel like (and hopefully become) the badasses they aren't.

(I fit the bill myself, as I was quite unathletic)

Avatar image for XenonRadon
XenonRadon

63

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 XenonRadon
Member since 2005 • 63 Posts
That's a limitation of film, not an advantage. Next people will start claiming how 720p looks better than 1080p, how jaggies look better than AA, or how blurry texture looks better than sharp textures. This point is ridiculous. I suspect that it is a masterful troll attempt.GhoX
Sorry, you're wrong. Remember, most movies now are being shot digitally. They can choose to shoot (and project) at any rate they want, yet they choose 24.
Avatar image for XenonRadon
XenonRadon

63

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 XenonRadon
Member since 2005 • 63 Posts

Wow, most of you are actually wrong here. The TS has a valid argument.

30fps does have a much more cinematic look than 60fps, precisely because it is closer to the frame rate of film.

The low framerate contributes dramatically to the cinematic look of film and dramatic tv shows. Most movies being shot today are shot on either Red cameras or Arri Alexa cameras, which are video cameras (though usually called 'digital cinema'), at 24fps. Video is normally shot at interlaced 29.97 frames (59.94 fields), but the film makers opt to use the lower frame rate because it looks better.

Dramatic television shows are often actually shot at 23.976 because (compared to 24) it requires simpler pulldown to get to the 29.97i television signal.

About 20 percent of films are still shot on 35mm film, at a rate of 24 fps. They are usually displayed at twice that rate, but the motion is still in 24 increments per second.

In television, compare the look of a show like Friends, Seinfeld, Lost, etc., to a daytime soap. The high framerate (59.94) of the soap opera gives it a 'cheesier' feel, while the film gives the former group a more professional, dramatic look.

The same thing happens in video games. When I first played a CoD game on 360, one of my first thoughts was how cheesy it looked.

However, with video games the added framerate also improves the responsiveness and generally improves the feel of the controls. It also maintains playability if the framerate dips slightly (unlike at 30fps). For these reasons, most gamers probably prefer 60fps. But the gamers that prefer 30fps have a perfectly valid argument as well.

Avatar image for XenonRadon
XenonRadon

63

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 XenonRadon
Member since 2005 • 63 Posts

Those of you saying hardcore drugs should be illegal, how do you determine which drugs are 'hardcore' and therefore illegal?

Death rates, addiction rates, capacity for overdose?