PDA

View Full Version : Re: Fat deposits around my hips


justin case
July 12th 03, 10:42 PM
On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 20:32:50 GMT, > wrote:

>
>I am a 55 year old male who is 6'2" tall and weigh about 212 lbs.. I
>consider myself to be in good shape .
>
>I do about 50 minutes or more of aerobic activity at least 4 times a
>week and I do weights about twice a week. For some strange reason over
>the last 6 months or so, I've developed some extra fat deposits around
>my upper waist despite having addied ab work to my workouts several
>months ago. Pants that fit fine last summer are now tight around my
>waist. I have gained about 6 lbs. in the last year but I'm sure that
>most of that went to my arms and shoulders because people have pointed
>out to me that I'm larger in those places.
>
>I realize that "spot" reducing doesn't work and was wondering if anyone
>had any advice for me.
>
If the fat on the waist coincides with the ab work, you may be building
a little muscle there, making the fat more noticable. Otherwise you may
be just gaining fat & need examine your diet; eg. how many calories you
take in vs. what you use.

justin case
July 12th 03, 10:42 PM
On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 20:32:50 GMT, > wrote:

>
>I am a 55 year old male who is 6'2" tall and weigh about 212 lbs.. I
>consider myself to be in good shape .
>
>I do about 50 minutes or more of aerobic activity at least 4 times a
>week and I do weights about twice a week. For some strange reason over
>the last 6 months or so, I've developed some extra fat deposits around
>my upper waist despite having addied ab work to my workouts several
>months ago. Pants that fit fine last summer are now tight around my
>waist. I have gained about 6 lbs. in the last year but I'm sure that
>most of that went to my arms and shoulders because people have pointed
>out to me that I'm larger in those places.
>
>I realize that "spot" reducing doesn't work and was wondering if anyone
>had any advice for me.
>
If the fat on the waist coincides with the ab work, you may be building
a little muscle there, making the fat more noticable. Otherwise you may
be just gaining fat & need examine your diet; eg. how many calories you
take in vs. what you use.

David Cohen
July 14th 03, 05:49 PM
"Art S" > wrote
>
> Are you trying to channel Watson?
>
I have no musical ability and am computer illiterate and have no hair,
so, no.

OTOH, I can say with the best of them, "Yes, dear, anything you want",
so we have something major in common.

David

David Cohen
July 14th 03, 05:49 PM
"Art S" > wrote
>
> Are you trying to channel Watson?
>
I have no musical ability and am computer illiterate and have no hair,
so, no.

OTOH, I can say with the best of them, "Yes, dear, anything you want",
so we have something major in common.

David

John HUDSON
July 14th 03, 07:31 PM
On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 10:10:47 -0600, (Keith Hobman)
wrote:

>In article >, John HUDSON
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 14:12:17 +0100, Anna Hayward
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >David,
>> >>Dear Anna, you may want to delete misc.fitness.weights (MFW) from cross
>> >>posts.
>> >
>> >Will do, as soon as I've replied to this. I was actually considering
>> >having a look at your newsgroup because weight-training interests me,
>> >but having seen the quality of posters on that group I think not.
>>
>> You could and would learn a lot here, but it's not for the
>> 'faint-hearted'.
>>
>> >
>> >> You see, we have a little tradition known as IOM, where the
>> >>regulars vote for a monthly Idiot of the Month, based upon on-topic
>> >>posts that display an award-level degree of ignorance. Hoff, the wiseguy
>> >>that he is, is attempting...successfully...to get you to create enough
>> >>postings on this topic to gain a nomination for you.
>> >
>> >Seems maybe he should look in the mirror if he's looking for idiots. You
>> >aren't giving a terrific account of yourself either.
>>
>> This smacks of the 'playground' tactics to which you apparently don't
>> subscribe.
>>
>> >>
>> >>And, despite being "readily available on the Internet", your knowledge
>> >>of this topic is frighteningly moronic. "Medical journalism"? People
>> >>actually pay you to write such crap?
>> >
>> >No, that was just an Internet version of friendly conversation
>> >(evidently wasted on people who prefer the Internet equivalent of
>> >playground bullying).
>>
>> This is true, but you were warned and chose to disregard that warning.
>> Unfortunately that then makes you 'fair game' and you must take the
>> consequences!
>>
>> > My main professional interest is in psychiatry and
>> >neurology. Hmmm, maybe your newsgroup wouldn't be such a dead loss after
>> >all...
>>
>> Now this is very true; there are here a number of classic cases for
>> further observation and evaluation! ;o)
>
>Be interesting to see how many regulars would be diagnosed as really crazy.

"Really crazy" Keith? It's all by degrees, and there are certainly
varying levels of all sorts of neuroses here - but "really crazy"? Who
can say?

People are rarely what they appear to be, but once the barriers come
down in "real life", it's pleasing to find that most are much nicer!
;o)

>
>And for your info on various Raiders I'm known as 'the Crazy Canuck'. And
>proud of it! However that reference is more geared toward real life events
>than usenet behaviour.

Large weight lifters with 'nicknames' like yours, might be well worth
steering clear of in "real life" - unless the "craziness" is in a fun
kind of way!! LOL

>
>:^)

John HUDSON
July 14th 03, 07:31 PM
On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 10:10:47 -0600, (Keith Hobman)
wrote:

>In article >, John HUDSON
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 14:12:17 +0100, Anna Hayward
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >David,
>> >>Dear Anna, you may want to delete misc.fitness.weights (MFW) from cross
>> >>posts.
>> >
>> >Will do, as soon as I've replied to this. I was actually considering
>> >having a look at your newsgroup because weight-training interests me,
>> >but having seen the quality of posters on that group I think not.
>>
>> You could and would learn a lot here, but it's not for the
>> 'faint-hearted'.
>>
>> >
>> >> You see, we have a little tradition known as IOM, where the
>> >>regulars vote for a monthly Idiot of the Month, based upon on-topic
>> >>posts that display an award-level degree of ignorance. Hoff, the wiseguy
>> >>that he is, is attempting...successfully...to get you to create enough
>> >>postings on this topic to gain a nomination for you.
>> >
>> >Seems maybe he should look in the mirror if he's looking for idiots. You
>> >aren't giving a terrific account of yourself either.
>>
>> This smacks of the 'playground' tactics to which you apparently don't
>> subscribe.
>>
>> >>
>> >>And, despite being "readily available on the Internet", your knowledge
>> >>of this topic is frighteningly moronic. "Medical journalism"? People
>> >>actually pay you to write such crap?
>> >
>> >No, that was just an Internet version of friendly conversation
>> >(evidently wasted on people who prefer the Internet equivalent of
>> >playground bullying).
>>
>> This is true, but you were warned and chose to disregard that warning.
>> Unfortunately that then makes you 'fair game' and you must take the
>> consequences!
>>
>> > My main professional interest is in psychiatry and
>> >neurology. Hmmm, maybe your newsgroup wouldn't be such a dead loss after
>> >all...
>>
>> Now this is very true; there are here a number of classic cases for
>> further observation and evaluation! ;o)
>
>Be interesting to see how many regulars would be diagnosed as really crazy.

"Really crazy" Keith? It's all by degrees, and there are certainly
varying levels of all sorts of neuroses here - but "really crazy"? Who
can say?

People are rarely what they appear to be, but once the barriers come
down in "real life", it's pleasing to find that most are much nicer!
;o)

>
>And for your info on various Raiders I'm known as 'the Crazy Canuck'. And
>proud of it! However that reference is more geared toward real life events
>than usenet behaviour.

Large weight lifters with 'nicknames' like yours, might be well worth
steering clear of in "real life" - unless the "craziness" is in a fun
kind of way!! LOL

>
>:^)

Keith Hobman
July 14th 03, 08:55 PM
In article >, John HUDSON
> wrote:

> On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 10:10:47 -0600, (Keith Hobman)
> wrote:
>
> >In article >, John HUDSON
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 14:12:17 +0100, Anna Hayward
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >David,
> >> >>Dear Anna, you may want to delete misc.fitness.weights (MFW) from cross
> >> >>posts.
> >> >
> >> >Will do, as soon as I've replied to this. I was actually considering
> >> >having a look at your newsgroup because weight-training interests me,
> >> >but having seen the quality of posters on that group I think not.
> >>
> >> You could and would learn a lot here, but it's not for the
> >> 'faint-hearted'.
> >>
> >> >
> >> >> You see, we have a little tradition known as IOM, where the
> >> >>regulars vote for a monthly Idiot of the Month, based upon on-topic
> >> >>posts that display an award-level degree of ignorance. Hoff, the wiseguy
> >> >>that he is, is attempting...successfully...to get you to create enough
> >> >>postings on this topic to gain a nomination for you.
> >> >
> >> >Seems maybe he should look in the mirror if he's looking for idiots. You
> >> >aren't giving a terrific account of yourself either.
> >>
> >> This smacks of the 'playground' tactics to which you apparently don't
> >> subscribe.
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>And, despite being "readily available on the Internet", your knowledge
> >> >>of this topic is frighteningly moronic. "Medical journalism"? People
> >> >>actually pay you to write such crap?
> >> >
> >> >No, that was just an Internet version of friendly conversation
> >> >(evidently wasted on people who prefer the Internet equivalent of
> >> >playground bullying).
> >>
> >> This is true, but you were warned and chose to disregard that warning.
> >> Unfortunately that then makes you 'fair game' and you must take the
> >> consequences!
> >>
> >> > My main professional interest is in psychiatry and
> >> >neurology. Hmmm, maybe your newsgroup wouldn't be such a dead loss after
> >> >all...
> >>
> >> Now this is very true; there are here a number of classic cases for
> >> further observation and evaluation! ;o)
> >
> >Be interesting to see how many regulars would be diagnosed as really crazy.
>
> "Really crazy" Keith? It's all by degrees, and there are certainly
> varying levels of all sorts of neuroses here - but "really crazy"? Who
> can say?
>
> People are rarely what they appear to be, but once the barriers come
> down in "real life", it's pleasing to find that most are much nicer!
> ;o)
>
> >
> >And for your info on various Raiders I'm known as 'the Crazy Canuck'. And
> >proud of it! However that reference is more geared toward real life events
> >than usenet behaviour.
>
> Large weight lifters with 'nicknames' like yours, might be well worth
> steering clear of in "real life" - unless the "craziness" is in a fun
> kind of way!! LO

Gotta be fun John! Gotta be...

--
Keith Hobman

--- email address above is a non-monitored spam sink.

Keith Hobman
July 14th 03, 08:55 PM
In article >, John HUDSON
> wrote:

> On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 10:10:47 -0600, (Keith Hobman)
> wrote:
>
> >In article >, John HUDSON
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 14:12:17 +0100, Anna Hayward
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >David,
> >> >>Dear Anna, you may want to delete misc.fitness.weights (MFW) from cross
> >> >>posts.
> >> >
> >> >Will do, as soon as I've replied to this. I was actually considering
> >> >having a look at your newsgroup because weight-training interests me,
> >> >but having seen the quality of posters on that group I think not.
> >>
> >> You could and would learn a lot here, but it's not for the
> >> 'faint-hearted'.
> >>
> >> >
> >> >> You see, we have a little tradition known as IOM, where the
> >> >>regulars vote for a monthly Idiot of the Month, based upon on-topic
> >> >>posts that display an award-level degree of ignorance. Hoff, the wiseguy
> >> >>that he is, is attempting...successfully...to get you to create enough
> >> >>postings on this topic to gain a nomination for you.
> >> >
> >> >Seems maybe he should look in the mirror if he's looking for idiots. You
> >> >aren't giving a terrific account of yourself either.
> >>
> >> This smacks of the 'playground' tactics to which you apparently don't
> >> subscribe.
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>And, despite being "readily available on the Internet", your knowledge
> >> >>of this topic is frighteningly moronic. "Medical journalism"? People
> >> >>actually pay you to write such crap?
> >> >
> >> >No, that was just an Internet version of friendly conversation
> >> >(evidently wasted on people who prefer the Internet equivalent of
> >> >playground bullying).
> >>
> >> This is true, but you were warned and chose to disregard that warning.
> >> Unfortunately that then makes you 'fair game' and you must take the
> >> consequences!
> >>
> >> > My main professional interest is in psychiatry and
> >> >neurology. Hmmm, maybe your newsgroup wouldn't be such a dead loss after
> >> >all...
> >>
> >> Now this is very true; there are here a number of classic cases for
> >> further observation and evaluation! ;o)
> >
> >Be interesting to see how many regulars would be diagnosed as really crazy.
>
> "Really crazy" Keith? It's all by degrees, and there are certainly
> varying levels of all sorts of neuroses here - but "really crazy"? Who
> can say?
>
> People are rarely what they appear to be, but once the barriers come
> down in "real life", it's pleasing to find that most are much nicer!
> ;o)
>
> >
> >And for your info on various Raiders I'm known as 'the Crazy Canuck'. And
> >proud of it! However that reference is more geared toward real life events
> >than usenet behaviour.
>
> Large weight lifters with 'nicknames' like yours, might be well worth
> steering clear of in "real life" - unless the "craziness" is in a fun
> kind of way!! LO

Gotta be fun John! Gotta be...

--
Keith Hobman

--- email address above is a non-monitored spam sink.

Theresa
July 15th 03, 12:52 AM
Lyle McDonald wrote:

> How would you translate a 158X3 power clean into a squat clean?

158 pounds?! How the heck do you load a bar to 158 pounds?!

A lot of front squats? I was reading stuff at Dan John's site and I remember
something like you should be able to squat clean what you can front squat
for N reps. The value of N is just not coming to me, sorry.

> And how much does it suck for a 160 lb endurance athlete?

Pound for pound your client (you're not a 160# endurance athlete, are you?)
is about as strong as I am. So I'd say either A) she should be damn proud
of herself or B) he needs work. Totally sexist, I know; sorry.

Just checking: I can power clean more than I can bench. That's normal for
women and non-benching-fanatic guys, right? Or is it another sign that my
bench needs work?



--
Knowledge is power.
Power corrupts.
Study hard. Be evil.

Theresa
July 15th 03, 12:52 AM
Lyle McDonald wrote:

> How would you translate a 158X3 power clean into a squat clean?

158 pounds?! How the heck do you load a bar to 158 pounds?!

A lot of front squats? I was reading stuff at Dan John's site and I remember
something like you should be able to squat clean what you can front squat
for N reps. The value of N is just not coming to me, sorry.

> And how much does it suck for a 160 lb endurance athlete?

Pound for pound your client (you're not a 160# endurance athlete, are you?)
is about as strong as I am. So I'd say either A) she should be damn proud
of herself or B) he needs work. Totally sexist, I know; sorry.

Just checking: I can power clean more than I can bench. That's normal for
women and non-benching-fanatic guys, right? Or is it another sign that my
bench needs work?



--
Knowledge is power.
Power corrupts.
Study hard. Be evil.

Lyle McDonald
July 15th 03, 01:05 AM
Theresa wrote:
>
> Lyle McDonald wrote:
>
> > How would you translate a 158X3 power clean into a squat clean?
>
> 158 pounds?! How the heck do you load a bar to 158 pounds?!

well, you take the bar and put it on the floor.
Then you take plates from the holders and put them on the bar
you do this so that it totals 158

Or was that not what you were asking?

>
> A lot of front squats? I was reading stuff at Dan John's site and I remember
> something like you should be able to squat clean what you can front squat
> for N reps. The value of N is just not coming to me, sorry.

n=3 but I think you have the concept reversed.

I've usually read that you should be able to at least front squat your
best squat clean for a triple. This is to ensure that you have an
energy reserve after standing up from the clean. That doesn't mean you
can translate your best front squat backwards, you might very well be
able to front squat way more than you can pull to the shoulders.

> > And how much does it suck for a 160 lb endurance athlete?
>
> Pound for pound your client (you're not a 160# endurance athlete, are you?)
> is about as strong as I am. So I'd say either A) she should be damn proud
> of herself or B) he needs work. Totally sexist, I know; sorry.

Mitigating factors to consider:
a. movement has only been performed for 2 months (weight training has
been doing on much longer than that)
b. athlete is performing endurance training of some sort almost daily
c. athlete is dieting

b and c are not terribly conducive to optimal strength performance.

Lyle

Lyle McDonald
July 15th 03, 01:05 AM
Theresa wrote:
>
> Lyle McDonald wrote:
>
> > How would you translate a 158X3 power clean into a squat clean?
>
> 158 pounds?! How the heck do you load a bar to 158 pounds?!

well, you take the bar and put it on the floor.
Then you take plates from the holders and put them on the bar
you do this so that it totals 158

Or was that not what you were asking?

>
> A lot of front squats? I was reading stuff at Dan John's site and I remember
> something like you should be able to squat clean what you can front squat
> for N reps. The value of N is just not coming to me, sorry.

n=3 but I think you have the concept reversed.

I've usually read that you should be able to at least front squat your
best squat clean for a triple. This is to ensure that you have an
energy reserve after standing up from the clean. That doesn't mean you
can translate your best front squat backwards, you might very well be
able to front squat way more than you can pull to the shoulders.

> > And how much does it suck for a 160 lb endurance athlete?
>
> Pound for pound your client (you're not a 160# endurance athlete, are you?)
> is about as strong as I am. So I'd say either A) she should be damn proud
> of herself or B) he needs work. Totally sexist, I know; sorry.

Mitigating factors to consider:
a. movement has only been performed for 2 months (weight training has
been doing on much longer than that)
b. athlete is performing endurance training of some sort almost daily
c. athlete is dieting

b and c are not terribly conducive to optimal strength performance.

Lyle

JC Der Koenig
July 15th 03, 01:10 AM
"Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
...
> Theresa wrote:
> >
> > Lyle McDonald wrote:
> >
> > > How would you translate a 158X3 power clean into a squat clean?
> >
> > 158 pounds?! How the heck do you load a bar to 158 pounds?!
>
> well, you take the bar and put it on the floor.
> Then you take plates from the holders and put them on the bar
> you do this so that it totals 158
>
> Or was that not what you were asking?
>
> >
> > A lot of front squats? I was reading stuff at Dan John's site and I
remember
> > something like you should be able to squat clean what you can front
squat
> > for N reps. The value of N is just not coming to me, sorry.
>
> n=3 but I think you have the concept reversed.
>
> I've usually read that you should be able to at least front squat your
> best squat clean for a triple. This is to ensure that you have an
> energy reserve after standing up from the clean. That doesn't mean you
> can translate your best front squat backwards, you might very well be
> able to front squat way more than you can pull to the shoulders.
>
> > > And how much does it suck for a 160 lb endurance athlete?
> >
> > Pound for pound your client (you're not a 160# endurance athlete, are
you?)
> > is about as strong as I am. So I'd say either A) she should be damn
proud
> > of herself or B) he needs work. Totally sexist, I know; sorry.
>
> Mitigating factors to consider:
> a. movement has only been performed for 2 months (weight training has
> been doing on much longer than that)
> b. athlete is performing endurance training of some sort almost daily
> c. athlete is dieting
>
> b and c are not terribly conducive to optimal strength performance.
>
> Lyle

Not bad, unless the athlete is you, then it sucks hard.

JC Der Koenig
July 15th 03, 01:10 AM
"Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
...
> Theresa wrote:
> >
> > Lyle McDonald wrote:
> >
> > > How would you translate a 158X3 power clean into a squat clean?
> >
> > 158 pounds?! How the heck do you load a bar to 158 pounds?!
>
> well, you take the bar and put it on the floor.
> Then you take plates from the holders and put them on the bar
> you do this so that it totals 158
>
> Or was that not what you were asking?
>
> >
> > A lot of front squats? I was reading stuff at Dan John's site and I
remember
> > something like you should be able to squat clean what you can front
squat
> > for N reps. The value of N is just not coming to me, sorry.
>
> n=3 but I think you have the concept reversed.
>
> I've usually read that you should be able to at least front squat your
> best squat clean for a triple. This is to ensure that you have an
> energy reserve after standing up from the clean. That doesn't mean you
> can translate your best front squat backwards, you might very well be
> able to front squat way more than you can pull to the shoulders.
>
> > > And how much does it suck for a 160 lb endurance athlete?
> >
> > Pound for pound your client (you're not a 160# endurance athlete, are
you?)
> > is about as strong as I am. So I'd say either A) she should be damn
proud
> > of herself or B) he needs work. Totally sexist, I know; sorry.
>
> Mitigating factors to consider:
> a. movement has only been performed for 2 months (weight training has
> been doing on much longer than that)
> b. athlete is performing endurance training of some sort almost daily
> c. athlete is dieting
>
> b and c are not terribly conducive to optimal strength performance.
>
> Lyle

Not bad, unless the athlete is you, then it sucks hard.

Lee Michaels
July 15th 03, 01:35 AM
"Theresa" > wrote in message
...
> Lyle McDonald wrote:
> > Theresa wrote:
> >>
> >> Lyle McDonald wrote:
> >>
> >>> How would you translate a 158X3 power clean into a squat clean?
> >>
> >> 158 pounds?! How the heck do you load a bar to 158 pounds?!
> >
> > well, you take the bar and put it on the floor.
> > Then you take plates from the holders and put them on the bar
> > you do this so that it totals 158
>
> A couple of 45s, a couple of 10s, and a couple of 1.5s?
> >
> > Or was that not what you were asking?
>
> What do you use to get one and a half pounds? Spring collars?
>
> >> A lot of front squats? I was reading stuff at Dan John's site and I
> >> remember something like you should be able to squat clean what you
> >> can front squat for N reps. The value of N is just not coming to
> >> me, sorry.
> >
> > n=3 but I think you have the concept reversed.
>
> Nope, what I meant was that if his/her power clean is solid then s/he
should
> make sure his/her front squat is also solid. I may be wrong, but I am not
> wrong in the way you thought I was wrong. Maybe. ;-)
> >
> > I've usually read that you should be able to at least front squat your
> > best squat clean for a triple. This is to ensure that you have an
> > energy reserve after standing up from the clean. That doesn't mean
> > you can translate your best front squat backwards, you might very
> > well be able to front squat way more than you can pull to the
> > shoulders.
>
> Well, if s/he can do that then s/he can almost certainly squat clean more
> than s/he can power clean with a little practice, right?
> >
> >>> And how much does it suck for a 160 lb endurance athlete?
> >>
> >> Pound for pound your client (you're not a 160# endurance athlete,
> >> are you?) is about as strong as I am. So I'd say either A) she
> >> should be damn proud of herself or B) he needs work. Totally
> >> sexist, I know; sorry.
> >
> > Mitigating factors to consider:
> > a. movement has only been performed for 2 months (weight training has
> > been doing on much longer than that)
> > b. athlete is performing endurance training of some sort almost daily
> > c. athlete is dieting
> >
> > b and c are not terribly conducive to optimal strength performance.
> >
> > Lyle
>
> Well then either A) she should be very very very damn proud of herself or
B)
> he has excuses. ;-)
>
> Only 2 months, sheesh. I did them about two weeks before my wrist started
> hurting and clothes started fitting funny. I wish the gym had a trainer
who
> didn't have to inflate his/her head every day.
>
> I heard a <sarcasm> wonderful </sarcasm> argument for half squats today,
by
> the way. Sure the knee is most unstable at 90 degrees, the trainer
> conceded. But you can use so much more weight going only halfway down,
and
> the extra weight stabilizes the knee joint.
>

I don't know whether to laugh or cry when I hear crap like this.

If someone being trained by this retard hurt themselves, they would have
mucho grounds for a big settlement. If they were smart enough to figure out
what happened.

Who is the bigger moron here? The person who spouts this nonsense? Or the
person who believes it?

Lee Michaels
July 15th 03, 01:35 AM
"Theresa" > wrote in message
...
> Lyle McDonald wrote:
> > Theresa wrote:
> >>
> >> Lyle McDonald wrote:
> >>
> >>> How would you translate a 158X3 power clean into a squat clean?
> >>
> >> 158 pounds?! How the heck do you load a bar to 158 pounds?!
> >
> > well, you take the bar and put it on the floor.
> > Then you take plates from the holders and put them on the bar
> > you do this so that it totals 158
>
> A couple of 45s, a couple of 10s, and a couple of 1.5s?
> >
> > Or was that not what you were asking?
>
> What do you use to get one and a half pounds? Spring collars?
>
> >> A lot of front squats? I was reading stuff at Dan John's site and I
> >> remember something like you should be able to squat clean what you
> >> can front squat for N reps. The value of N is just not coming to
> >> me, sorry.
> >
> > n=3 but I think you have the concept reversed.
>
> Nope, what I meant was that if his/her power clean is solid then s/he
should
> make sure his/her front squat is also solid. I may be wrong, but I am not
> wrong in the way you thought I was wrong. Maybe. ;-)
> >
> > I've usually read that you should be able to at least front squat your
> > best squat clean for a triple. This is to ensure that you have an
> > energy reserve after standing up from the clean. That doesn't mean
> > you can translate your best front squat backwards, you might very
> > well be able to front squat way more than you can pull to the
> > shoulders.
>
> Well, if s/he can do that then s/he can almost certainly squat clean more
> than s/he can power clean with a little practice, right?
> >
> >>> And how much does it suck for a 160 lb endurance athlete?
> >>
> >> Pound for pound your client (you're not a 160# endurance athlete,
> >> are you?) is about as strong as I am. So I'd say either A) she
> >> should be damn proud of herself or B) he needs work. Totally
> >> sexist, I know; sorry.
> >
> > Mitigating factors to consider:
> > a. movement has only been performed for 2 months (weight training has
> > been doing on much longer than that)
> > b. athlete is performing endurance training of some sort almost daily
> > c. athlete is dieting
> >
> > b and c are not terribly conducive to optimal strength performance.
> >
> > Lyle
>
> Well then either A) she should be very very very damn proud of herself or
B)
> he has excuses. ;-)
>
> Only 2 months, sheesh. I did them about two weeks before my wrist started
> hurting and clothes started fitting funny. I wish the gym had a trainer
who
> didn't have to inflate his/her head every day.
>
> I heard a <sarcasm> wonderful </sarcasm> argument for half squats today,
by
> the way. Sure the knee is most unstable at 90 degrees, the trainer
> conceded. But you can use so much more weight going only halfway down,
and
> the extra weight stabilizes the knee joint.
>

I don't know whether to laugh or cry when I hear crap like this.

If someone being trained by this retard hurt themselves, they would have
mucho grounds for a big settlement. If they were smart enough to figure out
what happened.

Who is the bigger moron here? The person who spouts this nonsense? Or the
person who believes it?

Lyle McDonald
July 15th 03, 01:37 AM
Theresa wrote:
>
> Lyle McDonald wrote:
> > Theresa wrote:
> >>
> >> Lyle McDonald wrote:
> >>
> >>> How would you translate a 158X3 power clean into a squat clean?
> >>
> >> 158 pounds?! How the heck do you load a bar to 158 pounds?!
> >
> > well, you take the bar and put it on the floor.
> > Then you take plates from the holders and put them on the bar
> > you do this so that it totals 158
>
> A couple of 45s, a couple of 10s, and a couple of 1.5s?

20 kg bumper = 44 lbs * 2 = 88 + 45 lb bar = 133
+ 10 each side = 153
+ 2.5 each side = 158

The magic of kilo and lb plates.

> >> A lot of front squats? I was reading stuff at Dan John's site and I
> >> remember something like you should be able to squat clean what you
> >> can front squat for N reps. The value of N is just not coming to
> >> me, sorry.
> >
> > n=3 but I think you have the concept reversed.
>
> Nope, what I meant was that if his/her power clean is solid then s/he should
> make sure his/her front squat is also solid. I may be wrong, but I am not
> wrong in the way you thought I was wrong. Maybe. ;-)

No, maybe. It's a rule of thumb for a minimum front squat poundage for
the reasons explained below: the less energy you take standing the clean
up, the more you have left for the jerk.

The individual in question can front squat 225X3 for example.

> >
> > I've usually read that you should be able to at least front squat your
> > best squat clean for a triple. This is to ensure that you have an
> > energy reserve after standing up from the clean. That doesn't mean
> > you can translate your best front squat backwards, you might very
> > well be able to front squat way more than you can pull to the
> > shoulders.
>
> Well, if s/he can do that then s/he can almost certainly squat clean more
> than s/he can power clean with a little practice, right?

Sure but that wasn't the point. Was just curious how it converted (****
you, jew cohen) poundage wise.

> Only 2 months, sheesh. I did them about two weeks before my wrist started
> hurting and clothes started fitting funny. I wish the gym had a trainer who
> didn't have to inflate his/her head every day.

I cannot parse this sentence.

> I heard a <sarcasm> wonderful </sarcasm> argument for half squats today, by
> the way. Sure the knee is most unstable at 90 degrees, the trainer
> conceded. But you can use so much more weight going only halfway down, and
> the extra weight stabilizes the knee joint.

The first reason (use more weight) is the real 'rationale' for it.
Better to work the ego than the muscles.

Lyle

Lyle McDonald
July 15th 03, 01:37 AM
Theresa wrote:
>
> Lyle McDonald wrote:
> > Theresa wrote:
> >>
> >> Lyle McDonald wrote:
> >>
> >>> How would you translate a 158X3 power clean into a squat clean?
> >>
> >> 158 pounds?! How the heck do you load a bar to 158 pounds?!
> >
> > well, you take the bar and put it on the floor.
> > Then you take plates from the holders and put them on the bar
> > you do this so that it totals 158
>
> A couple of 45s, a couple of 10s, and a couple of 1.5s?

20 kg bumper = 44 lbs * 2 = 88 + 45 lb bar = 133
+ 10 each side = 153
+ 2.5 each side = 158

The magic of kilo and lb plates.

> >> A lot of front squats? I was reading stuff at Dan John's site and I
> >> remember something like you should be able to squat clean what you
> >> can front squat for N reps. The value of N is just not coming to
> >> me, sorry.
> >
> > n=3 but I think you have the concept reversed.
>
> Nope, what I meant was that if his/her power clean is solid then s/he should
> make sure his/her front squat is also solid. I may be wrong, but I am not
> wrong in the way you thought I was wrong. Maybe. ;-)

No, maybe. It's a rule of thumb for a minimum front squat poundage for
the reasons explained below: the less energy you take standing the clean
up, the more you have left for the jerk.

The individual in question can front squat 225X3 for example.

> >
> > I've usually read that you should be able to at least front squat your
> > best squat clean for a triple. This is to ensure that you have an
> > energy reserve after standing up from the clean. That doesn't mean
> > you can translate your best front squat backwards, you might very
> > well be able to front squat way more than you can pull to the
> > shoulders.
>
> Well, if s/he can do that then s/he can almost certainly squat clean more
> than s/he can power clean with a little practice, right?

Sure but that wasn't the point. Was just curious how it converted (****
you, jew cohen) poundage wise.

> Only 2 months, sheesh. I did them about two weeks before my wrist started
> hurting and clothes started fitting funny. I wish the gym had a trainer who
> didn't have to inflate his/her head every day.

I cannot parse this sentence.

> I heard a <sarcasm> wonderful </sarcasm> argument for half squats today, by
> the way. Sure the knee is most unstable at 90 degrees, the trainer
> conceded. But you can use so much more weight going only halfway down, and
> the extra weight stabilizes the knee joint.

The first reason (use more weight) is the real 'rationale' for it.
Better to work the ego than the muscles.

Lyle

Theresa
July 15th 03, 01:40 AM
Lee Michaels wrote:
> "Theresa" > wrote in message

>> I heard a <sarcasm> wonderful </sarcasm> argument for half squats
>> today, by the way. Sure the knee is most unstable at 90 degrees,
>> the trainer conceded. But you can use so much more weight going
>> only halfway down, and the extra weight stabilizes the knee joint.

> I don't know whether to laugh or cry when I hear crap like this.

> If someone being trained by this retard hurt themselves, they would
> have mucho grounds for a big settlement. If they were smart enough to
> figure out what happened.

> Who is the bigger moron here? The person who spouts this nonsense? Or
> the person who believes it?

The spouting one. He was supposedly trained and certified and all, he's
supposed to be the expert.

Which isn't to say that his feckless victims aren't idiots too, just that
he's worse.

--
Knowledge is power.
Power corrupts.
Study hard. Be evil.

Theresa
July 15th 03, 01:40 AM
Lee Michaels wrote:
> "Theresa" > wrote in message

>> I heard a <sarcasm> wonderful </sarcasm> argument for half squats
>> today, by the way. Sure the knee is most unstable at 90 degrees,
>> the trainer conceded. But you can use so much more weight going
>> only halfway down, and the extra weight stabilizes the knee joint.

> I don't know whether to laugh or cry when I hear crap like this.

> If someone being trained by this retard hurt themselves, they would
> have mucho grounds for a big settlement. If they were smart enough to
> figure out what happened.

> Who is the bigger moron here? The person who spouts this nonsense? Or
> the person who believes it?

The spouting one. He was supposedly trained and certified and all, he's
supposed to be the expert.

Which isn't to say that his feckless victims aren't idiots too, just that
he's worse.

--
Knowledge is power.
Power corrupts.
Study hard. Be evil.

Lyle McDonald
July 15th 03, 02:06 AM
Theresa wrote:
>
> >>>>> How would you translate a 158X3 power clean into a squat clean?
> >>>>
> >>>> 158 pounds?! How the heck do you load a bar to 158 pounds?!
> >>>
> >>> well, you take the bar and put it on the floor.
> >>> Then you take plates from the holders and put them on the bar
> >>> you do this so that it totals 158
> >>
> >> A couple of 45s, a couple of 10s, and a couple of 1.5s?
> >
> > 20 kg bumper = 44 lbs * 2 = 88 + 45 lb bar = 133
> > + 10 each side = 153
> > + 2.5 each side = 158
> >
> > The magic of kilo and lb plates.
>
> Ah ha!
>
> What's a bumper plate? Wait, sorry, let me Google....
>
> Oh. That would be very nice. Pricey, though, even the fat ugly York ones.

My gym has a host of bumpers, 33, 44 and 55 lbs (15,20,25 kilos). It's
fun dropping them from height and watching everyone in the weight room
jump. We used to have a full complement of smaller kilo plates but they
hid them a while back.

> >>> I've usually read that you should be able to at least front squat
> >>> your best squat clean for a triple. This is to ensure that you
> >>> have an energy reserve after standing up from the clean. That
> >>> doesn't mean you can translate your best front squat backwards, you
> >>> might very well be able to front squat way more than you can pull
> >>> to the shoulders.
> >>
> >> Well, if s/he can do that then s/he can almost certainly squat clean
> >> more than s/he can power clean with a little practice, right?
> >
> > Sure but that wasn't the point. Was just curious how it converted
> > (**** you, Jew Cohen) poundage wise.
>
> 158<squat clean<=225. Guess 192 and you won't be far off. ;-)

I'm very well aware that the front squat is far beyond the squat clean
in this situation. That still wasn't ever my question.

> >> Only 2 months, sheesh. I did them about two weeks before my wrist
> >> started hurting and clothes started fitting funny. I wish the gym
> >> had a trainer who didn't have to inflate his/her head every day.
> >
> > I cannot parse this sentence.
>
> I'm jealous of your client who got 2 months of coached practice. I equaled
> his/her power clean in two weeks of unguided practice, but hurt my wrist in
> the process.

i suspect your form was not terribly good.

having someone power clean that much after 2 weeks is stoopid in the
first place. you can't even learn proper form on a clean in 2 weeks
under the best of circumstances. Using that much weight nearly
guarantees that your form was terrible.

> > The first reason (use more weight) is the real 'rationale' for it.
> > Better to work the ego than the muscles.
> >
> > Lyle
>
> So what's the solution? Apathy, like the ones you talk about whose poundages
> don't change from year to year, sucks. Trying hard can get you hurt.
> What's the middle path? Lift without passion?

Balance. Push up weight when you're ready and can do so in good form.
No sooner, no later. For something as technical as a powerclean, most
coaches would have you working with only the bar for weeks (or longer)
until form was perfected. Doing 160 after 2 weeks is ****ing dumb.
you're lucky that all you hurt was your wrist IMO.

But this is sort of tangential to my comment which was more about
rationalizing partials because you can 'use more weight'.

Most trainers would rather pump their client's egos by letting them
heave around too much weight than actually train them properly. So they
do crap like that.

Lyle

Lyle McDonald
July 15th 03, 02:06 AM
Theresa wrote:
>
> >>>>> How would you translate a 158X3 power clean into a squat clean?
> >>>>
> >>>> 158 pounds?! How the heck do you load a bar to 158 pounds?!
> >>>
> >>> well, you take the bar and put it on the floor.
> >>> Then you take plates from the holders and put them on the bar
> >>> you do this so that it totals 158
> >>
> >> A couple of 45s, a couple of 10s, and a couple of 1.5s?
> >
> > 20 kg bumper = 44 lbs * 2 = 88 + 45 lb bar = 133
> > + 10 each side = 153
> > + 2.5 each side = 158
> >
> > The magic of kilo and lb plates.
>
> Ah ha!
>
> What's a bumper plate? Wait, sorry, let me Google....
>
> Oh. That would be very nice. Pricey, though, even the fat ugly York ones.

My gym has a host of bumpers, 33, 44 and 55 lbs (15,20,25 kilos). It's
fun dropping them from height and watching everyone in the weight room
jump. We used to have a full complement of smaller kilo plates but they
hid them a while back.

> >>> I've usually read that you should be able to at least front squat
> >>> your best squat clean for a triple. This is to ensure that you
> >>> have an energy reserve after standing up from the clean. That
> >>> doesn't mean you can translate your best front squat backwards, you
> >>> might very well be able to front squat way more than you can pull
> >>> to the shoulders.
> >>
> >> Well, if s/he can do that then s/he can almost certainly squat clean
> >> more than s/he can power clean with a little practice, right?
> >
> > Sure but that wasn't the point. Was just curious how it converted
> > (**** you, Jew Cohen) poundage wise.
>
> 158<squat clean<=225. Guess 192 and you won't be far off. ;-)

I'm very well aware that the front squat is far beyond the squat clean
in this situation. That still wasn't ever my question.

> >> Only 2 months, sheesh. I did them about two weeks before my wrist
> >> started hurting and clothes started fitting funny. I wish the gym
> >> had a trainer who didn't have to inflate his/her head every day.
> >
> > I cannot parse this sentence.
>
> I'm jealous of your client who got 2 months of coached practice. I equaled
> his/her power clean in two weeks of unguided practice, but hurt my wrist in
> the process.

i suspect your form was not terribly good.

having someone power clean that much after 2 weeks is stoopid in the
first place. you can't even learn proper form on a clean in 2 weeks
under the best of circumstances. Using that much weight nearly
guarantees that your form was terrible.

> > The first reason (use more weight) is the real 'rationale' for it.
> > Better to work the ego than the muscles.
> >
> > Lyle
>
> So what's the solution? Apathy, like the ones you talk about whose poundages
> don't change from year to year, sucks. Trying hard can get you hurt.
> What's the middle path? Lift without passion?

Balance. Push up weight when you're ready and can do so in good form.
No sooner, no later. For something as technical as a powerclean, most
coaches would have you working with only the bar for weeks (or longer)
until form was perfected. Doing 160 after 2 weeks is ****ing dumb.
you're lucky that all you hurt was your wrist IMO.

But this is sort of tangential to my comment which was more about
rationalizing partials because you can 'use more weight'.

Most trainers would rather pump their client's egos by letting them
heave around too much weight than actually train them properly. So they
do crap like that.

Lyle

David Cohen
July 15th 03, 02:51 AM
"Lyle McDonald" > wrote
> Lee Michaels wrote:
> > "Theresa" > wrote
>
> > > I heard a <sarcasm> wonderful </sarcasm> argument for half
squats today,
> > by
> > > the way. Sure the knee is most unstable at 90 degrees, the
trainer
> > > conceded. But you can use so much more weight going only
halfway down,
> > and
> > > the extra weight stabilizes the knee joint.
> > >
> >
> > I don't know whether to laugh or cry when I hear crap like this.
>
> It's usually better to laugh.
>
> > If someone being trained by this retard hurt themselves, they
would have
> > mucho grounds for a big settlement. If they were smart enough to
figure out
> > what happened.
> >
> > Who is the bigger moron here? The person who spouts this nonsense?
Or the
> > person who believes it?
>
> Since the trainee has no real way (generally speaking) to seperate
> nonsense from fact, I'd pin the blame on the spouter.

I'd blame the tobacco industry, the fast food industry, gun
manufacturers, and George Bush.

David

David Cohen
July 15th 03, 02:51 AM
"Lyle McDonald" > wrote
> Lee Michaels wrote:
> > "Theresa" > wrote
>
> > > I heard a <sarcasm> wonderful </sarcasm> argument for half
squats today,
> > by
> > > the way. Sure the knee is most unstable at 90 degrees, the
trainer
> > > conceded. But you can use so much more weight going only
halfway down,
> > and
> > > the extra weight stabilizes the knee joint.
> > >
> >
> > I don't know whether to laugh or cry when I hear crap like this.
>
> It's usually better to laugh.
>
> > If someone being trained by this retard hurt themselves, they
would have
> > mucho grounds for a big settlement. If they were smart enough to
figure out
> > what happened.
> >
> > Who is the bigger moron here? The person who spouts this nonsense?
Or the
> > person who believes it?
>
> Since the trainee has no real way (generally speaking) to seperate
> nonsense from fact, I'd pin the blame on the spouter.

I'd blame the tobacco industry, the fast food industry, gun
manufacturers, and George Bush.

David

Lyle McDonald
July 15th 03, 03:00 AM
David Cohen wrote:
>
> "Lyle McDonald" > wrote
> > Lee Michaels wrote:
> > > "Theresa" > wrote
> >
> > > > I heard a <sarcasm> wonderful </sarcasm> argument for half
> squats today,
> > > by
> > > > the way. Sure the knee is most unstable at 90 degrees, the
> trainer
> > > > conceded. But you can use so much more weight going only
> halfway down,
> > > and
> > > > the extra weight stabilizes the knee joint.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I don't know whether to laugh or cry when I hear crap like this.
> >
> > It's usually better to laugh.
> >
> > > If someone being trained by this retard hurt themselves, they
> would have
> > > mucho grounds for a big settlement. If they were smart enough to
> figure out
> > > what happened.
> > >
> > > Who is the bigger moron here? The person who spouts this nonsense?
> Or the
> > > person who believes it?
> >
> > Since the trainee has no real way (generally speaking) to seperate
> > nonsense from fact, I'd pin the blame on the spouter.
>
> I'd blame the tobacco industry, the fast food industry, gun
> manufacturers, and George Bush.

and jews

Lyle

Lyle McDonald
July 15th 03, 03:00 AM
David Cohen wrote:
>
> "Lyle McDonald" > wrote
> > Lee Michaels wrote:
> > > "Theresa" > wrote
> >
> > > > I heard a <sarcasm> wonderful </sarcasm> argument for half
> squats today,
> > > by
> > > > the way. Sure the knee is most unstable at 90 degrees, the
> trainer
> > > > conceded. But you can use so much more weight going only
> halfway down,
> > > and
> > > > the extra weight stabilizes the knee joint.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I don't know whether to laugh or cry when I hear crap like this.
> >
> > It's usually better to laugh.
> >
> > > If someone being trained by this retard hurt themselves, they
> would have
> > > mucho grounds for a big settlement. If they were smart enough to
> figure out
> > > what happened.
> > >
> > > Who is the bigger moron here? The person who spouts this nonsense?
> Or the
> > > person who believes it?
> >
> > Since the trainee has no real way (generally speaking) to seperate
> > nonsense from fact, I'd pin the blame on the spouter.
>
> I'd blame the tobacco industry, the fast food industry, gun
> manufacturers, and George Bush.

and jews

Lyle

David Cohen
July 15th 03, 03:06 AM
"Lyle McDonald" > wrote
> David Cohen wrote:
> > "Lyle McDonald" > wrote
> > > Lee Michaels wrote:
> > > > "Theresa" > wrote
> > >
> > > > > I heard a <sarcasm> wonderful </sarcasm> argument for half
> > squats today,
> > > > by
> > > > > the way. Sure the knee is most unstable at 90 degrees, the
> > trainer
> > > > > conceded. But you can use so much more weight going only
> > halfway down,
> > > > and
> > > > > the extra weight stabilizes the knee joint.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I don't know whether to laugh or cry when I hear crap like
this.
> > >
> > > It's usually better to laugh.
> > >
> > > > If someone being trained by this retard hurt themselves, they
> > would have
> > > > mucho grounds for a big settlement. If they were smart enough
to
> > figure out
> > > > what happened.
> > > >
> > > > Who is the bigger moron here? The person who spouts this
nonsense?
> > Or the
> > > > person who believes it?
> > >
> > > Since the trainee has no real way (generally speaking) to
seperate
> > > nonsense from fact, I'd pin the blame on the spouter.
> >
> > I'd blame the tobacco industry, the fast food industry, gun
> > manufacturers, and George Bush.
>
> and jews

That goes without saying.

WITHOUT SAYING!!

David
--
The Atheist Jew of MFW
Please No E-mail With Big Words

David Cohen
July 15th 03, 03:06 AM
"Lyle McDonald" > wrote
> David Cohen wrote:
> > "Lyle McDonald" > wrote
> > > Lee Michaels wrote:
> > > > "Theresa" > wrote
> > >
> > > > > I heard a <sarcasm> wonderful </sarcasm> argument for half
> > squats today,
> > > > by
> > > > > the way. Sure the knee is most unstable at 90 degrees, the
> > trainer
> > > > > conceded. But you can use so much more weight going only
> > halfway down,
> > > > and
> > > > > the extra weight stabilizes the knee joint.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I don't know whether to laugh or cry when I hear crap like
this.
> > >
> > > It's usually better to laugh.
> > >
> > > > If someone being trained by this retard hurt themselves, they
> > would have
> > > > mucho grounds for a big settlement. If they were smart enough
to
> > figure out
> > > > what happened.
> > > >
> > > > Who is the bigger moron here? The person who spouts this
nonsense?
> > Or the
> > > > person who believes it?
> > >
> > > Since the trainee has no real way (generally speaking) to
seperate
> > > nonsense from fact, I'd pin the blame on the spouter.
> >
> > I'd blame the tobacco industry, the fast food industry, gun
> > manufacturers, and George Bush.
>
> and jews

That goes without saying.

WITHOUT SAYING!!

David
--
The Atheist Jew of MFW
Please No E-mail With Big Words

Theresa
July 15th 03, 03:28 AM
Lyle McDonald wrote:
> Theresa wrote:

>> I'm jealous of your client who got 2 months of coached practice. I
>> equaled his/her power clean in two weeks of unguided practice, but
>> hurt my wrist in the process.
>
> i suspect your form was not terribly good.

You could be right.

> having someone power clean that much after 2 weeks is stupid in the
> first place. you can't even learn proper form on a clean in 2 weeks
> under the best of circumstances. Using that much weight nearly
> guarantees that your form was terrible.

Well, I had to lift 135 if I didn't want to A) somehow improvise blocks or
B) lift a bigger range of motion with smaller plates or C) keep doing hang
power cleans forever.

>>> The first reason (use more weight) is the real 'rationale' for it.
>>> Better to work the ego than the muscles.

>> So what's the solution? Apathy, like the ones you talk about whose
>> poundages don't change from year to year, sucks. Trying hard can
>> get you hurt. What's the middle path? Lift without passion?
>
> Balance. Push up weight when you're ready and can do so in good form.

I don't get a lot of feedback on form except from idiots trying to kill me
like the half squat guy.

> No sooner, no later. For something as technical as a power clean, most
> coaches would have you working with only the bar for weeks (or longer)
> until form was perfected. Doing 160 after 2 weeks is ****ing dumb.
> you're lucky that all you hurt was your wrist IMO.

Weeks? Never mind, then, too technical for me.

Theresa
July 15th 03, 03:28 AM
Lyle McDonald wrote:
> Theresa wrote:

>> I'm jealous of your client who got 2 months of coached practice. I
>> equaled his/her power clean in two weeks of unguided practice, but
>> hurt my wrist in the process.
>
> i suspect your form was not terribly good.

You could be right.

> having someone power clean that much after 2 weeks is stupid in the
> first place. you can't even learn proper form on a clean in 2 weeks
> under the best of circumstances. Using that much weight nearly
> guarantees that your form was terrible.

Well, I had to lift 135 if I didn't want to A) somehow improvise blocks or
B) lift a bigger range of motion with smaller plates or C) keep doing hang
power cleans forever.

>>> The first reason (use more weight) is the real 'rationale' for it.
>>> Better to work the ego than the muscles.

>> So what's the solution? Apathy, like the ones you talk about whose
>> poundages don't change from year to year, sucks. Trying hard can
>> get you hurt. What's the middle path? Lift without passion?
>
> Balance. Push up weight when you're ready and can do so in good form.

I don't get a lot of feedback on form except from idiots trying to kill me
like the half squat guy.

> No sooner, no later. For something as technical as a power clean, most
> coaches would have you working with only the bar for weeks (or longer)
> until form was perfected. Doing 160 after 2 weeks is ****ing dumb.
> you're lucky that all you hurt was your wrist IMO.

Weeks? Never mind, then, too technical for me.

Nina
July 15th 03, 04:04 AM
On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 00:51:52 GMT, "David Cohen"
> wrote:

>
>"Lyle McDonald" > wrote
>> Lee Michaels wrote:
>> > "Theresa" > wrote
>>
>> > > I heard a <sarcasm> wonderful </sarcasm> argument for half
>squats today,
>> > by
>> > > the way. Sure the knee is most unstable at 90 degrees, the
>trainer
>> > > conceded. But you can use so much more weight going only
>halfway down,
>> > and
>> > > the extra weight stabilizes the knee joint.
>> > >
>> >
>> > I don't know whether to laugh or cry when I hear crap like this.
>>
>> It's usually better to laugh.
>>
>> > If someone being trained by this retard hurt themselves, they
>would have
>> > mucho grounds for a big settlement. If they were smart enough to
>figure out
>> > what happened.
>> >
>> > Who is the bigger moron here? The person who spouts this nonsense?
>Or the
>> > person who believes it?
>>
>> Since the trainee has no real way (generally speaking) to seperate
>> nonsense from fact, I'd pin the blame on the spouter.
>
>I'd blame the tobacco industry, the fast food industry, gun
>manufacturers, and George Bush.

Don't forget crappy genes, society, and your parents.

Cheers,
Nina
delicious! evil! calorie free!
http://www.theslack.com

Nina
July 15th 03, 04:04 AM
On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 00:51:52 GMT, "David Cohen"
> wrote:

>
>"Lyle McDonald" > wrote
>> Lee Michaels wrote:
>> > "Theresa" > wrote
>>
>> > > I heard a <sarcasm> wonderful </sarcasm> argument for half
>squats today,
>> > by
>> > > the way. Sure the knee is most unstable at 90 degrees, the
>trainer
>> > > conceded. But you can use so much more weight going only
>halfway down,
>> > and
>> > > the extra weight stabilizes the knee joint.
>> > >
>> >
>> > I don't know whether to laugh or cry when I hear crap like this.
>>
>> It's usually better to laugh.
>>
>> > If someone being trained by this retard hurt themselves, they
>would have
>> > mucho grounds for a big settlement. If they were smart enough to
>figure out
>> > what happened.
>> >
>> > Who is the bigger moron here? The person who spouts this nonsense?
>Or the
>> > person who believes it?
>>
>> Since the trainee has no real way (generally speaking) to seperate
>> nonsense from fact, I'd pin the blame on the spouter.
>
>I'd blame the tobacco industry, the fast food industry, gun
>manufacturers, and George Bush.

Don't forget crappy genes, society, and your parents.

Cheers,
Nina
delicious! evil! calorie free!
http://www.theslack.com

Lyle McDonald
July 15th 03, 08:03 AM
Theresa wrote:
>
> Lyle McDonald wrote:
> > Theresa wrote:
>
> >> I'm jealous of your client who got 2 months of coached practice. I
> >> equaled his/her power clean in two weeks of unguided practice, but
> >> hurt my wrist in the process.
> >
> > i suspect your form was not terribly good.
>
> You could be right.

Let's say it's a safe bet.

I mean, Ol's are seen in most gyms even less than squats (well, real
squats) or deadlifts (DLs seen almost never). And when they are, they
are typically and ugly ugly affair.

I've run into a few folks at my gym who know what they are doing but
it's folks from the local OL team training during the summer. BTW, you
can always spot folks with an OL background: they are the true form
nazis of the strength sports; make the PL's look like the sloppy lifters
that they are, especially when it comes to squats.

your average gym trainer would have trouble identifying an OL, much less
teaching it anywhere close to semi-competently.

> > having someone power clean that much after 2 weeks is stupid in the
> > first place. you can't even learn proper form on a clean in 2 weeks
> > under the best of circumstances. Using that much weight nearly
> > guarantees that your form was terrible.
>
> Well, I had to lift 135 if I didn't want to A) somehow improvise blocks or
> B) lift a bigger range of motion with smaller plates or C) keep doing hang
> power cleans forever.

What is this forever? Add weight gradually (5 lbs/week as long as form
is good) working from the same position you'd start off the floor. When
you get there, you'll actually be using decent form. It might take months.

Or make some training plates, cut wood to the same diameter as a 45 and
get a hole cut in the center. You can buy 5 lb plates with the same
diameter as 45's but they are a bit pricey.

> > No sooner, no later. For something as technical as a power clean, most
> > coaches would have you working with only the bar for weeks (or longer)
> > until form was perfected. Doing 160 after 2 weeks is ****ing dumb.
> > you're lucky that all you hurt was your wrist IMO.
>
> Weeks? Never mind, then, too technical for me.

I'm going to do 3 things although I suspect I'm wasting my 'breath'.

1st, a quote from what is literally the bible of Olympic lifting, Arthur
Dreschlers' book.
"It will generally take an athlete anywehre from several to a dozen or
more workouts to exhibit basic technique in the Olympic lifts done in
power style. It will take several months for the lifter to handle even
close to maximum weights with safe technique and years for the lifter to
handle maximum weights with little or no technical breakdown."

Elsewhere he mentions teaching the Ol's with a stick or light (10 kg)
bar, at most a 20kg (45 lb) bar.

2nd, a story about a lifter Elzi knew back in Oregon. She described him
as having the absolute best squat form she had ever seen. Even under the
heaviest weights, it was always perfect, no faults and no breaks. His
original coach, after teaching him to squat made him work with 135 lbs
for ONE YEAR. During which time he burned proper motor patterns into
his nervous system. Such that, later on, that form never wavered no
matter how heavy he went.

And this gets us to third (where I suspect I'm really wasting my breath
since I doubt you're going to listen). Your haste and rush (it's
showing up in a lot of your posts, from jumping to low reps as a
relative beginner to this thread and your comments about 'weeks' being
too long to work on something) is going to get you into trouble. This
is a time when you need to be learning proper form and burning it into
your nervous system.

Learning bad movement patterns now, by worrying too much about the
weight you're moving will come back to bite you in the ass. Because
it's always much harder to relearn proper form than to learn it
correctly in the first place. As well, under stress, you will tend to
resort to bad motor patterns even under the best of circumstances.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for enthusiasm and all of that ****. But
training progress is measured in years. A few weeks, even a few months
is NOTHING in that scheme. But the more bad habits you pick up now, the
more problems you will have later on. At the same time, patience and
perseverance now will pay monster dividends down the road.

Lyle

Lyle McDonald
July 15th 03, 08:03 AM
Theresa wrote:
>
> Lyle McDonald wrote:
> > Theresa wrote:
>
> >> I'm jealous of your client who got 2 months of coached practice. I
> >> equaled his/her power clean in two weeks of unguided practice, but
> >> hurt my wrist in the process.
> >
> > i suspect your form was not terribly good.
>
> You could be right.

Let's say it's a safe bet.

I mean, Ol's are seen in most gyms even less than squats (well, real
squats) or deadlifts (DLs seen almost never). And when they are, they
are typically and ugly ugly affair.

I've run into a few folks at my gym who know what they are doing but
it's folks from the local OL team training during the summer. BTW, you
can always spot folks with an OL background: they are the true form
nazis of the strength sports; make the PL's look like the sloppy lifters
that they are, especially when it comes to squats.

your average gym trainer would have trouble identifying an OL, much less
teaching it anywhere close to semi-competently.

> > having someone power clean that much after 2 weeks is stupid in the
> > first place. you can't even learn proper form on a clean in 2 weeks
> > under the best of circumstances. Using that much weight nearly
> > guarantees that your form was terrible.
>
> Well, I had to lift 135 if I didn't want to A) somehow improvise blocks or
> B) lift a bigger range of motion with smaller plates or C) keep doing hang
> power cleans forever.

What is this forever? Add weight gradually (5 lbs/week as long as form
is good) working from the same position you'd start off the floor. When
you get there, you'll actually be using decent form. It might take months.

Or make some training plates, cut wood to the same diameter as a 45 and
get a hole cut in the center. You can buy 5 lb plates with the same
diameter as 45's but they are a bit pricey.

> > No sooner, no later. For something as technical as a power clean, most
> > coaches would have you working with only the bar for weeks (or longer)
> > until form was perfected. Doing 160 after 2 weeks is ****ing dumb.
> > you're lucky that all you hurt was your wrist IMO.
>
> Weeks? Never mind, then, too technical for me.

I'm going to do 3 things although I suspect I'm wasting my 'breath'.

1st, a quote from what is literally the bible of Olympic lifting, Arthur
Dreschlers' book.
"It will generally take an athlete anywehre from several to a dozen or
more workouts to exhibit basic technique in the Olympic lifts done in
power style. It will take several months for the lifter to handle even
close to maximum weights with safe technique and years for the lifter to
handle maximum weights with little or no technical breakdown."

Elsewhere he mentions teaching the Ol's with a stick or light (10 kg)
bar, at most a 20kg (45 lb) bar.

2nd, a story about a lifter Elzi knew back in Oregon. She described him
as having the absolute best squat form she had ever seen. Even under the
heaviest weights, it was always perfect, no faults and no breaks. His
original coach, after teaching him to squat made him work with 135 lbs
for ONE YEAR. During which time he burned proper motor patterns into
his nervous system. Such that, later on, that form never wavered no
matter how heavy he went.

And this gets us to third (where I suspect I'm really wasting my breath
since I doubt you're going to listen). Your haste and rush (it's
showing up in a lot of your posts, from jumping to low reps as a
relative beginner to this thread and your comments about 'weeks' being
too long to work on something) is going to get you into trouble. This
is a time when you need to be learning proper form and burning it into
your nervous system.

Learning bad movement patterns now, by worrying too much about the
weight you're moving will come back to bite you in the ass. Because
it's always much harder to relearn proper form than to learn it
correctly in the first place. As well, under stress, you will tend to
resort to bad motor patterns even under the best of circumstances.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for enthusiasm and all of that ****. But
training progress is measured in years. A few weeks, even a few months
is NOTHING in that scheme. But the more bad habits you pick up now, the
more problems you will have later on. At the same time, patience and
perseverance now will pay monster dividends down the road.

Lyle

whitster
July 15th 03, 01:44 PM
Lyle McDonald > wrote in message
...
> Theresa wrote:
> >
> > Lyle McDonald wrote:
> > > Theresa wrote:
> >
> > >> I'm jealous of your client who got 2 months of coached practice. I
> > >> equaled his/her power clean in two weeks of unguided practice, but
> > >> hurt my wrist in the process.
> > >
> > > i suspect your form was not terribly good.
> >
> > You could be right.
>
> Let's say it's a safe bet.
>
> I mean, Ol's are seen in most gyms even less than squats (well, real
> squats) or deadlifts (DLs seen almost never). And when they are, they
> are typically and ugly ugly affair.
>
> I've run into a few folks at my gym who know what they are doing but
> it's folks from the local OL team training during the summer. BTW, you
> can always spot folks with an OL background: they are the true form
> nazis of the strength sports; make the PL's look like the sloppy lifters
> that they are, especially when it comes to squats.
>
> your average gym trainer would have trouble identifying an OL, much less
> teaching it anywhere close to semi-competently.
>
> > > having someone power clean that much after 2 weeks is stupid in the
> > > first place. you can't even learn proper form on a clean in 2 weeks
> > > under the best of circumstances. Using that much weight nearly
> > > guarantees that your form was terrible.
> >
> > Well, I had to lift 135 if I didn't want to A) somehow improvise blocks
or
> > B) lift a bigger range of motion with smaller plates or C) keep doing
hang
> > power cleans forever.
>
> What is this forever? Add weight gradually (5 lbs/week as long as form
> is good) working from the same position you'd start off the floor. When
> you get there, you'll actually be using decent form. It might take
months.
>
> Or make some training plates, cut wood to the same diameter as a 45 and
> get a hole cut in the center. You can buy 5 lb plates with the same
> diameter as 45's but they are a bit pricey.
>
> > > No sooner, no later. For something as technical as a power clean, most
> > > coaches would have you working with only the bar for weeks (or longer)
> > > until form was perfected. Doing 160 after 2 weeks is ****ing dumb.
> > > you're lucky that all you hurt was your wrist IMO.
> >
> > Weeks? Never mind, then, too technical for me.
>
> I'm going to do 3 things although I suspect I'm wasting my 'breath'.
>
> 1st, a quote from what is literally the bible of Olympic lifting, Arthur
> Dreschlers' book.
> "It will generally take an athlete anywehre from several to a dozen or
> more workouts to exhibit basic technique in the Olympic lifts done in
> power style. It will take several months for the lifter to handle even
> close to maximum weights with safe technique and years for the lifter to
> handle maximum weights with little or no technical breakdown."
>
> Elsewhere he mentions teaching the Ol's with a stick or light (10 kg)
> bar, at most a 20kg (45 lb) bar.
>

yes

iirc, when shane hamman (who easily had the strength to powerclean well over
300 lbs without even worrying about form at all) transitioned from pling to
oling, he was made to use a broomstick only, for a matter of weeks.

whit


> 2nd, a story about a lifter Elzi knew back in Oregon. She described him
> as having the absolute best squat form she had ever seen. Even under the
> heaviest weights, it was always perfect, no faults and no breaks. His
> original coach, after teaching him to squat made him work with 135 lbs
> for ONE YEAR. During which time he burned proper motor patterns into
> his nervous system. Such that, later on, that form never wavered no
> matter how heavy he went.
>
> And this gets us to third (where I suspect I'm really wasting my breath
> since I doubt you're going to listen). Your haste and rush (it's
> showing up in a lot of your posts, from jumping to low reps as a
> relative beginner to this thread and your comments about 'weeks' being
> too long to work on something) is going to get you into trouble. This
> is a time when you need to be learning proper form and burning it into
> your nervous system.
>
> Learning bad movement patterns now, by worrying too much about the
> weight you're moving will come back to bite you in the ass. Because
> it's always much harder to relearn proper form than to learn it
> correctly in the first place. As well, under stress, you will tend to
> resort to bad motor patterns even under the best of circumstances.
>
> Don't get me wrong, I'm all for enthusiasm and all of that ****. But
> training progress is measured in years. A few weeks, even a few months
> is NOTHING in that scheme. But the more bad habits you pick up now, the
> more problems you will have later on. At the same time, patience and
> perseverance now will pay monster dividends down the road.
>
> Lyle
>

whitster
July 15th 03, 01:44 PM
Lyle McDonald > wrote in message
...
> Theresa wrote:
> >
> > Lyle McDonald wrote:
> > > Theresa wrote:
> >
> > >> I'm jealous of your client who got 2 months of coached practice. I
> > >> equaled his/her power clean in two weeks of unguided practice, but
> > >> hurt my wrist in the process.
> > >
> > > i suspect your form was not terribly good.
> >
> > You could be right.
>
> Let's say it's a safe bet.
>
> I mean, Ol's are seen in most gyms even less than squats (well, real
> squats) or deadlifts (DLs seen almost never). And when they are, they
> are typically and ugly ugly affair.
>
> I've run into a few folks at my gym who know what they are doing but
> it's folks from the local OL team training during the summer. BTW, you
> can always spot folks with an OL background: they are the true form
> nazis of the strength sports; make the PL's look like the sloppy lifters
> that they are, especially when it comes to squats.
>
> your average gym trainer would have trouble identifying an OL, much less
> teaching it anywhere close to semi-competently.
>
> > > having someone power clean that much after 2 weeks is stupid in the
> > > first place. you can't even learn proper form on a clean in 2 weeks
> > > under the best of circumstances. Using that much weight nearly
> > > guarantees that your form was terrible.
> >
> > Well, I had to lift 135 if I didn't want to A) somehow improvise blocks
or
> > B) lift a bigger range of motion with smaller plates or C) keep doing
hang
> > power cleans forever.
>
> What is this forever? Add weight gradually (5 lbs/week as long as form
> is good) working from the same position you'd start off the floor. When
> you get there, you'll actually be using decent form. It might take
months.
>
> Or make some training plates, cut wood to the same diameter as a 45 and
> get a hole cut in the center. You can buy 5 lb plates with the same
> diameter as 45's but they are a bit pricey.
>
> > > No sooner, no later. For something as technical as a power clean, most
> > > coaches would have you working with only the bar for weeks (or longer)
> > > until form was perfected. Doing 160 after 2 weeks is ****ing dumb.
> > > you're lucky that all you hurt was your wrist IMO.
> >
> > Weeks? Never mind, then, too technical for me.
>
> I'm going to do 3 things although I suspect I'm wasting my 'breath'.
>
> 1st, a quote from what is literally the bible of Olympic lifting, Arthur
> Dreschlers' book.
> "It will generally take an athlete anywehre from several to a dozen or
> more workouts to exhibit basic technique in the Olympic lifts done in
> power style. It will take several months for the lifter to handle even
> close to maximum weights with safe technique and years for the lifter to
> handle maximum weights with little or no technical breakdown."
>
> Elsewhere he mentions teaching the Ol's with a stick or light (10 kg)
> bar, at most a 20kg (45 lb) bar.
>

yes

iirc, when shane hamman (who easily had the strength to powerclean well over
300 lbs without even worrying about form at all) transitioned from pling to
oling, he was made to use a broomstick only, for a matter of weeks.

whit


> 2nd, a story about a lifter Elzi knew back in Oregon. She described him
> as having the absolute best squat form she had ever seen. Even under the
> heaviest weights, it was always perfect, no faults and no breaks. His
> original coach, after teaching him to squat made him work with 135 lbs
> for ONE YEAR. During which time he burned proper motor patterns into
> his nervous system. Such that, later on, that form never wavered no
> matter how heavy he went.
>
> And this gets us to third (where I suspect I'm really wasting my breath
> since I doubt you're going to listen). Your haste and rush (it's
> showing up in a lot of your posts, from jumping to low reps as a
> relative beginner to this thread and your comments about 'weeks' being
> too long to work on something) is going to get you into trouble. This
> is a time when you need to be learning proper form and burning it into
> your nervous system.
>
> Learning bad movement patterns now, by worrying too much about the
> weight you're moving will come back to bite you in the ass. Because
> it's always much harder to relearn proper form than to learn it
> correctly in the first place. As well, under stress, you will tend to
> resort to bad motor patterns even under the best of circumstances.
>
> Don't get me wrong, I'm all for enthusiasm and all of that ****. But
> training progress is measured in years. A few weeks, even a few months
> is NOTHING in that scheme. But the more bad habits you pick up now, the
> more problems you will have later on. At the same time, patience and
> perseverance now will pay monster dividends down the road.
>
> Lyle
>

Robert Dorf
July 16th 03, 01:54 PM
On 16 Jul 2003 03:19:18 -0700, (circusgirl)
wrote:

>"sydenhams chorea" > wrote in message >...
>> "Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>> > I saw you on Jenny Jones, didn't I?
>> > It was one of those "I was a teen dork, now I'm a skank." shows
>>
>> Unless it's been aired in the UK, I'm afraid that show - like so many
>> others - will have passed me by. I try to spend my life doing stuff, not
>> watching others do stuff via my TV screen.
>>
>> Strangely, you're correct about one thing. I *was* particularly dorky as a
>> teenager. Seems that God wanted to give me a taste of the 'ordinary folks
>> world' before he elevated me to my present heights. Does it still suck
>> down there, Lyle?
>>
>>
>> Jo.
>
>Jo, AKA Roger Hunter, is a rec.running resident troll. (crossposts to
>other than MFW removed).
>D.

The fact that he was flirting with Keith offers some interesting comic
possibilities.
Little skinny runner masquerading as a woman, big butch older power
lifter, flowers, carb gel, chalk...

Robert Dorf
July 16th 03, 01:54 PM
On 16 Jul 2003 03:19:18 -0700, (circusgirl)
wrote:

>"sydenhams chorea" > wrote in message >...
>> "Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>> > I saw you on Jenny Jones, didn't I?
>> > It was one of those "I was a teen dork, now I'm a skank." shows
>>
>> Unless it's been aired in the UK, I'm afraid that show - like so many
>> others - will have passed me by. I try to spend my life doing stuff, not
>> watching others do stuff via my TV screen.
>>
>> Strangely, you're correct about one thing. I *was* particularly dorky as a
>> teenager. Seems that God wanted to give me a taste of the 'ordinary folks
>> world' before he elevated me to my present heights. Does it still suck
>> down there, Lyle?
>>
>>
>> Jo.
>
>Jo, AKA Roger Hunter, is a rec.running resident troll. (crossposts to
>other than MFW removed).
>D.

The fact that he was flirting with Keith offers some interesting comic
possibilities.
Little skinny runner masquerading as a woman, big butch older power
lifter, flowers, carb gel, chalk...

Lee Michaels
July 16th 03, 04:22 PM
"Keith Hobman" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Robert Dorf
> > wrote:
>
> > On 16 Jul 2003 03:19:18 -0700, (circusgirl)
> > wrote:
> >
> > >"sydenhams chorea" > wrote in message
> >...
> > >> "Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
> > >> ...
> > >>
> > >> > I saw you on Jenny Jones, didn't I?
> > >> > It was one of those "I was a teen dork, now I'm a skank." shows
> > >>
> > >> Unless it's been aired in the UK, I'm afraid that show - like so many
> > >> others - will have passed me by. I try to spend my life doing
stuff, not
> > >> watching others do stuff via my TV screen.
> > >>
> > >> Strangely, you're correct about one thing. I *was* particularly
> dorky as a
> > >> teenager. Seems that God wanted to give me a taste of the 'ordinary
folks
> > >> world' before he elevated me to my present heights. Does it still
suck
> > >> down there, Lyle?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Jo.
> > >
> > >Jo, AKA Roger Hunter, is a rec.running resident troll. (crossposts to
> > >other than MFW removed).
> > >D.
> >
> > The fact that he was flirting with Keith offers some interesting comic
> > possibilities.
> > Little skinny runner masquerading as a woman, big butch older power
> > lifter, flowers, carb gel, chalk...
>
> Yeah, but my shots in right spandex and ballet slippers sent him scurrying
> into a corner - whimpering at that.
>
> Which could mean - well, almost anything I guess.
>
> This is the burden of being the prettiest man in powerlifting.
>
When ya got it, ya got it. LOL

Lee Michaels
July 16th 03, 04:22 PM
"Keith Hobman" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Robert Dorf
> > wrote:
>
> > On 16 Jul 2003 03:19:18 -0700, (circusgirl)
> > wrote:
> >
> > >"sydenhams chorea" > wrote in message
> >...
> > >> "Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
> > >> ...
> > >>
> > >> > I saw you on Jenny Jones, didn't I?
> > >> > It was one of those "I was a teen dork, now I'm a skank." shows
> > >>
> > >> Unless it's been aired in the UK, I'm afraid that show - like so many
> > >> others - will have passed me by. I try to spend my life doing
stuff, not
> > >> watching others do stuff via my TV screen.
> > >>
> > >> Strangely, you're correct about one thing. I *was* particularly
> dorky as a
> > >> teenager. Seems that God wanted to give me a taste of the 'ordinary
folks
> > >> world' before he elevated me to my present heights. Does it still
suck
> > >> down there, Lyle?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Jo.
> > >
> > >Jo, AKA Roger Hunter, is a rec.running resident troll. (crossposts to
> > >other than MFW removed).
> > >D.
> >
> > The fact that he was flirting with Keith offers some interesting comic
> > possibilities.
> > Little skinny runner masquerading as a woman, big butch older power
> > lifter, flowers, carb gel, chalk...
>
> Yeah, but my shots in right spandex and ballet slippers sent him scurrying
> into a corner - whimpering at that.
>
> Which could mean - well, almost anything I guess.
>
> This is the burden of being the prettiest man in powerlifting.
>
When ya got it, ya got it. LOL

Hard Headed Woman
July 16th 03, 10:53 PM
"aj" > wrote in message
news:[email protected]

..
> Telepathy allows you to have sex without any nasty inconvenience of
> touching.

Where's the fun in that?


-HHW-

Hard Headed Woman
July 16th 03, 10:53 PM
"aj" > wrote in message
news:[email protected]

..
> Telepathy allows you to have sex without any nasty inconvenience of
> touching.

Where's the fun in that?


-HHW-

Lucas Buck
July 18th 03, 11:04 AM
On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 13:20:02 -0600, (Keith Hobman) wrote:

>In article >, "sydenhams
>chorea" > wrote:
>
>> "Keith Hobman" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>> > Jo (he/she/it) has a sense of humour anyhow. Gives it out and can take it.
>> > Gotta like that!
>>
>> Keith, put it away. You have neither the money nor the brain to interest
>> me, though - providing you're not *too* bulky - I may toy with your bod for
>> a while.
>
>I'm old - I'm bulky - I may be the prettiest man in powerlifting, but I'm
>pretty fugly - and I'm married for over 25 years to the prettiest women in
>the world.

How many women?

Lucas Buck
July 18th 03, 11:04 AM
On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 13:20:02 -0600, (Keith Hobman) wrote:

>In article >, "sydenhams
>chorea" > wrote:
>
>> "Keith Hobman" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>> > Jo (he/she/it) has a sense of humour anyhow. Gives it out and can take it.
>> > Gotta like that!
>>
>> Keith, put it away. You have neither the money nor the brain to interest
>> me, though - providing you're not *too* bulky - I may toy with your bod for
>> a while.
>
>I'm old - I'm bulky - I may be the prettiest man in powerlifting, but I'm
>pretty fugly - and I'm married for over 25 years to the prettiest women in
>the world.

How many women?

Lee Michaels
July 18th 03, 03:02 PM
"Lucas Buck" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 13:20:02 -0600, (Keith Hobman)
wrote:
>
> >In article >, "sydenhams
> >chorea" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Keith Hobman" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>
> >> > Jo (he/she/it) has a sense of humour anyhow. Gives it out and can
take it.
> >> > Gotta like that!
> >>
> >> Keith, put it away. You have neither the money nor the brain to
interest
> >> me, though - providing you're not *too* bulky - I may toy with your bod
for
> >> a while.
> >
> >I'm old - I'm bulky - I may be the prettiest man in powerlifting, but I'm
> >pretty fugly - and I'm married for over 25 years to the prettiest women
in
> >the world.
>
> How many women?
>
No wonder Keith is so nice!!

Lee Michaels
July 18th 03, 03:02 PM
"Lucas Buck" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 13:20:02 -0600, (Keith Hobman)
wrote:
>
> >In article >, "sydenhams
> >chorea" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Keith Hobman" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>
> >> > Jo (he/she/it) has a sense of humour anyhow. Gives it out and can
take it.
> >> > Gotta like that!
> >>
> >> Keith, put it away. You have neither the money nor the brain to
interest
> >> me, though - providing you're not *too* bulky - I may toy with your bod
for
> >> a while.
> >
> >I'm old - I'm bulky - I may be the prettiest man in powerlifting, but I'm
> >pretty fugly - and I'm married for over 25 years to the prettiest women
in
> >the world.
>
> How many women?
>
No wonder Keith is so nice!!

Lee Michaels
July 18th 03, 03:25 PM
"Lucas Buck" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 13:20:02 -0600, (Keith Hobman)
wrote:
>
> >In article >, "sydenhams
> >chorea" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Keith Hobman" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>
> >> > Jo (he/she/it) has a sense of humour anyhow. Gives it out and can
take it.
> >> > Gotta like that!
> >>
> >> Keith, put it away. You have neither the money nor the brain to
interest
> >> me, though - providing you're not *too* bulky - I may toy with your bod
for
> >> a while.
> >
> >I'm old - I'm bulky - I may be the prettiest man in powerlifting, but I'm
> >pretty fugly - and I'm married for over 25 years to the prettiest women
in
> >the world.
>
> How many women?
>
No wonder Keith is so nice!!

Lee Michaels
July 18th 03, 03:25 PM
"Lucas Buck" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 13:20:02 -0600, (Keith Hobman)
wrote:
>
> >In article >, "sydenhams
> >chorea" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Keith Hobman" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>
> >> > Jo (he/she/it) has a sense of humour anyhow. Gives it out and can
take it.
> >> > Gotta like that!
> >>
> >> Keith, put it away. You have neither the money nor the brain to
interest
> >> me, though - providing you're not *too* bulky - I may toy with your bod
for
> >> a while.
> >
> >I'm old - I'm bulky - I may be the prettiest man in powerlifting, but I'm
> >pretty fugly - and I'm married for over 25 years to the prettiest women
in
> >the world.
>
> How many women?
>
No wonder Keith is so nice!!

Robert Dorf
July 18th 03, 03:57 PM
On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 07:55:01 -0600, (Keith Hobman)
wrote:

>In article >, "Lee
>Michaels" > wrote:
>
>> "Lucas Buck" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 13:20:02 -0600, (Keith Hobman)
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > >In article >, "sydenhams
>> > >chorea" > wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> "Keith Hobman" > wrote in message
>> > >> ...
>> > >>
>> > >> > Jo (he/she/it) has a sense of humour anyhow. Gives it out and can
>> take it.
>> > >> > Gotta like that!
>> > >>
>> > >> Keith, put it away. You have neither the money nor the brain to
>> interest
>> > >> me, though - providing you're not *too* bulky - I may toy with your bod
>> for
>> > >> a while.
>> > >
>> > >I'm old - I'm bulky - I may be the prettiest man in powerlifting, but I'm
>> > >pretty fugly - and I'm married for over 25 years to the prettiest women
>> in
>> > >the world.
>> >
>> > How many women?
>> >
>> No wonder Keith is so nice!!
>
>Ooops.
>
>Don't tell my wife about this.

Don't you mean "wives"?

Robert Dorf
July 18th 03, 03:57 PM
On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 07:55:01 -0600, (Keith Hobman)
wrote:

>In article >, "Lee
>Michaels" > wrote:
>
>> "Lucas Buck" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 13:20:02 -0600, (Keith Hobman)
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > >In article >, "sydenhams
>> > >chorea" > wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> "Keith Hobman" > wrote in message
>> > >> ...
>> > >>
>> > >> > Jo (he/she/it) has a sense of humour anyhow. Gives it out and can
>> take it.
>> > >> > Gotta like that!
>> > >>
>> > >> Keith, put it away. You have neither the money nor the brain to
>> interest
>> > >> me, though - providing you're not *too* bulky - I may toy with your bod
>> for
>> > >> a while.
>> > >
>> > >I'm old - I'm bulky - I may be the prettiest man in powerlifting, but I'm
>> > >pretty fugly - and I'm married for over 25 years to the prettiest women
>> in
>> > >the world.
>> >
>> > How many women?
>> >
>> No wonder Keith is so nice!!
>
>Ooops.
>
>Don't tell my wife about this.

Don't you mean "wives"?

Keith Hobman
July 18th 03, 04:26 PM
In article >, Robert Dorf
> wrote:

> On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 07:55:01 -0600, (Keith Hobman)
> wrote:
>
> >In article >, "Lee
> >Michaels" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Lucas Buck" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 13:20:02 -0600, (Keith Hobman)
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >In article >, "sydenhams
> >> > >chorea" > wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >> "Keith Hobman" > wrote in message
> >> > >> ...
> >> > >>
> >> > >> > Jo (he/she/it) has a sense of humour anyhow. Gives it out and can
> >> take it.
> >> > >> > Gotta like that!
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Keith, put it away. You have neither the money nor the brain to
> >> interest
> >> > >> me, though - providing you're not *too* bulky - I may toy with
your bod
> >> for
> >> > >> a while.
> >> > >
> >> > >I'm old - I'm bulky - I may be the prettiest man in powerlifting,
but I'm
> >> > >pretty fugly - and I'm married for over 25 years to the prettiest women
> >> in
> >> > >the world.
> >> >
> >> > How many women?
> >> >
> >> No wonder Keith is so nice!!
> >
> >Ooops.
> >
> >Don't tell my wife about this.
>
> Don't you mean "wives"?

No. I wish. Or maybe not.

--
Keith Hobman

--- email address above is a non-monitored spam sink.

Keith Hobman
July 18th 03, 04:26 PM
In article >, Robert Dorf
> wrote:

> On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 07:55:01 -0600, (Keith Hobman)
> wrote:
>
> >In article >, "Lee
> >Michaels" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Lucas Buck" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 13:20:02 -0600, (Keith Hobman)
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >In article >, "sydenhams
> >> > >chorea" > wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >> "Keith Hobman" > wrote in message
> >> > >> ...
> >> > >>
> >> > >> > Jo (he/she/it) has a sense of humour anyhow. Gives it out and can
> >> take it.
> >> > >> > Gotta like that!
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Keith, put it away. You have neither the money nor the brain to
> >> interest
> >> > >> me, though - providing you're not *too* bulky - I may toy with
your bod
> >> for
> >> > >> a while.
> >> > >
> >> > >I'm old - I'm bulky - I may be the prettiest man in powerlifting,
but I'm
> >> > >pretty fugly - and I'm married for over 25 years to the prettiest women
> >> in
> >> > >the world.
> >> >
> >> > How many women?
> >> >
> >> No wonder Keith is so nice!!
> >
> >Ooops.
> >
> >Don't tell my wife about this.
>
> Don't you mean "wives"?

No. I wish. Or maybe not.

--
Keith Hobman

--- email address above is a non-monitored spam sink.