Comments for The Chalk Pit.

Comment on New Year post 1- 1- 2012. by Stryke

Stryke — Sun, 01 Jan 2012 15:27:20 +0000

Chalk pit

Comment on Sunday 4 December 2011. by heretic

heretic — Mon, 05 Dec 2011 09:21:58 +0000

Comment on Sunday 4 December 2011. by dazzell

dazzell — Mon, 05 Dec 2011 04:03:29 +0000

it should probably be “Feck em up beyond all recognition” but FEUBAR sounds…. actually no i like that!

now officially FEUBAR will be what i call the training!

if any one asks….

Comment on Sunday 4 December 2011. by stryke

stryke — Mon, 05 Dec 2011 03:50:07 +0000

You missed getting soaked in the rain , dag nab it

we skipped the tabata as I thought wed get rained out , everyone was to do at home , folks got banged up thought and lots of laughs , the added misery of the rain just added to the laughter I think .

hey what are you doing after training in the park thats so fucked up beyond all recognition ? , do i dare ask :p , do we need to inform security? , Im sure you cant be talking about training …..

Comment on Science is not your friend! by Stryke

Stryke — Sat, 27 Aug 2011 02:37:30 +0000

nah people can distort facts out of anything

since when does body mass = body fat

were talking the science of statistics , statistics by definition being trends which mean they dont relate to the individual , but the general .

what an athlete should generally be considering in body density , your actual weight in comparison to volume .

science is our friend , idiots pretending to do science is not , BMI im sure is usefull statistically , when folks try to use it in cases that the average bias is removed , it fails terribly .

the true measure is body density , not body mass , wasnt it archimedes that worked out water displacement to measure mass , that and a set of scales and you should be able to calulate your body fat to within 1 % or so using proper science .

how many crap science formulas have you seen for body fat analysis .

fake science , whats really going on , back to the basics …..

oh yeah and there doing this stuff at university …. hope it was to show what crap it is , calling it a scientific threshold doesnt make it scientific .

best test is to look in the mirror .

Comment on Science is not your friend! by dazzell

dazzell — Fri, 26 Aug 2011 23:48:19 +0000

science can make facts out of anything.

yeah and i don’t think I’m actually fat….

or do all fat people think that?

so un pc…….

Comment on Science is not your friend! by Stryke

Stryke — Fri, 26 Aug 2011 22:38:09 +0000

Dont you own a mirror ?

height is indeed one of the factors in calculating bmi

drum roll , exit stage left ……

Comment on Thursday 25 August 2011. by dazzell

dazzell — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 06:40:23 +0000

All good research and good info to have. never a waste to learn, comes in handy eventually!

Comment on Thursday 25 August 2011. by Stryke

Stryke — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 06:37:33 +0000

when i mean lift more i mean reps as much as max , the study i was reading was taking a 3 rep max , halving and acheiving big sets single leg .

Comment on Thursday 25 August 2011. by Stryke

Stryke — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 06:36:13 +0000

just recruits more lower body and stabilisers , you can lift much more per leg than with conventional squat . The rational being the limiting factor in the conventional squat becomes the back , where as the limiting factor for the split squat is the leg and stabilisers which repsond .

not an either or , just a faster path to leg strength and stability for athletes up to it .

of course its a quality important excercise but what isnt …. lifting geekdom for the kettlebell and mobility/bodyweight guy …. not much point talking about swimming without a pool huh .