it contain whatever the coach/herbalist want the subject to perform, all from natural source so the ingredients from the foo cha can pass olympic drug testing. case in point, i heard that Naoka Takahashi, gold medalist of women long distance runner, sydney 2000, took some traditional supplement before the competition.
I agree, i much much much prefer lin dan's physique over a bodybuilder because it is practical. With LD's physique, i can run faster, jump higher, do obstacle course faster, better coordination, pants less, eat less, put less demand on my kidneys, livers, etc., mostly likely live longer too. It is a proven fact statistically, skinner people live longer than a heavy people. Bigredlemon "bodybuilders train for explosive strength more so than badminton players" I dont thing bodybuilder train for explosive strength is the objective, they train for muscle growth and tone, explosive strength is just an neccessity to achieve that bulk. If law of nature dictate that massive muscle growth can be achieve by wearing high heels and walk straight while balancing some books on the head, bodybuilders will do that too If they train for explosive strength, why the bodybuilding competition doesnt INVOLVED ANY EXPLOSIVE STRENGTH related routines? HOW COME NO TOP WEIGHT LIFTERS OR SNATCHERS ( a very high twitch muscle demanding sport) have body like Kevin levrone?? Bodybuilding sport is only for one thing, the look, it has no other practical use beside attracting females which base on primal notion of a mate that is aggressive looking, good hunter and protector, a very ancient stereotype. It's now basically a meat show, equivalent to the female side enhancing their (.) (.) LOL Regarding to: Quote: Originally Posted by kwun ask this Johnny Bravo to run around like a badminton player for 10mins, he will be complete out of breath! he probably uses more oxygen just to flex those muscles than we need while running. Believe it or not, most professional bodybuilders spend more time doing cardio than many of us spend playing badminton. They might not be able to run very far or fast, but their cardiovascular system can handle more blood throughput than most of us ever will. I'm sure guys like kevin L. trains cardio, coz they have to if they want to last long enough in their competition. Having high cardio number is meaningless if it's still not practical in REAL LIFE. I bet a 900 lb obesed person lying in bed has more blood circulating his/her than kevin L, is this 900 lb person has high cardio ? Most top top weightlifter have physique like these, big legs yes but also big waist unlike bodybuilders.
Because bodybuilding competition doesn't involve any routines. Any lots of powerlifters have a body better than kevin levrone. I.e. Check out what current #1 bodybuilder (Ronnie Coleman) used to do before BBing. Actually, you can look at what he's still doing: training like a powerlifter, and with great success at bodybuilding. And people are taking notice and following suit. which is still more useful than the ability to hit a small object as close to a dot without going over with a long stick. and again, how useful is the ability to hit a small light object as close to an arbitary line as possible without going over? If you want real-world usefulness, maybe we should ask BBers to see who can program a database system the fastest? if your definition of an impressive physique is based upon real-world usefulness, a short skinny build has the optimal amount of performance per resource consumption, the best strength to weight ratio, and the best endurance, the longest life expectancy, the highest brain performance per energy intake, etc etc. So a skinnny gary coleman would have the most impressive physique according to you? bodybuilding has never claimed to be practical
if your comment regarding the physique of olympic lifters is not like bodybuilders is proof that an olympic lifting style is illsuited to bodybuilding, then that is somewhat true. powerlifting is more suited because it hits all the major muscles better. i.e. olympic movements puts little stress on many important body parts (hams, calves, etc etc.) It also puts a lot of stress on the body core, making the waist much thicker. bodybuilding tends to go for the exagerated X shape which requires a thinner waist. Most bodybuilders that follow a powerlifting style training use other exercises to strengthen and grow areas not adequately targeted. dedicated olympic lifters do not do this, and hence does not have the same proportions. Also, there is always a trade off between more fat and more strength. The more fat you have, the more strength the body will allow. Olympic lifters care about strength not fat, and hence will tolerate a high bodyfat percentage to get a higher lift number. bodybuilders do not have that luxruy. as for having functional strength... the current three time winner of Mr. Olympia can squat over 800 pounds and leg press over 2400 pounds. Can lin dan do even half of that? If bodybuilder's muscles were purly useless while Lin Dan's are functional, lin dan should be able to out lift them easily with his big legs right? the truth is, the body doesn't want to put on that much muscle. all that muscle is harmful to the body. if your body didn't feel it absolutely need it, it wouldn't let you put it on. Heck, even if your body felt it needed extra strength, it still might refuse to pack on extra size. Look at all the successful bodybuilders. How many of them can't bench 400 pounds? Squat or deadlift 600 pounds? You just cant pack on size without packing on strength. And in a bodybuilder's case, it's almost all fast twitch muscle.
*sigh* when did i said badminton was practical??? What i did said was that if i have a physique like Lin Dan (LD), i can run faster, jump higher, twist and turn quicker, have better coordination, last longer, weigh less and put less strain on my bodily organs. What each individual can do with their LD's physique is unique to them, their own choice. again, u have taken my statement out of context. Yes, short skinny build is more efficiency BUT being practical and energy efficiency are 2 different things and I HAVE NEVER EQUATED THESE 2 attributes as dependent variables. Also, I have never said short people live the longest, or have the highest intelligent efficiency( I wouldn't say LD is short either). I'm talking about weight, not height, and statistical trend. Gary Coleman, scientifically and statistically speaking, isn't an average person, mentally or physically. Midget actually have short lives. What I have been saying is having a LD's physique is more practical in a real world than having a bodybuilder physique.
Why are u comparing LD leg press and squatting ability with a world top body builder Is squatting 800 lbs and leg pressing 2400+ lbs really useful? You are too simplistic on defining muscles in 2 classes, big fast twitch and enduring narrower slow twitch. I only had presented 1 example using weightlifting case. Take shotput, javelin, discus throwers, why arent these explosive arms have the bulk and size of bodybuilder's arm? Or long jumpers have legs like legs of bodybuilder? IMO, your view on muscle classes are too simplistic. Hey, ok, lets remove the stamina, sprinting, jumping, twist and turn variables. So with training on techniques, kevin L can smash shuttles at 500 km/hr with his 'explosive' arm, abs, and leg muscles ? LOL
Badminton isn't an endurance event though. It's work, rest, work, rest, work, rest, etc. an endurance event is work, work, work, work, etc. Like a marathon. (although you may prefer to define endurance differently. e.g. by which energy system the body uses, or something else)
Exactly Neil, badminton is about speed endurance. There are many components to fitness apart from strength and cv endurance, including speed, muscular endurance, agility , flexibility, etc Badminton requires high levels in all these areas. I would imagine that while bodybuilding is a whole lifestyle , in terms of diet, drugs, etc the actual training requirements are far less than badminton. So I would not say thats Lin Dan's physique was easier to achieve.
If agility is your criteria for impressiveness, then Lin Dan would fail again. Gymnasts have the highest strength to weight ratio, with superb agility. Why don't you specifically say what's your criteria for an impressive physique? I'm impressed by physique that takes a lot of work to attain, requires dedication, planning, and committment. It also requires superb genetics. Top bodybuilders requires all of those things, and requires them to a far greater degree. I am equating them as dependent variables because they are. Midgets are short because of genetic abnormalities. From a physiological standpoint, a short person is the most efficient. the topic is impressive, not practical. If you feel that LD is more practical but BBers are more impressive, then i'm inclined to agree with you.
Bdybuilding is very particular in what to eat and not eat. This requires choosing between a few different foods and eating them day after day after day for 20 years, especially during contest season. Lin Dan needs to show no such restraint. Bodybuilders need to lift weights until there is no longer any benefit from lifting weights. This requires careful long term planning of what to lift, how heavy to lift, and how long to lift it, every day. To attain LD's physique, you could have no idea what you're doing in the gym, spend 30 minutes a day, and get it within a year. That's hardly impressive nor difficult. Most people fail to understand how difficult being a successful bodybuilder is. Consider Flex Wheller. He has a myostatin gene mutation that prevents muscle breakdown. (http://www.healthtalk.ca/muscle_boy...dical.net/print_article.asp?print=yes&id=2757 for info on what it would do to a normal person .) So this superhuman, despite its mutatant genes and injecting so much steroids, prohumans, and human growth factors that his liver and kidneys are now destoryed at age 40, has never won a Mr. Olympia (BBing's top competition.) If that doesn't make you think it's impressive then nothing will. You literally need a body with dozens of mutations to make you super large, kidney and livers strong enough to handle the insane amounts of foods and steroids necessary, and the smarts to formulate the most efficient plan to maximize all of your advantages. (And a super strong immune system, since as muscle size increase, your immune system weakens. A severe skiness will take you out of the game for a long time.) Maybe one in a million man is genetically capable of ever reaching the size and definition of a top bodybuilder in their lifetime. One in two is genetically capable of reaching the LD's size and definition within two years (and i'm including gals here too.)
since u asked, i would say an ideal body to have, in my book, is a decathletes. http://www.brianmac.demon.co.uk/decath/ some quotes from http://www.decathlonusa.org/nature.html "the decathlon -- measures those elementary athletic talents. Speed, strength, agility, spring and endurance are embodied within its measurable objectives. While one athlete may be faster, another stronger and yet a third a better jumper, the decathlon attempts to determine who, among the three, is the best all-around or general athlete. The skills of the decathlete are not specific to any sport. Although all sporting contests need fast, strong and agile athletes, they also demand specific skills. Although those skills (e.g., making a 20-foot jump shot, hitting a curve ball, or kicking a field goal) are difficult to master, they are specific to each sport and not general in nature. This is why there can be no doubt that decathlon champions are the best all-around athletes in the world. Making a case that decathletes are the "world's best athletes" is harder since some athletes with honed specific talents, for example Michael Jordan or Ken Griffey, Jr., may be so proficient in their unique skills as to overshadow a decathlete with terrific general competency. The decathlete does not have to be exceptional in any one event to be the champion in the ten events. He must range from being at least adequate in his weak events to being outstanding in his stronger events. Because he must do well in three running, one hurdling, three jumping an and three throwing events he has inadequate chance to perfect and polish any one of the events. So he must compromise. And therein lies the nature of the decathlon. It is a compromise where concessions must be made in preparation for the sake of maximizing the total score. In his training he must strive to improve his technique, gain strength without sacrificing speed or spring, (and vice versa) and acquire the endurance that will escort him through a competition which, in many cases, lasts 8-10 hours each day. Mental factors play a greater role than they do in other events. Many coaches talk of a "decathlon mentality," meaning the athlete's ability to stay focused throughout the ten events, to get psyched up for each attempt or race, and to shrug off disappointment and get on with the next trial. In the decathlon there are chances to recuperate from mistakes. " Badminton players like LD comes close to a decathlete but he has a bit less muscle mass because a racquet weigh less than a lead ball, a javelin spear and discus. However, badminton required more hand eye coordination and strategic planning, more use of multiple skills applied in cohesion. (ie, more mental skill). I'll take these attributes any day over of a BB type. Here is a look of their training involved http://www.coachr.org/deca.htm Tell that to anorexics, they're willing to risk their life to achieve their goals and objectives. How is that for dedication, planning and committment (mentally, physically, and spiritually) over that of your BB'er. So by your definition of impressiveness, then an anorexic is most impressive LOL
mmm... and getting Bruce Lees body physique would probably take. say 32 minutes a day in the "gym" ...
Suppose I agree that the ideal phyical shape is that of a decathlete you have in mind. (I don't, and even the site you linked admit there's no single ideal body phsyique in a successful decatehlete.) There's nonethelss a dichotomy between ideal and impressive. An ideal car is like a geo metro. It gets the job done with minimal resources. It is practical, but hardly impressive. if you look at an anorexic's diet, you'll find that it's chaotic. How many anoreics follow set a diet? Plan out their intake of nutrients months in advance? It's unprincipled: the path anorexics take does not needed them to their desired result. At least not based upon scientific principles. A typical anoreic's diet is about balancing between their desire to eat and fighting against that desire, in an irrational way. All the committment in the world isn't going to get you anywhere without the smarts and genes to back it up. I'm confounded by how you can equate anorexics with bodybuilders. Did you read ANYTHING i've written? anybody is genetically capable of being a successful anorexic. The same cannot be said about bodybuilding.
Bruce lee weighted, 135 pounds. He had a lean body mass of about 128 pounds with 5% body fat. That is not hard to achieve. A typical human body won't resist up until 180 pounds of lean body mass. 130 is a cakewalk.
Once again you are limiting your defintion of "physique".. Bodyfat and musclemass are NOT the only to factors to train for, as most athletes know..
Again, you have equate efficiency with practicality. Again, i say these variables dont depend on each other. Geo metro is fuel efficiency but it isn't an ideal car. Take the american auto market for example (US has broader range of roads, distance between towns and cities, brands and models of vehicles. ie, the most freedom of choice of travel and car model to choose from), if I'm correct, the popular models sold and own are accord, camry, and mid size truck/suv. Why? Because that's what the majority wanted, good speed, good comfort, good carrying capacity, decent fuel consumption, good drivability, good look, good durability, etc, just like LD physique, good at everything but not the best on any oneparticular attribute. By your bodybuilding logic of impressiveness, I would say an auto equivalent would be a forklift or a tractor, slow but an excellent lifter or puller. I won't even equate the Hummer to a bodybuilder because a hummer is still a comfortable, multifunctional vehicle. well, u brought up dedication, planning and committment effort of bodybuilding to achieve impressiveness so i gave u an example of a class of people who have even more dedication, planning and committment. Point is, there are many human achievements that required more dedication, planning and committment to attain less impressive result than BB. It is obvious that impressiveness is different to different people. This debate is quite similar to my discussion with Kelvin regarding his view on the Lamborghini Murcielago. He find this car impressive and aggressive looking. I counter back by offering samples of common model of cars that are even more impressive and aggressive, in performance. You said BB required certain genetic and is not common to population. I guess exoticism and scarcity is impressive in your eyes, just like Kelvin drools on the Lamborghini Murcielago. PS: being practical as i am, i never owned a subcompact vehicle in my life. All my cars have been over 17 feet long. Oh, u might say it's costly to maintain. Well, one car i have, i averaged 10 cents per mile cost, this included depreciation, fuel, maintenance, license and insurance, averaged over 21 years, not a one year anomoly. No, it wasnt highway driven to bring the cost/mile number down. I had carried sods for my backyard lawn; carried 8 x 20' re-bars; enough floor molding to trim a 2 stories condo; many 4x4 and 6x6 posts (12-14'), and had beaten many accord and alike. I like to see a geo metro do that.
there is also proportions, which is what bodybuilders train for. not pure size, but also proportions. let me know what i've "missed"
are you saying the metro is an impractical car? I believe you are confusing practically with desire... confusing desire with practicality. a small civic will do the job of a camry or truck for 99% of consumers, 99% of the time good at everything? LD would get slaughtered in any physical fight. And in any case your reasoning is irrelevant. Practiality and impressivenes are different things. put your 600hp evo next to a zhonda pagani modded to 1200hp. which will the average person say is more impressive? the one better at doing everything or the more exotic and rare? anorexics have more dedication, planning, and committment than bodybuilders? please read my post before responding instead of just making up falsehoods and passing them off as truth. or else show that your wild claims are true. i'll save you some time: anorexics are impuslive by nature-->hence lack of commitment and dedication. 3 entries found for impressive. im·pres·sive Audio pronunciation of "impressive" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-prsv) adj. Making a strong or vivid impression; striking or remarkable: an impressive ceremony. impressive \Im*press"ive\, a. [Cf. F. impressif.] 1. Making, or tending to make, an impression; having power to impress; adapted to excite attention and feeling, to touch the sensibilities, or affect the conscience; as, an impressive discourse; an impressive scene. impressive adj 1: making a strong or vivid impression; "an impressive ceremony" [ant: unimpressive] 2: producing a strong effect; "gave an impressive performance as Othello"; "a telling gesture" [syn: telling] a common event is not one to make a strong impression. It looks like you are arguing over semantics here: you are defining impressiveness as the thing that you most desire. I'm defining it as the thing most likely to cause awe. the metro has a roof rack
are you saying the metro is an impractical car? I believe you are confusing practically with desire... No, never said that. I believe you are confusing affordability and fuel economy with practicality. confusing desire with practicality. a small civic will do the job of a camry or truck for 99% of consumers, 99% of the time that doesnt explain why accords, camry, truck and van are the most popular models. If you're right, then 99% of the vehicles on the road should be civics and geo metro but that is not the case. Depending on which cities, I estimate that civcs, geo, prius represent 5 to 20% of car owned by canadian. good at everything? LD would get slaughtered in any physical fight. And in any case your reasoning is irrelevant. Practiality and impressivenes are different things. LD is not stupid. A Bodybuilder guy like Kevin L. has to catch LD first. LOL Remember that LD can use many other physical attributes beside knowing how to bearsqueeze someone. In Bruce Lee case (with LD physique), bruce can kill kevin under 5 min if he wanted to. There are numerous ways to take down (and kill) a 300 lb muscle guy but these are secret among the martial artist circle. put your 600hp evo next to a zhonda pagani modded to 1200hp. which will the average person say is more impressive? It depends. If 600hp evo is a light weight car that and can out accelerate, out maneuver a 3 ton zhonda pagani, the answer is obvious. Let me pick a better example: a 600 hp endurano motocycle versus a 1200 hp caboose, how many shows are there that exhibit caboose. Compare to cars and motorcycles, caboose is quite rare. or else show that your wild claims are true. i'll save you some time: anorexics are impuslive by nature-->hence lack of commitment and dedication. how do we know if BB's are not doing it for their own exhibition, egoistic and self absorbing impulsive reasons? 3 entries found for impressive.im•pres•sive Audio pronunciation of "impressive" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-prsv) adj. Making a strong or vivid impression; striking or remarkable: an impressive ceremony. So does freaks of nature. the metro has a roof rack but i wouldn't be following behind a 'loaded' geo coming out of Home Depot
