Bob_Funk Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 All of them believe that if they just lift hard enough and deprive themselves enough that they'll eventually be able to get one of these entitled American girls to go out with them. What no one tells you is that a gym body, while necessary, is insufficient to getting laid for guys. It's like having a nose or not being paraplegic. You aren't earning any bonus points for your 6-pack and pecs; you're just repelling girls slightly less.
SmileFace Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 So you go to the gym to watch guys? GoodjobDaveMan! 3
fishtaco Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 Working out at the gym makes me feel better, physically. If I don't exercise, I feel sluggish, and my joints seem to become less flexible. Especially my lower back, since I sit all day at work. Once I get out there and move a round a bit, my lower back actually feels better. Aging sucks. Also, I want to get back into Muay Thai (as a hobby, I'm no fighter). Especially every time I watch UFC or even an action film with well done hand-to-hand combat scenes, it gets me fired up to start again. At my age, making sure I'm fit will reduce injuries when I do get back into it. In fact, one day a week I do plyometrics for that reason. Oh and to get entitled American girls. Since you don't work out, you have no chance. The fact that I repel girls less than you do is an advantage, and that means I'll get your girl. 3
ThaWholigan Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 I imagine that it's something else about all you guys in that gym that's repelling girls...... 2
MaxNoob Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 I stay in shape for my health and one less reason to be rejected. I agree that some people take it too far, doing risky exercises like dead lifts with hundreds of pounds. They obsess over it, thinking the more the better, but there's no benefit to having anything more than a toned, swimmer's body. After a point, more bulky muscles are repulsive to a lot of women.
yongyong Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 I can't lift heavy weights (my max for dead lift is 225lbs) Sometimes I wonder why they would try so hard to lift such heavy weight as a non-athlete. I think it's the same as those idiots cycling hundreds miles, running marathon and doing even triathlon. I stay in shape for my health and one less reason to be rejected. I agree that some people take it too far, doing risky exercises like dead lifts with hundreds of pounds. They obsess over it, thinking the more the better, but there's no benefit to having anything more than a toned, swimmer's body. After a point, more bulky muscles are repulsive to a lot of women.
USCGAviator Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 Why waste time and effort complaining and laughing at other men's routine? Some people might benefit more from focusing on their own image and not so much the image of others. 3
DreamerDeceiver Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 I can't lift heavy weights (my max for dead lift is 225lbs.) Sometimes I wonder why they would try so hard to lift such heavy weight as a non-athlete. I think it's the same as those idiots cycling hundreds miles, running marathon and doing even triathlon. You have to keep increasing the weights you use, to get gains. To bench press 95-100%, deadlift 150% and squat 150-175% of your body weight are reasonable goals (for a male). Anything after that is advanced/athlete territory, which if you want to go for it, more power to you. Bench pressing 110-120% of your body weight is crazy strong and right under athlete territory. Bob_Funk, you're right, it's not only being physically fit, one needs social skills, but looking good didn't hurt anyone or stop them from trying to.
mario_C Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 In America where obesity is rampant, not having a gut is, in fact, a bonus point (and I'm not judging, I'm no Ryan Gosling myself). Having the work ethic, dedication and discipline to work out every day are 3 more bonus points. But yes, having intelligence and confidence count too. Usually.
fishtaco Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 I can't lift heavy weights (my max for dead lift is 225lbs) Sometimes I wonder why they would try so hard to lift such heavy weight as a non-athlete. I think it's the same as those idiots cycling hundreds miles, running marathon and doing even triathlon. I see, so anyone participating in a hobby that you're not interested in are automatically idiots. 2
MaxNoob Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 I see, so anyone participating in a hobby that you're not interested in are automatically idiots. Well they shouldn't assume it's good for their health. Marathon runners have a much higher rate of atherosclerosis which takes several years off their life expectancy. Excessive endurance exercise is probably not good for your heart.
fishtaco Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 Well they shouldn't assume it's good for their health. Marathon runners have a much higher rate of atherosclerosis which takes several years off their life expectancy. Excessive endurance exercise is probably not good for your heart. Endurance sports, with all the down sides, are still better than say, drinking, smoking, sit on the couch and watch TV, and certain other hobbies that people may decide to spend their time with. So what you say is true. People should not consider endurance sports as the secret sauce to good health. But there are other reasons to participate in those sports. 1
MaxNoob Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 Endurance sports, with all the down sides, are still better than say, drinking, smoking, sit on the couch and watch TV, and certain other hobbies that people may decide to spend their time with. So what you say is true. People should not consider endurance sports as the secret sauce to good health. But there are other reasons to participate in those sports. Someone who watches TV and does half an hour of exercise a day will add about 4 years to their life expectancy. A marathon runner could be reducing their life expectancy by 2 years; that's a difference of 6 years from doing too much exercise.
skyisfalling Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 watching guys with nice bodies definitely gives me something to look at while working hard upstairs on the elliptical... 1
Ninjainpajamas Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 When I was in HS and 15 years old I was already doing; - 305 lbs bench press - 450 lb Squat - 250 lb (i think If I can recall) powerclean And I weighed a whopping 160 pounds. I was in great physical shape but by no means looked like a body builder that could lift that much. Muscles and strength are two completely different things, anyone who's ever lifted weights seriously knows this, I've never been like a huge muscle guy just athletic type and good sized. Naturally I progressed in weight lifting...I got up to about just shy of 400 pounds on the bench press and 550 ish on the squat..and that was at about a weight of 215 pounds. And that of course was in sports, many people think lifting weights will just get you buff which is a joke, it's about diet, exercise and cardio which at 31 is where my focus is now. However your body has muscle memory, It doesn't take me long to start benching over 300 pounds again because you actually progress back pretty quickly, I can at any time plop under a bench press and do 225 lbs even IF I haven't worked out in a long time, it's just not a lot of weight for me. Young guys tend to try and go berserk in a weight room doing strength training but most don't know what they're doing, which is really over-the-top and not going to get the little six-pack with chisel pecks to impress women. They should be doing cardio or plyometrics most of of the time but they don't know any better and If you never played sports and had a professional weight-lifting coach it might be hard to already have a good routine. Personally I've never lifted weights to impress women...always for sports or personal challenge and to feel good about myself, I could almost care less what other people think...when I'm the gym or working out I'm doing it completely for myself. As you get older though I just think you try and fight to stay in shape with a busy work-schedule and with just life going on around you. 2
skyisfalling Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 ur hot the way u are When I was in HS and 15 years old I was already doing; - 305 lbs bench press - 450 lb Squat - 250 lb (i think If I can recall) powerclean And I weighed a whopping 160 pounds. I was in great physical shape but by no means looked like a body builder that could lift that much. Muscles and strength are two completely different things, anyone who's ever lifted weights seriously knows this, I've never been like a huge muscle guy just athletic type and good sized. Naturally I progressed in weight lifting...I got up to about just shy of 400 pounds on the bench press and 550 ish on the squat..and that was at about a weight of 215 pounds. And that of course was in sports, many people think lifting weights will just get you buff which is a joke, it's about diet, exercise and cardio which at 31 is where my focus is now. However your body has muscle memory, It doesn't take me long to start benching over 300 pounds again because you actually progress back pretty quickly, I can at any time plop under a bench press and do 225 lbs even IF I haven't worked out in a long time, it's just not a lot of weight for me. Young guys tend to try and go berserk in a weight room doing strength training but most don't know what they're doing, which is really over-the-top and not going to get the little six-pack with chisel pecks to impress women. They should be doing cardio or plyometrics most of of the time but they don't know any better and If you never played sports and had a professional weight-lifting coach it might be hard to already have a good routine. Personally I've never lifted weights to impress women...always for sports or personal challenge and to feel good about myself, I could almost care less what other people think...when I'm the gym or working out I'm doing it completely for myself. As you get older though I just think you try and fight to stay in shape with a busy work-schedule and with just life going on around you. 1
fishtaco Posted July 19, 2012 Posted July 19, 2012 Someone who watches TV and does half an hour of exercise a day will add about 4 years to their life expectancy. A marathon runner could be reducing their life expectancy by 2 years; that's a difference of 6 years from doing too much exercise. Ok, arguing for the sake of arguing, but I'll play. 1) Watching TV isn't the part that extends life. It's the half an hour of exercise part. 2) Balanced lifestyle is better than extreme lifestyle, doesn't matter if you're talking about too much TV or too much endurance exercise. If you compare someone that runs too much, vs someone that sits on the couch too much, I'm not so sure the couch guy would be healthier. In general, I would say the person that puts a lot of focus into exercises will be healthier than someone that puts a lot of focus on sitting on the couch. But realistically, there are a lot of other factors, such as diet, nutrition, and stress. Plus, quality > quantity. If I'm going to lose 2 years of my life, but I enjoy it doing things I want to do up to till the end, then I'd rather lose those 2 years.
Ross MwcFan Posted July 19, 2012 Posted July 19, 2012 I only work out for myself. But yeah I do believe, that if women aren't interested in you in the first place, then suddenly becoming shredded wont make much difference.
MaxNoob Posted July 19, 2012 Posted July 19, 2012 2) Balanced lifestyle is better than extreme lifestyle, By definition, a marathon is extreme - it puts too much strain on the heart. Competing in just one marathon can result in heart damage. Watching TV and drinking occasionally can be incorporated into a balanced lifestyle. Plus, quality > quantity. If I'm going to lose 2 years of my life, but I enjoy it doing things I want to do up to till the end, then I'd rather lose those 2 years.No, you could get a heart attack when you're 45 years old from the damage all that marathon running did to your blood vessels, and have a reduced quality of life for the next 20 years.
fishtaco Posted July 19, 2012 Posted July 19, 2012 By definition, a marathon is extreme - it puts too much strain on the heart. Competing in just one marathon can result in heart damage. Watching TV and drinking occasionally can be incorporated into a balanced lifestyle. So you are comparing jogging excessively (marathon) to watching TV occasionally. That comparison is meaningless. If you want to compare the two, you have to either compare jogging occasionally and watching TV occasionally, or jogging excessively and watching TV excessively. I'll give you a chance to rephrase your argument. No, you could get a heart attack when you're 45 years old from the damage all that marathon running did to your blood vessels, and have a reduced quality of life for the next 20 years. You can also step outside and get run over by a car. Not every person that runs marathons drop dead at 45. I would say... climbing mount Everest is a more dangerous activity. But people do it anyway, because that's what they want to do. 1
turt Posted July 19, 2012 Posted July 19, 2012 A marathon runner could be reducing their life expectancy by 2 years; that's a difference of 6 years from doing too much exercise. I highly doubt a trained marathon runner would be lowering his life expectancy. The heart is like any other muscle in the body and will become stronger the more it's used. My resting heart rate used to be in the low 40s and is still in the 50s now. Now, if you just decide to run a marathon without properly training, I could see it damaging your body.
MaxNoob Posted July 19, 2012 Posted July 19, 2012 So you are comparing jogging excessively (marathon) to watching TV occasionally. That comparison is meaningless. If you want to compare the two, you have to either compare jogging occasionally and watching TV occasionally, or jogging excessively and watching TV excessively. I'll give you a chance to rephrase your argument. 5 hours spent running one marathon can result in heart damage. 5 hours spent watching TV will not affect your health. You can also step outside and get run over by a car. Not every person that runs marathons drop dead at 45.I cover marathons as a first responder; my strategy is to stand there waiting for people to drop dead. I'm not nearly as busy when people are just walking around. I highly doubt a trained marathon runner would be lowering his life expectancy. The heart is like any other muscle in the body and will become stronger the more it's used. My resting heart rate used to be in the low 40s and is still in the 50s now. Now, if you just decide to run a marathon without properly training, I could see it damaging your body. A long term marathon runner will have a larger and more efficient heart, but many studies have shown they also have thicker heart valves, giving them a higher chance or a heart attack.
fishtaco Posted July 19, 2012 Posted July 19, 2012 5 hours spent running one marathon can result in heart damage. 5 hours spent watching TV will not affect your health. So you are comparing something that COULD happen? Well if you spent 5 hours watching TV, a car could smash through your living room wall and kill you. Anything done in a stupid manner can kill you. There was a Chinese soccer fan that watched all the world cup games for 11 days without sleeping. He died. So yes, stupid kills. But that has nothing to do with TV or marathons. It has to do with stupid. People that run 5 hour marathons work up to it. There is a training methodology to it. Running marathons is safe, for the short term, for people that are physically fit, and practice all the correct precautions. But it could cause long term damage no matter what, like you said. But long term damage of not getting off the couch is also bad, if not worse than marathons. So what are you arguing for again? 1
Recommended Posts