Intro post...questions

[Darkhorse]

Originally Posted by Eric3237

BTW, there are those who will assert that the so called Pendlay or JS row is a barbell row and always has been and that nobody has a right to put their name on it or for their name to be put on it. I.E. it was always proper to deload the bar. I don't know the history of the exercise but let's just say the little birdy I heard it from I respect enough that I will henceforth decist using the term Pendlay or JS rows and just call them barbell rows (that's how I always do them anyway ). Cuz I hate it when someone pins their name or gets their name pinned on something they had nothing to do with inventing.

Ask your little birdy if it's better to say:

1) Correct barbell rows

2) Sacrificing form for more weight standing almost straight up barbell rows

I think names get attached to things because it was either popularized or invented to make things easy. If barbell rows were always meant to deload fully on the floor, but the concept was lost through time, then either Pendlay or John Smith reminded everyone which way they should be done, then I can see why that happened. Especially when all the pro's and 90% of the gymrats do them at a 45 degree angle and label them "barbell rows".

[_Wolf_]

Originally Posted by Eric3237

BTW, there are those who will assert that the so called Pendlay or JS row is a barbell row and always has been and that nobody has a right to put their name on it or for their name to be put on it. I.E. it was always proper to deload the bar. I don't know the history of the exercise but let's just say the little birdy I heard it from I respect enough that I will henceforth decist using the term Pendlay or JS rows and just call them barbell rows (that's how I always do them anyway ). Cuz I hate it when someone pins their name or gets their name pinned on something they had nothing to do with inventing.

oh man.....im laughing very hard right now......btw: where have u been eric?

[The IronBull]

I dont even know where to start with this thread.

First of all Bro, forget the cutting. Your a skinny little runt to begin with.
I have NEVER heard of a 6' 165lbs guy cutting.
Thats retarded dude. (no disrepect intended)

You want to lose 15lbs and be 150lbs at 6'???
Bro, you'll never be able to carry your backpack very far

And this "for the military and need to be light and lean"???
Shouldnt it be STRONG and lean.

You need strength, muscle mass, and a high cardio capacitiy. The lean part (at 165lbs) will work its self out as you grow bigger.

[FlyUSMC]

Thanks for the input, but I don't necessarily agree. I'm at about 15% body fat right now, so I have some space to work with. Last year I was a competitive athlete and weighted 145 with a good amount of muscle (7% BF). I know that I can carry the pack at that weight, it's been done before. The reason I want to lose the fat is that that is 15 lbs less that I have to do 20 pullups with or run (aka sprint..) 5 miles with. I've got good strength already, so I'm just looking to cut the junk. And I agree, strong and lean is the way to go. I should have said lightER

[EricT]

Originally Posted by 0311

I think names get attached to things because it was either popularized or invented to make things easy. If barbell rows were always meant to deload fully on the floor, but the concept was lost through time, then either Pendlay or John Smith reminded everyone which way they should be done, then I can see why that happened. Especially when all the pro's and 90% of the gymrats do them at a 45 degree angle and label them "barbell rows".

Oh, I guarantee if it is the case that they were traditionally deloaded then that is exactly what happended. But I see nothing wrong with correcting history! It's one thing for people to describe something and another for people to become the "inventors". And I am NOT saying that anyone does that on purpose. You don't see them protesting, though, either. But I could care less what other people call them.

So you liked that, Anuj?

Originally Posted by FlyUSMC

Last year I was a competitive athlete and weighted 145 with a good amount of muscle (7% BF). I know that I can carry the pack at that weight, it's been done before.

I think that you are probably better qualified to know what weight is comfortable for you. However, 7% is really low and I agree with Bull that cutting is probably just putting your energy in places better served elsewhere. You can increase endurance, strength and all that without actively trying to shed fat. Especially when you are talking about such a small amount of it. And I would warn you that just dropping the weight isn't a guarantee of many more pullups. Do whatever you think is right but if it were me I'd concentrate on doing the training I needed to do and not worry about that fat.

[_Wolf_]

Originally Posted by Eric3237

So you liked that, Anuj?

hehehe

dude, where have u been man?

[EricT]

Well my monitor was broken and plus I was out of town for a few days.

[_Wolf_]

^^^ oh....i had sent u a pm btw

[FlyUSMC]

Originally Posted by Eric3237

I think that you are probably better qualified to know what weight is comfortable for you. However, 7% is really low and I agree with Bull that cutting is probably just putting your energy in places better served elsewhere. You can increase endurance, strength and all that without actively trying to shed fat. Especially when you are talking about such a small amount of it. And I would warn you that just dropping the weight isn't a guarantee of many more pullups. Do whatever you think is right but if it were me I'd concentrate on doing the training I needed to do and not worry about that fat.

That was actually going to be my next question... I still think that running is going to be easier without 15lbs of dead weight, but at the same time...OCS breaks your body down a lot, 185lb guys will come out weighing in the 160's. A lot of that, given the nature of the exercise, is muscle. If I went in there with a bit more fat stored up, do you think that would prevent any muscle loss?

[EricT]

You know I was actually going to mention something like that. I don't like to generalize too much but for something that breaks down your body, as you say, I think people who have a little more fat have an advantage. I don't want to go into how much muscle you can expect to lose or save but having some extra fuel reserve in the form of fat, imo, for the most part is going to be a good thing. And when it comes down to it 15 percent or so isn't a large or unhealthy amount whereas single digits like 7% are not really "normal" for the body (it could be normal for some people of course). And having very low bf is a side-effect sometimes of endurance training but that doesn't mean you have to have very low bf to have enough endurance.