File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Hey /fit/, I've been doing cardio training, specifically tabata intervals, everyday except on wedsdays for rest for almost 2 months now. There doesn't seem to be any change in my stomach were I'm trying to trim off this small layer of fat. I can kinda see my stomach muscles
but the fat covers it up. How long is this shit gonna take before I get some dramatic results?
>> Anonymous
If you want dramatic results for your abs, I suggest you get the Ab Belt Pro.
>> Anonymous
Three things:

Your diet probably sucks and is not balanced.

Your body got used to your stale, daily workouts because you never changed anything.

HIIT/Tabata shit is a gimmick. Yes, it "works", but it's not any better than longer intervals of cardio. Funny how cross country runners do pretty much nothing BUT long distance runs and they're all thin as shit.
>> Anonymous
>>169385

When you do it properly.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>Yes, it "works", but it's not any better than longer intervals of cardio
>> Anonymous
>>169396
Thin is all they are. They have no MUSSLE.
>> Anonymous
>>169435

It really isn't. You're going to get the same effect at a six mile per hour long run for 30 minutes than you are as doing HIIT for 15 minutes. Actually, the long run is probably more effective because you cover more distance and aren't abusing your heart. HIIT is a start and stop type of exercise, which has long been known to be terrible for effective fat loss, but incredible for endurance training.

And don't feed me that "BUT IT SKYROCKETS YOUR METABOLISM FOR LIKE 24 HOURS". That's such a load of bullshit that's on par with "We use 10% of our brains" and "Red meat stays in your colon forever and you take seven years to digest gum!".
>> Anonymous
>>169495

Hence why if you want to lose fat, long periods of cardio are key. Since I've never seen a fat runner, well...
>> Anonymous
>>169502

watch a marathon, tonnes of fattys

dont see many fat sprinters
>> Anonymous
>>169508

They aren't runners. Anyone is free to sign up for a marathon, just like anyone is free to enter a boxing tournament.

I'm talking about real runners who do track and cross country. They aren't fat.
>> Anonymous
>>169513

They have still trained for months and look fat
An average man doing HIIT for months will look pretty fit i reckon
>> Anonymous
>>169530

You don't know that at all. You can sign up for a marathon in any shape and not train at all, most of them are done for charity anyway. Your argument is flawed.
>> Anonymous
>>169500

Cite your sources, faggot.
>> Anonymous
>>169513
What the fuck? Pole vaulters are thin, therefore getting really high up in the air makes you lose weight.
>> Anonymous
>>169536

It's common knowledge. Moving your body burns calories. Moving it for longer periods burns more calories. That's pretty much all I was saying.

Also, there are little to no studies on HIIT. It's basically just Tabata saying "HURR IT WORKS" just like Atkins ran around saying "HURR IT WORKS". We know with the Atkins' Diet that the weight loss was really caused by a caloric deficit and not cutting carbs. It's pretty obvious to anyone with a brain that HIIT isn't a magic workout, you're burning calories due to aerobic movement, the same thing happens if you just plain run for 30 minutes or an hour.

And do you really need a source to prove to your that rapid pulse rate changes are not healthy? Never heard of warm up and cool down walks before a run? They do that for a reason.
>> Anonymous
>>169538

Pole vaulting is not an intensely aerobic form of cardio, running is.

That was the point. Runners are thin because they run, that doesn't mean other athletes achieve a specific physique just from their chosen sport, though. You must have lost your ticket, because you just missed the logic train.
>> Anonymous
>>169545
>And do you really need a source to prove to your that rapid pulse rate changes are not healthy?
That must be why soccer players are dropping dead left and right.
>> Anonymous
>>169548
No you say runner are thin because they run. Therefore running makes you thin. It's circular logic dumbass.
>> Anonymous
>>169545

I like putting my heart under stress, reminds me i'm still alive. I dont claim HIIT is magic, it works better at fat burning than long sessions of cardio for a reason, but the doctors in the studies havent been able to determine the exact cause of it. There are quite a few studies on it available on the internet, you just have to look for them.
>> Anonymous
>>169549

Didn't say it would kill you, I said it is not healthy. Also, soccer players aren't generally doing full out sprints for a minute straight and then IMMEDIATELY changing to a slow walking pace. With HIIT, you're making a complete 90 degree turn immediately, with soccer, it's more like a slightly tight bend that can be taken safely as long as you aren't driving 80 MPH. Soccer players also aren't playing league games every fucking day and their training usually involves very long runs.

In any case, any cardiologist with their salt would be able to tell you that constant fluctuations in pulse are not healthy.
>> Anonymous
>>169552

And that doesn't make it apply to other sports, dipfuck. If Hockey involved competitive, 15 mile runs, they'd all be pretty fucking thin as well.

It'd be like if I said competitive shooters were very accurate with a rifle and then you bringing up wars and noting that most shots miss their intended targets. Just because they have the common link of firearms doesn't make them remotely similar.
>> Anonymous
>>169556
First you equate Tabata with HIIT. Then you say HIIT is a full minute of full on sprinting. Which is it?
>> Anonymous
>>169554

>it works better at fat burning than long sessions of cardio for a reason

And that's just the thing...it DOESN'T. You're just under the impression it does. Just like Fatkins fags are under the impression cutting carbs is what causes their weight loss, when that's completely untrue. You're just tricking yourself into thinking HIIT works better of the junk science and rumormongering behind it. Know what? If you lose two pounds a week with long distance running and someone else loses two pounds a week doing HIIT it's the same fucking thing.

The simple truth is that exercise makes your body burn stored energy. You can do whatever the fuck you want. I don't care WHICH exercises you do, you'll still be burning stored fat as energy which will result in your weight and body fat levels decreasing. The only thing that matters is how many calories you fucking burn.
>> Anonymous
>>169563
Keep on ignoring the science, buddy.
>> Anonymous
>>169563

Then how come under the same factors i have lost more fat from doing HIIT than long cardio sessions.

Long cardio sessions - over 400 calories burned apparantly - 45-60 mins

HIIT - Around 110 calories burned - 15 mins

Prove us wrong with solid evidence please.
>> Anonymous
>>169563

http://jp.physoc.org/cgi/content/abstract/586/1/151

You're wrong. What's more, the Journal of Applied Physiology says you're wrong. If you really think you know more than a well-established, reputable medical journal, I pity you.
>> Anonymous
>>169573

>Similar metabolic adaptations during exercise after low volume sprint interval and traditional endurance training in humans

Did you even read what you linked? What you posted just agrees with the guy you're replying to. He was saying the effects of HIIT and traditional running are relatively the same and your article says the same fucking thing.
>> Anonymous
>>169578

Furthermore, from the article you linked:

>Given the markedly lower training volume in the SIT group, these data suggest that high-intensity interval training is a time-efficient strategy to increase skeletal muscle oxidative capacity and induce specific metabolic adaptations during exercise that are comparable to traditional ET.

It just agrees that HIIT is comparable to traditional endurance running. It doesn't even say ANYWHERE that's BETTER.
>> Anonymous
>>169578

He was arguing
>Moving your body burns calories. Moving it for longer periods burns more calories

Which is not true. The SIT was low volume while the endurance training was not. I.e., interval training is more efficient than traditional endurance training since it induces the same response with less effort.
>> Anonymous
>>169580
Time-efficient is generally considered better than long, tedious tasks, in most people's views.
>> Anonymous
>>169572

Logic doesn't work that way. He presented his argument, now you present yours. You don't just say "Prove me wrong", that isn't how logic works.

Maybe he doesn't have any actual proof related to your "counterpoint", just like Atheists don't have much proof to God not existing, yet that doesn't make people who believe in God without proof logical in the least.

And did you think that maybe you lost more fat because of the other exercises you do? Just MAYBE? Think long and hard about any increases in other forms of exercise you do. If you cut back your cardio and replaced it with HIIT, only to increase your muscle training, well there you go.
>> Anonymous
>>169578
(different poster)

Even if HIIT and endurance running have the same metabolic results, HIIT is a healthier alternative because you also train anaerobic capacity in addition to everything long distance running trains. The only reason anyone would not want to do HIIT is because it's HARD.
>> Anonymous
>>169583

It said it provided a SIMILAR and COMPARABLE metabolic boost, not that it burned more calories.
>> Anonymous
>>169583

>induces the same response with less effort

nothing in life works this way
>> Anonymous
>>169578
Yes, I thought by "better" one qualifier would be that it is much, much more efficient. If running all damn day is better for you than 15 minutes of HIIT, I retract my statement.

Maybe you should stop lifting weights and try isometrics instead, too. Same results except much, much, much less efficient.
>> Anonymous
>>169587

Right, and that's good for endurance training, which is what the above guy was trying to say.

From what I see, if HIIT and traditional ET provide similar, maybe even identical metabolic boosts, then traditional ET is still more effective for overall fat loss because you're simply covering more distance and using your muscles longer. This makes a ton of sense to me, much more so than some of you guys saying "Well, HIIT *somehow* works better, but nobody has any proof as to why yet!".
>> Anonymous
The thing is, the interval trainees putting out ten times less work than the endurance runners for similar results. Did no one notice that?
>> Anonymous
"The mean estimated total energy cost of the ET program was 120.4 MJ, whereas the corresponding value for the HIIT program was 57.9 MJ. Despite its lower energy cost, the HIIT program induced a more pronounced reduction in subcutaneous adiposity compared with the ET program."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8028502

/thread
>> Anonymous
>>169609
~225 versus ~2250 kJ week in the article I linked.
>> Anonymous
>>169604

Similar metabolic effects in the short term, not necessarily more calories burned.

I still maintain that nothing in life works this way. You never put in less effort and get the same result unless there's some hidden price you're paying to make it equal.

Like I said, even if HIIT gets your metabolism up to the same rates during the exercise as running, and keeps it up for an hour or so afterwards, which would have been achieved anyway if you kept running, the runner still wins out because he's simply using his muscles longer and thus burning more calories. This is simple science.
>> Anonymous
>>169612
Or maybe human beings are complex biological systems and not mechanical machines.
>> Anonymous
>>169612
Which part of>>169609did you not understand? HIIT caused more fatloss for less amount of time/energy spent.
>> Anonymous
>>169609

That doesn't say anything about how long or intense the ET sessions were. It also doesn't say anything about the HIIT sessions. All it gives you is the energy requirements. This could be highly skewed if they had the ET sessions consisting of a set miles per hour rate or even something like hiking or walking.

>In conclusion, these results reinforce the notion that for a given level of energy expenditure, vigorous exercise favors negative energy and lipid balance to a greater extent than exercise of low to moderate intensity.

This quote is basically all you need to know. It's saying more intense exercise is better than less intense exercise, which is true. You can do ET very intensively and you can end up doing HIIT less intensively. Just because the philosophy of HIIT is to break up your cardio into blocks of "low" and "high" doesn't necessarily mean THAT is the reason why it's high intensity overall.

At the end of the day, what we do know is that higher intensity gets you more aerobic and burns more calories. We've known this for fucking years, no big deal. It's hard to compare shit when we're just using the terms "HIIT" or "running", because we truly AREN'T looking specifically at the actual intensity of either form of cardio.

I mean, HIIT could technically be made up of 1 MPH walking and then 3 MPH jogging...that still fits into the philosophy of the exercise, but it's not actually intense at all. Likewise, traditional running might be taking place at 10 miles per hour for 45 minutes to an hour, which is VERY intense and requires insane levels of endurance.

There really just needs to be more specific tests conducted.
>> Anonymous
>>169628

See what I just posted in:

>>169629
>> Anonymous
>>169629
>HIIT could technically be made up of 1 MPH walking and then 3 MPH jogging

What part of high intensity do you not understand? And no, you can't do high intensity for 45 minutes, because you will die. You are able to do high intensity because it is in intervals- you have to rest to be able to go all out.

>we truly AREN'T looking specifically at the actual intensity of either form of cardio.

Yes, we are. If it says 250 kJ vs. 2500 kJ, that's the actual intensity level. It's the amount of energy put out.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>169629

Well, I'm done arguing. Believe what you will.
>> Anonymous
>>169638

No. You can do HIIT at different levels of intensity. And you won't die from 45 minutes of 10 mile per hour running, professional athletes do this, especially soccer players. Hell, my high school soccer team's bare minimum requirement was that their prospects cover three miles in under 18 minutes, many of the good runners finished in almost 15. Professionals are just doing this at a higher level.

>Yes, we are. If it says 250 kJ vs. 2500 kJ, that's the actual intensity level. It's the amount of energy put out.

The amount of energy required is NOT equivalent to the intensity. Think about it.
>> MaddoxMan !!pvgYyl5+noK
HIIT is good, but it's not for everyone. It gives you a little extra boost that allows you to continue burning calories trhoughout the day after your workout, but it's also really beneficial to do a 45-60min cardio workout in your target heart rate zone (75-80% intensity, but you should be able to talk a full sentence easily, not too out of breath from it)... staying in the zone for a duration of time is a great way to burn calories, HIIT is just something you should be alternating with your regular cardio workout every once in a while to avoid adaptation or plateauing. IMO it's a matter of person choice, both are great. DO NOT think of HIIT as a saving grace if you're not lifting any weights though. Starting doing some type of lifting first, that is more important to overall health and calorie burning than HIIT can ever be.

tl;dr: it's a personal choice, HIIT is not as great as some people build it up to be.
>> Anonymous
Whatever. You keep spending an hour to achieve what I achieve in 15 minutes. I don't really care.
>> Anonymous
>>169642

>The amount of energy required is NOT equivalent to the intensity. Think about it.

Yes it is. Energy per unit of time = intensity (yes the subjects had to complete the exercise in a certain amount of time)
>> Anonymous
>>169642

No, they do not work at high intensity for 45 minutes. Imagine how fast someone can sprint for a mile. Maybe a top tier athlete can do it in hypothetically 5 minutes. High intensity would mean he'd run 8 more miles, 5 minutes for each. It's impossible. That's why intervals are used.
>> MaddoxMan !!pvgYyl5+noK
>>169653
Too high or too low intensity is bad. Too low obviously doesn't accomplish much and too high is counterproductive, getting in your target heart rate zone and staying in it duirng your work out at a moderately high intensity (not all out) is the best way to burn calories/fat. You should implement HIIT when that routine stops being as effective, to give your body a shock enough to break through the plateau. In the end, it's a matter of personal choice, I just hate to see HIIT paraded as VASTLY superior when it's not. Both are good.
>> Anonymous
>>169653

I didn't see anything in that article that held the trainees to similar time requirements. If time was a factor then you're right and I'm wrong, but this is NOT mentioned in the article.

Without considering time, however, energy output is not equal to intensity in any way. If it were, you're basically saying burning X calories through walking is the same as burning X calories through running.
>> Anonymous
>>169666

The SIT group was given 30 second sprints with 4.5 minutes rest, the ET group had 40-60 minutes continuous load. The ET group also exercised 5 days a week while the SIT group only did 3 times.
>> Anonymous
>>169659

So can you plateau if you are doing HIIT all the time?
>> Anonymous
>>169659
>getting in your target heart rate zone and staying in it duirng your work out at a moderately high intensity (not all out) is the best way to burn calories/fat.
[citation needed]
>> MaddoxMan !!pvgYyl5+noK
Your body can adapt to any thing, it hates stress therefore it usually tries to make you able to withstand what you're going through, the more often you repeat something the easier it is for your body to get used to it and less result are achieved. I'd imagine it's a bit harder and might take a bit longer to plateau when you are doing HIIT, but it will happen eventually. I personally think people should use both, whatever they prefer. I personally enjoy a long, consistent aerobic work out. I do four 4.5KM circuits on my bike at what I feel is a moderately intensity, all on an slight incline uphill (some areas more than others)... some people prefer to do HIIT because they like getting similar benefits from what seems to be less work (which it's not)... like I said, both form are good... HIIT gives you the benefit of burning more calories throughout the day, but if you're lifting weights that will give you the same effect.
>> MaddoxMan !!pvgYyl5+noK
"The laws of fat loss are relatively simple: (1) Work out longer and you'll burn more calories and lose more fat, and (2) work out more often and you’ll burn more
calories and lose more fat."

"As you push harder and harder, a level will be reached where if the intensity goes any higher, you won't be able to sustain the activity long enough to burn much fat. You’ll become fatigued before you can finish your workout. Therefore, selecting an intensity that’s not too light but not too hard is critical. This is known as your "training zone," "target zone," or “fat-burning zone.” This optimal zone for fat burning and cardiovascular
conditioning is generally between 60% and 80% of your functional capacity or 70-85% of your age predicted maximum heart rate."

http://rapidshare.com/files/121796184/Burn_The_Fat_Feed_The_Muscle_-_Tom_Venuto.rar
>> Anonymous
>Work out longer and you'll ... lose more fat
Directly refuted by the already linked studies.
>> MaddoxMan !!pvgYyl5+noK
>>169681there's my citation, forgot to quote you..>>169683
>> Anonymous
>>169690
It's not a study though, it's just some guy.
>> MaddoxMan !!pvgYyl5+noK
>>169689
That was an entirely different quote the was a lot of info in between, I just pasted it because it was there. You can't really refute the second quote though. I am not saying HIIT is bad, or that you shouldn't do it. I'm saying it's not SO MUCH BETTER that you should feel compelled to do it, it's a matter of personal choice.
>> MaddoxMan !!pvgYyl5+noK
>>169691
*some guy who has more likely read many studies throughout his life and is using them in a no BS, unbiased manner to help people. Is his approach the ONLY way? No, it isn't. Do people suggest things contrary to him? Yes. But in the end, it comes down to WHAT WORKS FOR YOU. He also cites MANY, MANY sources, and I'm not going to list them, read the book if you're so concerned. If HIIT works for you, awesome, keep it up. This guy didn't pull this info from his ass, it's not gimmick bullshit it's lot of good, proven, albeit basic info that serves as a great guide for beginners without physiology degrees.
>> Anonymous
Venuto knows nothing. Big clown, floppy shoes.
>> Anonymous
Maddox is right on. You can plateau doing anything. Your metabolism slows down when your body gets in good shape because it becomes more efficient at utilizing calories, that's why you need to mix up everything you do, no matter if it's cardio or lifting.

Honestly, I think it would be the most ideal to like racewalk on Monday, run on Tuesday, HIIT on Wednesday, racewalk Thursday, run Friday, HIIT again on Saturday. Keeping your body constantly guessing is the best way to avoid/break plateaus.

The one thing I disagree with is that you NEED to add muscle training to a program like this. Sure, if you want to BUILD muscle, then do it. But burning fat is done most effectively by using large muscle and any type of running you do is going to do this very effectively. Working your upper body burns very few calories because they are very small muscles individually.
>> MaddoxMan !!pvgYyl5+noK
>>169696
Trolling detected. Anyways, take my advice or don't I really could care less, I just thought I'd add to the discussion.
>> Anonymous
There is no personal choice when it comes down to long cardio sessions and HIIT. You must do both. Obey Anonymous.

/thread
>> Anonymous
>>169699

Cocksucker attached to Venuto's throbbing jock like a barnacle to a ocean-going freighter's hull detected.
>> MaddoxMan !!pvgYyl5+noK
>>169698
Well, you don't NEED to lift weights to burn fat, but to have a well rounded regiment it is a great idea. More muscle mean you are able to burn more fat. After a workout, you burn more calories/fat throughout the day through an indirect method, a positive side effect if you will. It is something that can't hurt, only help. Whether you're looking to gain muscle mass, lose weight or just maintain, adding lifting to your routine is a great idea, three components of a great healthy routine are diet, aerobics and some form of weight training.
>> MaddoxMan !!pvgYyl5+noK
>>169700
That is exactly what I said, but it IS a personal choice on what you decide to put more emphasis on. I personally choose longer cardio sessions and use HIIT to mix it up when necessary.
>> Anonymous
>>169704

Even if it's generally not very intense weight training? I'm one of those women who is afraid of overly building my arms and traps and stuff. All I do are really basic things with like eight pound weights, is this generally helping at all?
>> Anonymous
>>169704
>but to have a well rounded regiment it is a great idea.
>well rounded regiment it is
>regiment

Where's the army, funboy? Look up regimen in a dictionary. Then read some Dr. Seuss books, because that Venuto shit is apparently not teaching you enough of the fundamentals of English.
>> Anonymous
>>169549
there was a soccer player at my high school who just had a heart attack and died right there on the field. but saying intensive workouts are "abusing" you heats is one of the dumbest things ive ever heard.
>> MaddoxMan !!pvgYyl5+noK
>>169716
lol, everyone is always "afraid" of getting muscley.... you know, building muscle mass is NOT an easy thing, so don't worry. It takes heavy weights, commitment to a specific regiment design to bulk you up (5x5 for example) and a diet high in protein to gain muscle mass.

If you want, work out 3 times a week (MON/WED/FRI), doing 1 exercise per muscle @ 3 X 8-12.

(Chest, Shoulders, Upper back, triceps, biceps, calves, thighs, hamstrings, abs would be the muscles)
>> Anonymous
>>169716
You are not going to accidentally build too much muscle. Absolutely zero chance of that happening. You should definitely be using higher weights for the lifting to reap the benefits.
>> Anonymous
>>169721

He didn't say intensity was the problem, he said constant changes in pulse rates were. IE, going from 120 to 180 and then back to 120 and then back to 180. This isn't good for your heart.
>> MaddoxMan !!pvgYyl5+noK
>>169718
*regimen... happy?
>> Anonymous
>>169723
>>169724

Well I'm partly too weak to use anything much heavier. I've tried 15 pound dumbbells and they're a little too much for me. Basically I use two eight pound weights and do like 20 reps of bicep curls and some other things that work the triceps and stuff but I don't know what you'd really call them and then I do crunches and push ups, but most of what I do is cardio.

So maybe a little off topic, but do you have any links to a "full" weight program that would be good for a woman? I guess in time I can work up to heavier weights, but really 8-10 pound weights is about all I can do without throwing off my form or shaking uncontrollably :(
>> MaddoxMan !!pvgYyl5+noK
Seriously, everyone just needs to read this book.

http://rapidshare.com/files/121796184/Burn_The_Fat_Feed_The_Muscle_-_Tom_Venuto.rar

I'm fucking tired of explaining myself. Tommy Venuto has such a big dangling cock that shit spews out more nutrition information better than I ever could.
>> Anonymous
>>169716

You'll still build endurance-type muscle with low weight and high reps, which can be somewhat bulky. If you don't want it to be bulky, don't exercise it at all. Only exercise the flattering muscles.

http://www.t-nation.com/readTopic.do?id=1305014
>> Anonymous
>>169734
>8-10 pound weights is about all I can do without throwing off my form or shaking uncontrollably
It's a perfect weight then. The same programs work just as well for women as they do for men. I'd recommend Starting Strength but I doubt you are ready for that kind of commitment. Try to work every muscle in your body and it'll be alright.
>> MaddoxMan !!pvgYyl5+noK
>>169723

8-10 lbs is fine is that's all you can do and keep form, you don't want to cause injury by lifting too heavy. As far and saying you do 20 reps, that isn't good. You should be doing 3 sets, and anywhere from 8-12 reps. So if you lift the weight with ease 12 reps throughout all three sets, you might want to think about increasing the weight. And just incase you don't know, you should rest 60 seconds between each set, maybe 90-120 seconds if you need it, if you are interested in burning fat though, only rest 20-30 seconds bewteen each, that adds a cardio element to the workout.

What I suggested here>>169734is a good beginner workout, for a man or a women, but there could be something better suites for females, I am not sure to be honest.
>> MaddoxMan !!pvgYyl5+noK
>>169740
Reverse the post links in this
>>169735
You have better info for me? Anything that proves what is in that book is wrong? Do you have a better guide that will help people with little to no knowledge lose weighy? Something that will provide more knowledge even? I am interested for my own benefit if you do. If not, gtfo.
>> Anonymous
>>169744

Whoah why are you replying to yourself. That just looks plain crazy.
>> Anonymous
EVERYONE ARGUING FOR ENDURANCE HAS LOST MISERABLY AND SHOULD NOW LEAVE!
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
>>169740

I'll try it, I just generally don't know what type of exercises I'm supposed to do for things that aren't arms. Like, all I really know are bicep curls and then this exercise where I put the weights on my waist level and lift them like I'm just lifting my arms straight out and get that to my shoulder level then go back down to my waist, I think this works my triceps.

Other than that I only do push-ups and sit-ups and run a lot. My main concern was getting my arms and stuff to be more firm so that the muscle shows up more as I lose fat (I know you can't spot reduce fat) without getting any sort of "muscley" looking muscles.
>> Anonymous
>>169748
one side has won outright. points have been made, and they were refuted, this is the same as any debate.
>> Anonymous
>>169760

That may be true, but I still envision this thread as Maddox being the little chinese girl screaming at Anonymous, an obtuse buffalo. Lol that buffalo is never going to speak chinese.
>> Anonymous
>>169765

I think that's a Shetland Pony. It's certainly not a fucking buffalo, you dogfucker.
>> Anonymous
>>169768

ITS A GODDAMNED BUFFALO U MOTHERFUCKER
>> MaddoxMan !!pvgYyl5+noK
>>169758
There's lots of sites that give you good descriptions of exercise, the proper form and what muscles they work.

http://www.exrx.net/Lists/Directory.html
>> Anonymous
>>169771

ITS A PONY ASS FOR BRAINS
>> MaddoxMan !!pvgYyl5+noK
>>169765
How have I been arguing? I never said I was right, and anyone was wrong, in fact I said both sides are right and it comes down to a matter of personal choice.
>> Anonymous
>>169775

WANNA BET SON THAT SHIT RIGHT THERE IS A CHINESE BUFFALO, I'M CHINESE AND THAT IS A SHANGHAI BUFFALO OF THE SPECIES BUFFALOIS SHANGHAINISES
>> Anonymous
>>169777

This post is exactly why you get to be the little chinese girl.
>> MaddoxMan !!pvgYyl5+noK
>>169780
>>169780
Actually I'd fuck the little chinese girl and eat the horse :)
>> Anonymous
>>169790

>horse

WHAT THE FUCK

ITS A SHETLAND PONY NOT A BUFFALO AND NOT A HORSE
>> Anonymous
>>169790

the 3rd reason I'm going to troll this jackoff next time i see him online