/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

[Anonymous No.5009957]

>can't draw loomis heads because I can't draw a circle

wat do

[Anonymous No.5009958]

>>5009957
copy 250 anime heads (/asg/ style, no construction!!) for gmi energy to convert into loomis power

[Anonymous No.5009959]

construction with potato and call it your style

[Anonymous No.5009960]

https://drawabox.com/lesson/1/tablesofellipses
this helped me

[Anonymous No.5009961]

>>5009957

[Anonymous No.5009963]

>>5009957

[Anonymous No.5009969]

>>5009957
Peter Han dynamic sketching course.

[Anonymous No.5010007]

>>5009961
BASED

[Anonymous No.5010010]

>>5009969
>Peter Han dynamic sketching course.

i dont have 700 buckarinos to throw around lad

[Anonymous No.5010171]

>>5009957
Learn how to draw skulls and then learn hard muscle anatomy and then individual parts.
You don't draw circles you draw ovals.
Loomis isn't that helpful if you're going to be learning the later anyway.

[Anonymous No.5010175]

>>5009959
this

[Anonymous No.5010184]

>>5010010
drawabox.com

[Anonymous No.5010252]

Take the boxpill.

[Anonymous No.5010286]

>>5009957
Scott Eaton Facial Anatomy

[Anonymous No.5010311]

>>5010286
>can’t draw a egg wat do

[Anonymous No.5010314]

>>5010010
I have the course and you don’t :P

[Anonymous No.5010328]

>>5009957
For starters, obviously draw a lot of circles until you get good at it. But don't fall into the trap many beginners do that they feel they have to be able to draw a PERFECT CIRCLE EVERY TIME before they can move on to anything else. Just get it close enough.

[Anonymous No.5010643]

>>5009957
Worry not anon, I'm a professional artist and I still cannot draw a circle.

[Anonymous No.5010646]

Practice circles, also take the BrentEvistonPill.

[Anonymous No.5010655]

>>5009957
i can draw a pretty good circle but i'm still trash mate
technical ability alone won't make you good

[Anonymous No.5011042]

>>5009957
>what is a compass
>what is the circle tool

[Anonymous No.5011050]

[Anonymous No.5011059]

>>5011050
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, NOT THE LOOMIS MOMMY, PLEASE NOT HIM!!!!

[Anonymous No.5011064]

>>5011050
if ppl actually read loomis they wouldnt be bad at drawing

[Anonymous No.5011080]

>>5011064
You'll find that most retards on any given board don't read the sticky, let alone the books recommended there (or across the board in general)
/g/ wouldn't suck at programming if they actually read SICP and The C Programming Language
/fit/ wouldn't be full of dyels if they actually read Starting Strength

[Anonymous No.5011086]

>>5011080
>starting strength
I thought it really was a meme, given how imbalanced the program is

[Anonymous No.5011091]

>>5011059
/ic/ in a nutshell, but also for everything else that is not on youtube under the 20 minutes mark

[Anonymous No.5011098]

>>5011086
It's not imbalanced if you read the book; in fact, it has more upper body volume than lower body volume near the end
Most T-rex mode fags off SS get that way because they only do stage 1 or 2 and eat themselves to 30% bodyfat (when rip says like 15-18% by the end of the program) since fat gets deposited more in the lower body

Do your chins
Do your cleans

[Anonymous No.5011126]

>>5011098
ah shit, gotta buy the book then. Thanks.

[Anonymous No.5011453]

Just practiced like crazy, felt like a changed man.

[Anonymous No.5011461]

>>5011453
Took me like 15-20 mins, I think I'm gonna do it everyday, feels good putting lines without actually worrying about how the drawing will look.

[Anonymous No.5011607]

>If we need a straight line, we use a ruler

Never forget those words anon.

[Anonymous No.5011878]

>>5011607
>forgets instantly
>crabs

[Anonymous No.5011936]

>>5010646
redpill me on Brent Eviston

[Anonymous No.5012214]

>>5011936
>8 week course
>5 videos per week
>15-20 mins per video
>Exercises at the end of the session
>From retard to master BEG.

The video tutorial thread used to have the course.

[Anonymous No.5012313]

>>5012214
I went from sub-beg to low level beg, still was worth it imo

[Anonymous No.5012327]

>>5012214
>not a talent
Every talentless hacks' favorite quote. Good examples of this are those photocopiers who lay gridlines on top of reference or concept art photobash brigades.

[Anonymous No.5012329]

>>5012327
>Buy my course, but only if you have talent, I don't need money from talentless hacks.

[Anonymous No.5012356]

>>5012327
t. retard
He doesn't deny that talent is real, he just says that it's not a prerequisite to being able to draw

[Anonymous No.5012369]

>>5009957
>can't draw loomis heads because I'm not even sure what it'd look like in a different angle

[Anonymous No.5012375]

>>5012369
If only there was some way to observe the human head, that most elusive of subjects. Oh well, some people just got all the talent I suppose

[Anonymous No.5012377]

>>5012214
>took that class after quiting Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain
had no regrets, that class should've been put on the sticky in the first place

[Anonymous No.5013233]

>>5011086
It is, it's very lacking as a program for what most people want and the sets scheme for stalling is fucking nonsense, but it would still work to make people not completely dyel before they move onto better programs that fit their goals.
I'm pretty fond of 5/3/1 for beginners (or just bbb) or nsuns for that, but those programs are more complex, and nsuns is fucking painful if you don't have some work capacity built up.

[Anonymous No.5013311]

>>5013233
>resetting the weight a small amount to dissipate fatigue is stupid
You have the strength if you eat and sleep enough assuming you're not finished the program, you're just tired and need a light break to showcase your strength; please don't tell me you're an AMRAP fag

[Anonymous No.5013404]

>>5010646
he should have practised handwriting instead of practising circles

[Anonymous No.5013583]

>>5013311
Doing the exact same thing but lighter is not a good way of driving progress, there's zero overload there. Adding more volume by just doing more reps is an obvious answer, especially when the program has such a laughable amount of volume for some lifts.
Talking about showcasing strength is just a great example of how ss fails as a routine. You aren't showcasing strength when you lift, you are building it. It's fine as a program to get people used to lifting and to not be scared of actually trying, but past that it's mediocre.

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at by shitting on amrap sets, they're incredibly common once you're past absolute beginner tier stuff.

[Anonymous No.5013594]

>>5011461
gmi

[Anonymous No.5013627]

>>5013583
The reason you're stalling assuming you're still doing linear progression is that you've built up too much fatigue, and doing volume to near-failure is conducive to neither decreasing fatigue (you're still working to fatigue) nor increasing strength (ironically SS bashers critique the lack of pulling volume with 1 set of deadlifts (while pulling volume is satisfied by cleans), yet think 1 set of submaximal volume work will give you any meaningful progress)
>laughable amount of volume for some lifts
You're not training lifts, you're training the body; by stage 3 (ie the next 2-8 months after your first month), in any given session you're training 15 to 20 lower body reps (squat and dl; cleans are full body so you can't really call them lower body lifts nor upper body lifts) and 15-30 upper body (press/bench, and chins if it's your chin-up day), giving you at the very least parity between upper and lower body
You focus on training specific lifts when you're not a novice and you've progressed to a specific sport
>Showcasing strength
A bad term for it, but when I say showcasing strength, I mean something closer to the peaking period of a periodized program; SS is basically an entire periodization mesocycle compressed between sessions since a novice can handle that -- your 3x5 is both volume accumulation and peaking in one
>shitting on amrap sets [...] beginner stuff
SS is beginner stuff, so yeah I am shitting on it in this case

[Anonymous No.5013661]

im more and more convinced no one in this board actually read loomis

[Anonymous No.5013671]

>>5013661
if they did we wouldn't have /beg/ threads capping in a day

[Anonymous No.5013712]

>>5013627
I'm not doing linear progress still, i haven't been for years. There is nowhere near enough volume in SS for a beginner to be failing due to fatigue. They are failing because they're not strong enough, and lowering the amount of weight you're moving overall won't fix that. How could it? It's completely defying how progressive overload works.
The whole program focuses on lifting more weight to drive progress, but then when you fail it backflips and says that lifting less weight is going to drive progress, somehow. It's peaking, it's not growing.
Deloading more but adding more sets would be a much smarter choice.
>ironically SS bashers critique the lack of pulling volume with 1 set of deadlifts (while pulling volume is satisfied by cleans), yet think 1 set of submaximal volume work will give you any meaningful progress)
Who says this? What routine does this?
>You're not training lifts, you're training the body
What? You're training muscles, not the body as a whole. "lower body vs upper body" is a nonsense distinction.
One set of deadlifts is an absolute meme, it's one of the stupidest programming decisions I've seen people support. There is absolutely zero reason to do literally three sets over two weeks.
Squat volume compared to bench or ohp volume is a joke. Volume in general is absolutely hilariously low, you get like 15 sets of a chest exercise over two weeks, there's zero direct back work until you add chins later on, he outright says barbell rows aren't useful until you're an intermediate, you get absolutely zero direct work for biceps, it gives you no real work capacity past "I can do some physical stuff without dying", there's no focus on conditioning.
>your 3x5 is both volume accumulation and peaking in one
This is nonsense.

It's fine as an absolute "I have no idea what to do in the gym" routine, but I wouldn't recommend anyone doing it longer than a couple months.

[Anonymous No.5013724]

>>5011080
Thanks for confirming that loomis is a meme that nobody should ever read and is only recommended here because its easier to type "loomis" than to type a well thought out post containing actual helper advice.

[Anonymous No.5013730]

>>5013712
Just to clarify, I misremembered the exact set range for SS, mixed it up with SL. You are doing 9 sets over two weeks. To contrast, 5/3/1 for beginners has you do 8 sets of bench in a single day and 16 per week, significantly more depending how chest focused your push accessories are.

[Anonymous No.5013742]

is there a beginner book besides fun with a pencil and keys to drawing?

[Anonymous No.5013748]

>>5013742
There's no such thing as a beginner book. There's only the fundamentals, and they're the same things you need to practice whether you're beginner or advanced.

Personally I like Vilppu's video lectures

[Anonymous No.5013750]

>>5013712
(1/2)
>I'm not doing linear progress still, i haven't been for years
We're talking about its efficacy for beginners, of course it's shit for post-novices
>There is nowhere near enough volume in SS for a beginner to be failing due to fatigue. They are failing because they're not strong enough, and lowering the amount of weight you're moving overall won't fix that
Volume isn't the only variable, you're ignoring intensity entirely; the volume for an unadapted novice with the given intensities will most likely build up fatigue over time
>The whole program focuses on lifting more weight to drive progress, but then when you fail it backflips and says that lifting less weight is going to drive progress, somehow
It's not meant to drive progress, it's active rest until you actually can drive progress; AMRAP is not progressing, it's spinning your wheels at this stage
>Who says this? What routine does this?
It's completely anecdotal, so I have no source or anything, but hang around SS threads on /fit/ or r/fitness and you'll see "AMRAP is good, SS pulling volume is bad" a lot

[Anonymous No.5013753]

>>5013750
(2/2)
>What? You're training muscles, not the body as a whole. "lower body vs upper body" is a nonsense distinction.
You have a good point, and I mostly did upper body vs lower body to focusing on specific lifts isn't the only way to look at it, but given that you're training muscles, SS's overall spread of muscle work is balanced imo; if you could say specifically which muscles get neglected I can elaborate further
>One set of deadlifts is an absolute meme
Your deadlifts aren't your only pull though, you're also doing cleans for higher pulling volume too, essentially alternating intensity and volume + power production, and the way Rip teaches cleans makes them essentially fast deadlifts (I disagree with this as an olympic lifter but for SS's purposes it works I suppose)
>Squat volume compared to bench or ohp volume is a joke
>There's zero direct back work unless you add chins
**THIS RIGHT HERE** confirms you didn't read, which reinforces my very first point; chins are NOT optional, they ARE prescribed, and you NEED to read the damn book first before talking
>>your 3x5 is both volume accumulation and peaking in one
>This is nonsense
Elaborate or this is a moot argument
>It's fine as an absolute "I have no idea what to do in the gym" routine, but I wouldn't recommend anyone doing it longer than a couple months.
It's literally designed for 3-9 months, you absolutel non-reader

[Anonymous No.5013784]

>>5013750
>Volume isn't the only variable, you're ignoring intensity entirely
I'm not, by the time the intensity is building up enough that you can't do the routine without stalling constantly due to fatigue, you should have moved onto a program that has built in deload periods already. You need some intensity too, but volume is crazy important, you can't just ignore it. You're doing potentially a fifth of the volume of other beginner programs in SS.
I'd agree programming mainly around amrap is dumb at that point, but as a means of adding extra volume I think it's fine. 5/3/1 programs tend to do it, nsuns does it, they're both just ways to get in some extra reps or to judge how fast you should progress.
>but hang around SS threads on /fit/ or r/fitness
I think I'd rather hammer nails down my fingers, both of those places are 99% just moron beginners giving advice to other moron beginners. The wiki on r/fitness is decent though, honestly much much better than /fit/ sticky.
>Your deadlifts aren't your only pull though, you're also doing cleans for higher pulling volume too
I think including cleans is pretty stupid for the program honestly, but they're not a deadlift replacement. There's still zero reason to do one set of deadlifts, you might as well just not do them at all with that much volume.
>**THIS RIGHT HERE** confirms you didn't read, which reinforces my very first point; chins are NOT optional, they ARE prescribed
Chins are not prescribed in the start of SS, they're added in a later phase. Until you add them, there is zero back work. If I recall right at that point you're doing even less deadlifts too.
>Elaborate or this is a moot argument
What volume are you accumulating with a 3x5? How is there any periodization being condensed down into this?
>It's literally designed for 3-9 months, you absolutel non-reader
9 months is almost a year, it is not a couple months. 2-3 months is fine, get you used to holding a barbell, but you should move on after that.

[Anonymous No.5013796]

>>5013753
>if you could say specifically which muscles get neglected I can elaborate further
A good amount of muscles are, particularly compared to ones worked by squats. Chest is, shoulders are, arms are, most of your back is, core is to a large degree. There's a real habit of going "oh they're used to stabilise in this other lift so that's good enough" that just isn't true.
You're squatting so much more than any other lift that there's no way you are going to end up with a balanced physique.

[Anonymous No.5013807]

>>5013748
>Vilppu's video lectures
all of them?

[Anonymous No.5013824]

>>5013784
(1/2, my autism can't be contained)
>by the time the intensity is building up enough that you can't do the routine without stalling constantly due to fatigue, you should have moved onto a program that has built in deload periods already
That's what it means to move past a novice program; SS itself says that you should stall at most 3 times, but generally 2 indicates you've moved past the novice stage
>I think I'd rather hammer nails down my fingers
Same honestly, haven't been on /fit/ in ages but I left because what you mentioned is the best the board has to offer; the rest is lookism retardation or coomerposting
>I think including cleans is pretty stupid for the program honestly, but they're not a deadlift replacement
If you're doing a proper clean, you're right, but they way Rippletits has you doing cleans specifically makes them fast deadlifts; the pull is *exactly* the same up until the second pull
>Chins are not prescribed in the start of SS, they're added in a later phase
The "later" phase comes literally one month into the program; stage 1 is deadlifts 3x a week for 2 weeks, stage 2 is alternating deadlifts and cleans for 2 weeks, and stage 3 is stage 2 + chins
>Until you add them, there is zero back work
True, but it's just for a month, which isn't enough to fuck over anybody's physique in the grand scheme of things
>If I recall right at that point you're doing even less deadlifts too
If you're a crotchety old boomer doing SS (which is a surprisingly large population of people doing the program), Rip recommends something like the following:
Alternate A and (Alternate B and B'):
A: Squat 3x5, Press 3x5, Alternate Deadlift 1x5 and Power Clean 5x3
B: Squat 3x5, Bench 3x5, Back Extensions OR GHRs (see above for reps), Chin-Ups 3xMax
B': Squat 3x5, Bench 3x5, Back Extensions OR GHRs, Chin-Ups 3xMax / Weighted Chins 3x5
Less pulling volume, but when you're nearly geriatric and pulls might legitimately break your spine you might need it

[Anonymous No.5013839]

>>5013824
(2/3, I need to learn concision)
>What volume are you accumulating with a 3x5? How is there any periodization being condensed down into this?
Enough volume to drive progress; perscribed volume isn't an exact science, but SS is designed with volume to drive intensity as high as possible, and Rip's coaching experience has led to 3x5 being the seemingly best option to drive both at the same time; the reason I bring up periodization mesocycles is because of SS's similarity to Texas Method (a program that is good in theory but most people struggle insanely on so isn't really that good in practice); the most basic TM has you do 5x5 volume accumulation, 2x5 active recovery (not really necessary for SS when the mesocycle is squished into 48 hours), and 1x5 intensity -- TM itself is a longer periodization mesocycle (I can't give specific set/rep schemes because any periodized program is incredibly tailored to the individual) squished into one week
SS is basically this to TM; volume and intensity min-maxed into 3x5 -- sufficient volume if it drives the weight up as far as the program is concerned
The thing with volume being important is that it's important due to the fact that doing max intensity every day would fucking kill you; you need to spread the SRA cycles over a longer period of time to adapt, and volume is meant to build up this stress over a longer period -- i.e. volume is important to drive intensity, not for its own sake; an advanced athlete needs months to recover from his 5RM and then accumulate volume to hit a new 5RM, while a novice hits it this 5RM and then hits a new one two days later (unless he doesn't, in which case he's not a novice)

[Anonymous No.5013840]

What the fuck happened to this thread

[Anonymous No.5013846]

>>5013839
(3/3)
>9 months is almost a year, it is not a couple months
Yeah, and 9 months is the very long end of things; if you think about a trainee who starts squatting the bar:
Stage 1 & 2 - 1 month
45 + 10 lbs 3x/week for 4 weeks = 165lbs
Starting stage 3, it'd take a trainee about 10 weeks to hit a 3pl8 squat if he adds 5lbs a session and eats right, maybe 12 weeks accounting for stalls and lack of motivation; this is assuming he maxes out his novice gains at 3pl8 --he might get higher or lower of course, but 3pl8 is not remotely unreasonable if you do SS diligently
Given that, it's more like 4 months; 9 months is more like if you start with the bar and go up 5lbs a session, and maybe even start microloading or taking light days later on
>>5013796
>Chest is, shoulders are
Chest is actively hit by presses (to a much lesser extent than bench of course), and shoulders are actively hit by bench (quite actively actually)
>most of your back is
I'm not anatomy expert, but what parts of your back aren't hit if you do chin up as you're supposed to?
>core is to a large degree
Given the program's goal is to drive your main 5 lifts up, if you're not failing your sets it means your core is strong enough; that being said, if you want to work your core more SS allows for that, given you train it for strength and not at the expense of your other lifts
There's this idea that SS is allergic to extra accessory work, when in reality it stresses to add assistance responsibly (not something most novices should do on their only frankly) in a way that promotes strength development

[Anonymous No.5013854]

>>5013824
>That's what it means to move past a novice program; SS itself says that you should stall at most 3 times, but generally 2 indicates you've moved past the novice stage
Moving on after 2 stalls is fine yeah, though I think that's still leaving you solidly in the beginner stage myself. People are notoriously bad at actually doing that too, especially when their failure is probably partially diet and sleep induced.
For like a gym prep routine SS is fine, it lets you get a bit of extra strength and an idea of where you're actually at, I just think it sucks once you hit a point you start to struggle at all, and other programs would move that struggling point much later.
>Same honestly, haven't been on /fit/ in ages but I left because what you mentioned is the best the board has to offer; the rest is lookism retardation or coomerposting
It's a real shame the lookism people didn't get purged years back, they ruin the whole place even for beginners. Way way way worse than the novice crabposters here, it's legitimately mental illness inducing if you're already an insecure out of shape dude looking for fitness advice on the internet.

>>5013839
I agree volume is a way to drive intensity, I just don't think the 3x5 is a good compromise. I think it's way too low compared to other programs, particularly when you'll need to move into higher volume stuff eventually and have absolutely zero work capacity.
I also think you can increase overall training volume in a session/week a huge amount by using a lower amount of weights for a higher amount of reps overall, without sacrificing intensity. Nuckols has written about this a bit, and I generally trust him.

>>5013840
We're talking about becoming the art

[Anonymous No.5013879]

>>5013846
Shoulders are hit somewhat by bench, but not uniformly, it's mostly your front delts used, and still just a supporting role.
Chins do hit all of your back to some degree, but they're primarily lats and some arm stuff, depending on form. You have no real horizontal pulling in SS, I don't think there's really much of any rear delt work at all. They're also a bitch to program properly for beginners, particularly absolute novices who likely can't do any at all.
The back is a big, complex group of muscles, most routines have you do at least a few different types of pull to get around that, working rhomboids and traps more than a chinup would from what I know. There's no reason to not do both, alongside more deadlifts, the back can take a hell of a beating and recover from it well.

[Anonymous No.5013889]

>>5013807
Ye, they're all good. He teaches a whole bunch of stuff, depending on what you want to improve, whether its construction, composition, anatomy, wahtever

[Anonymous No.5013891]

>>5013840
I approve of this /fit/ x /ic/ mashup

[Anonymous No.5013895]

>>5013854
>We're talking about becoming the art
based af

[Anonymous No.5013898]

>>5013889
thanks for the advice. I'm goingo to start with the nma lectures

[Anonymous No.5013923]

>>5013854
(1/2)
>Moving on after 2 stalls is fine yeah [...] People are notoriously bad at actually doing that too, especially when their failure is probably partially diet and sleep induced
I always say that SS done properly by the book is one of the best beginner programs, but SS done haphazardly is one of the absolute worst beginner programs, and this exact reason is largely why it gets such a bad rep as far as I can tell (not the only reason of course, you guys raise good points even if I'm compelled to disagree)
>I agree volume is a way to drive intensity, I just don't think the 3x5 is a good compromise. I think it's way too low compared to other programs, particularly when you'll need to move into higher volume stuff eventually and have absolutely zero work capacity
I don't think most worthwhile intermediate programs have you moving to such high volume that work capacity is a massive deal, but while I stand that 3x5 is good volume given the goal of the program, there is a big discrepancy in volume compared to programs outside the "SSverse" so to speak (i.e. SS and Texas Method)
>I also think you can increase overall training volume in a session/week a huge amount by using a lower amount of weights for a higher amount of reps overall, without sacrificing intensity. Nuckols has written about this a bit, and I generally trust him
Do you have a link? Nuckols is cool, would like to read what he says
>Shoulders are hit somewhat by bench
>[front delts are] still just a supporting role.
According to Schick et al. 2010 (found this from a t-nation article, so don't quote me from this) the anterior delt work in the bench is almost equivalent to the pec work
>but not uniformly, it's mostly your front delts used
That's true, though as far as I'm aware chins work your rear delts hard as far as full body compounds go

[Anonymous No.5013932]

>>5013923
(2/2)
Meant to reply to >>5013879 too earlier
>You have no real horizontal pulling in SS
That's true, and it is a hole in the program, but my only real response is that I think chins fill the holes left by the big 5 better than any horizontal pull; I have a feeling throwing in another heavy compound in the form of a horizontal pull would mess up a novice's recovery on the other major lifts, so in that regard I think skipping horizontal pulls is a necessary evil for a beginner routine at this stage, but I could be wrong too -- maybe novices can handle more
>>5013854
>>5013891
>>5013895
>We're talking about becoming the art
Absolutely based; even if I'm disagreeing with you all I can tell you're all GMI, both for gains and for art

[Anonymous No.5013989]

>>5013923
>I always say that SS done properly by the book is one of the best beginner programs
I'm a bit torn, I think as an absolute novice program I agree, but there's a bunch of beginner territory stuff I'd say are better past that, just less weak points overall. It's definitely one of the easiest to start with, so it's beneficial for that alone.
>I don't think most worthwhile intermediate programs have you moving to such high volume that work capacity is a massive deal
Nsuns does, 5/3/1 templates tend to (wendler pushes conditioning a lot because of it), a bunch of nuckols ones do, deep water 100% does (fucking 10x10 squats). Not all are as harsh as Nsuns or deep water (thank god for that), but it's mostly the gap between "I do my 15 sets a day and then I'm done" to working with amraps or RPE work or a bunch of accessories after hard lifts that is hard, and being able to work with more volume comfortably.
>Do you have a link?
https://rippedbody.com/work-capacity/
https://www.strongerbyscience.com/increasing-work-capacity/
https://www.strongerbyscience.com/making-your-novice-strength-training-routine-more-effective-two-quick-tips/
>That's true, and it is a hole in the program, but my only real response is that I think chins fill the holes left by the big 5 better than any horizontal pull
They probably do, particularly for adding some aesthetics focus. I'd personally rather he just drop the cleans, up the amount of deadlifts done and program in rows too, but I'm not a qualified trainer or anything.
Stealing the way 5/3/1 based programs tend to handle accessories would be great. Chinups are easy enough to do whenever that I think it's a bit weird treating them like a main lift, especially when loads of new lifters can't do them at all.
The back is pretty tough, I think it could handle both just fine.

[Anonymous No.5014564]

>>5012214
Anywhere I can find this tutorial at? Looks like he has a lot of paid stuff. Anywhere free?

[Anonymous No.5014609]

>>5014564
Good luck tho https://www.skytorrents.lol/eebyds/b85b9ebc32f0344c942fc681f1ce548aa65baccf

[Anonymous No.5016382]

>>5014564
The IC torrent has it

[Anonymous No.5016582]

>>5009957
Draw cubes. Pioneer the minecraft coom area

[Anonymous No.5016665]

>>5012313
Ok you can draw a bird, but can you draw lolis?

[Anonymous No.5016669]

>>5012369
Did you not read the book or did you skim it? If that looks too difficult the just try with a form of a head at different angles, make it as simple as possible if you find it too difficult.

[Anonymous No.5016695]

You people really use the loomis? Can I see an example? Not trying to doubt you guys or anything but I just want to see the loomis method in work

[Anonymous No.5016774]

>>5016382
Where is that?

[Anonymous No.5016936]

>>5009963
Unironically this

[Anonymous No.5016953]

>>5016695
I would actually say that most people use some variation of loomis heads, even people who didn’t study loomis. It’s just a logical way of placing a head

[Anonymous No.5017000]

>>5016774
>>>/t/925193

[Anonymous No.5017235]

>>5017000
Holy shit a terrabyte? My hard drive is 1 TB. What is this shit?

[Anonymous No.5017342]

>>5017235
You don't need all of it, some dudes just have insane amounts of storage I guess.

[Anonymous No.5017930]

>>5009957
Did you even read the book?

[Anonymous No.5018857]

>>5009961

[Anonymous No.5018863]

>>5011098
I bought the book and read the nutrition chapter, but its so vague. How am I supposed to not go over 20% bodyfat with 3500 calories a day?

[Anonymous No.5020857]

>>5017930

[Anonymous No.5023024]

>>5009957

[Anonymous No.5023519]

>>5012375
>>5016669
what am I doing wrong here?

[Anonymous No.5023570]

>>5023519
How wide is your chin, anon? How big are your eyes? How square is your ear? Do you not have any curvature to your cheeks? Does your neck look like a dune worm?