Given the muscle density on that bastard, he can be shaped however he wants to be... = |

You don't need big butt muscles if you don't walk upright.
Sir-Mix-A-Lot is going to hate me for saying that.

I don't get your point.
Why could an officer be fired for going home and getting blown on lunch? It's on his time, in his home, and not in return for a promised dereliction of duty....COMPLETELY different from while he's on duty and in public in a public vehicle as a trade for letting someone go.
As for the officer making muscles, he was disrupting the courtroom, distracting the judge and/or jury with his antics. That's not only inappropriate, it interferes with the duties of the court, so it's totally proper for him to be dismissed....IMO. A warning would have also been appropriate, but some judges have no sense of humor, and they aren't required to.

Are some laws not unjust in and of themselves? Not that I disagree with you at all newtboy, in fact I don't. But I do not agree that we should follow all laws to their original intents. (And yes, when you say law enforcement should always follow the law, which you have, you create a culture where others believe it, even if you understand the nuance.)

Now here is the crux. I kind of do see Gorilia's point to some degree but not in the same madness. If a cop goes home and gets his dick sucked by his wife (or girlfriend or mistress)--on lunch--he could be fired. On lunch...on his fucking time off that is required to be given to him by law... This also applies to other things. An officer was making muscles for a kid in a courtroom (in a non-disruptive manner) and the judge dismissed him from working the courthouse ever again. Just for making a kid smile...

The list goes on and on about stupid protocols that law enforcement has to face that are utterly stressful and ridiculous...

Aye fair points, I guess what I'm sayin' though is that you don't necessarily need to aim for maximum muscle size in your workouts, you can perform exercises that stress your bones/tendons without really packing on much mass - i.e. static holds. Also, in terms of bones breaking, more muscle (compared to bone mass) will make it easier to break your arm, but usually it's always because of poor technique as well, i.e. putting yourself in the 'break arm' position. Pretty much exactly what happened to Nathan Jones in the WSM.

Muscle size is pretty much limited by bone strength. Thats why there is a limit and you can only go over it by using steroids. With bigger bones you also of course get stronger tendons.
And if you have a bad muscle to bone ratio, your bone snaps in an arm wrestling match.

I met an ex British arm-wrestling champion when i was on holiday in the south of France (he was sort of a holiday rep, but for a caravan park, and did more or less everything).

He was a big bloke, and said that muscle of course helps but that it was mostly down to technique. He didn't say anything about forearm length, but it stands to reason that the larger the angle between forearm and upper arm, the less 'turning' force you can produce.

Still looks pretty brutal. Not sure what that is connected to, but whatever it probably really tweaked out the muscles and tendons and whatnot.

UPDATE below also see new video description and original video

The caption is in Thai and describes the creature as a Nemertea, or a ribbon worm, which shoots a proboscis (elongated nose) out of a hole above its mouth to capture prey.

Presumably, that is what is going on here.

When not stretched out like an alien life form, the proboscis normally sits in “a fluid-filled chamber above the gut,” according to Encyclopedia Britannica.

And here’s a description of how it works from NCSU:

"When the animal senses a prey organism nearby, a circular muscle layer around the proboscis sheath rapidly and vigorously contracts. This contraction forces the fluid from the proboscis sheath into the proboscis and, in the process, literally turns it inside out, blowing it out of the proboscis sheath. The proboscis will rapidly (within a second or so) wrap itself around the prey, which is then drawn to the mouth and eaten."

from http://thedailywh.at/2015/05/nope-day-internet-disgusted-mystified-ribbon-worm/

Hiccups are muscle spasms in your diaphragm. They're triggered by coughing, laughing, swallowing air, extreme emotions, and drinking fizzy drinks. Amongst other things.

It's the team hive mind. It just happens in sports or any type of adrenaline meets muscle memory and group coordination.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I thought that too, but I think he also has a way of holding his head and changing his facial muscles - he looks like Gandalf and Harrison Ford in the other videos too.

I'm pretty sure you do need fitness to drive an F1 race, if not muscle strength to resist the forces you're undergoing then at least to reduce body weight. However this video is not in the remotest bit impressive as a feat of fitness for a number of reasons. He was walking in many of the shots, the video is edited a number of times so we don't know whether he was resting or not between, and his headband is gone in the final shot which means there was at least a small period of rest before the final moment at the top. It's also night time when he reaches the top but evening when he's at the bottom, so we can at least assume that it didn't take a small amount of time.

The fact that he doesn't look puffed at the top is wholly unremarkable.

I completely agree with her about Lars on many points. He often (very often actually) makes his technique seem "the best in the world" when compared to ANY other technique (as there are A LOT of shooting techniques; some that need different bows, materials, and setups).

Kind of like being able to shoot through plate-mail... Lars would NEVER be able to pull that off (of course no one, with a shortbow and the wrong arrow--or tip--will be doing it either; the crossbow is as close as you can get to being small and puncturing plate) as it requires a huge amount of pull force to puncture plate (even heavy English oaken wood shields). The type of bow is a big issue, because that is where you get your draw strength. But, what type of tip you have on your arrow will determine whether or not it even goes into or just bounces off the armor...

However, for the most part, archers didn't try to puncture plate armor--because to be honest about it: it was HARD, it required a VERY heavy bow and expensive tips (of course the bows were also expensive, because they would not be made out of normal material--it might be a specially imported type of wood that could hold up to extreme forces; the string may also be made of something a bit different than normal). So, you didn't have very many people walking around with the innate ability to puncture plate. BUT, what most archers trained a VERY long time to accomplish was extreme accuracy, for one reason alone: armor.

Instead of trying to puncture plate or even chain, archers instead aimed for gaps or areas were there was no coverage (basically anywhere you bend or connect the armor to another piece or tie/connect itself together; so places like under the armpit or along the side of the body were the armor is pulled together and tied shut). Then they may not have to go through anything at all, or they will only have light leather or heavy cloth armor in the way--either way they will penetrate, and they will slowly kill their target by slowing them down and immobilizing them, then moving in for the finishing blow OR if they hit the right place they can just let blood loss finish them off...

But, this requires extreme accuracy, especially in battle AND especially so if you are firing from a horse (if you were lucky you were able to ride behind someone and concentrate solely on firing your shots, then you could add a bit of speed as well). This is the one place that Lars has horribly mislead people--OR he has made a really great breakthrough. But, if Lars never bothers to really demonstrate this stuff, we have no idea how great an archer he really is.

His entire video is one gigantic edit. Every shot and "trick" has been setup with the camera in the right place. The biggest problem is we don't know if it took Lars 1000 attempts to accomplish some of these feats (he makes it sound in some areas that it happens VERY fast, however...but due to the editing, or how he edited it, we actually have no idea if his claims are true) or if he did it in ten...or right off the bat...

That is why I said we needed to wait for Lars to actually talk to us about this whole thing, and to clear various areas up (records and competition). Because he has set a very high bar for himself, and from his own video he seems to be amazing--but, I like many know that if you edit enough and try something over and over again, you can make yourself look like an expert *whatever* whenever you wish to do it...

I agree heavily with her about his historic claims (and also mocking him on his "super clumsy" shots and setups to make fun of "modern" archers); she also points out, correctly, how wrong he is on some of those claims. Like everyone shooting from the left side; which somehow Lars, in ALL his studying completely and utterly missed. Which tells me one thing: she knows more about archery history than Lars actually does.

But, is Lars actually a great archer? Would Lars be a good archer in a battle, or more specifically his "technique"? Lastly, is he really an unique archer more than worth praising? We won't know until Lars does what I mentioned above; he must meet these criticisms head on.

If we allow Lars time to learn how to ride a horse; or it might be a bit more fair to just allow him to ride behind someone controlling the horse, which was a common practice even in battle (then make sure Lars knows how to also fire properly from a horse, since it requires controlling a horse--if you're alone--and staying on the horse using your thigh muscles...which is actually a pretty hard thing to do...and requires expert horsemanship; asking Lars to accomplish this is laughable, as this type of thing would have been a lifetime achievement in the past AND any archer that could fire fast, accurate, and ride a horse by himself...would have been a horrific force on the battlefield; then give him a sword/melee skill--make sure they have a lot of upper body strength--and a very well made, thick steel buckler and he'd be godlike; and then enough armor to protect from arrows...BUT this means you have to be very strong...otherwise you will never be able to accomplish ANY of the feats with the bow mentioned above; BTW, I'm mentioning a superhero right here, there "may" have been a few people like this in history, but they would've been very few and far apart...and more than likely used sparingly).

Mounted archers are extremely powerful against all units that are mounted yet slower than them and of course those on foot and without a long range means of attacking them (at least shorter than the mounted archer's range), this I will always agree with. We already know that mounted archery units could create absolute havoc in the past, see: Alexander The Great. However, eventually people figured out how to deal with this type of threat as well... But, horse mounted archers do have their "nemeses", namely foot archers--since they can take some time (if an arrow comes their way, they block it--it is much harder for a horse archer to carry around a big shield or at least just have on sitting nearby--or you can aim for their horse, which is why above I said that "superhero" like warrior would need a melee skill, because eventually they WILL be on the ground).

So, again, we have to wait and see if Lars bothers to respond to this video and to ALL of the others that have also been made (he did make a lot of people angry; as he did make some stuff up and possibly "overshoot" the mark on other claims and possibly even his own abilities...). I won't hold my breath though.

I think we can all come to a fairly logical conclusion on this. If Lars NEVER responds to anything, then we will have to assume that a lot of his "super-speed" with "accuracy" was due to one thing alone: editing.

Phew, I think that covers everything...it certainly was long enough!!!!