senile1

Chris, this is my story. (In answer to your question, no - I wouldn't want to be that big and genetically I can't get that big.) I did the bodybuilding routine from the early 80s into the early 90s. I did not and never have taken steroids. I read every book and magazine I could, ate the proper meals, ingested amino acids and a complex carb drink that provided 80 grams of complex carbs, and did a 6 day a week split routine at about 2 - 3 hours a day. I am 5'11" but I have fairly small bone structure. My weight when I started was around 165. I reached 205 lbs at 4 - 7 percent body fat depending on where I was in my cycle. I was always pretty lean even before I got into this so my body fat was always low. At my best I could bench 345, squat 440, and deadlift about the same as I squatted. My general routine for large muscle groups consisted of starting with high reps and low weight to build the red muscle fiber and I would perform an altered pyramid up to the apex where I would do three sets of 5 - 8 reps to work the white muscle fiber. (For example, on the squats I would start with a high rep set at 135, then do another high rep set at 225, then a medium rep set at 285, and then at the apex of the pyramid I would do three sets of 5 plus reps at 345 lbs. Then I would drop back down and do a burn out set at 225.) With my bone structure and genetics I feel that I went as far as I could with this as a natural bodybuilder. Now at 50, I weigh 185 - 188 and I am still pretty stout and in good shape. My blood work is all good and my blood pressure is low. High cholesterol is a genetic trait on my Mom's side and I inherited that trait so I do have to take cholesterol medication even though I eat in a healthy manner and exercise (though I do like my Boulevard beer ). I work out enough to maintain health but I do not spend very many hours on it compared to a bodybuilding routine. What are the results of my foray into bodybuilding? First, I'll give the positives. Due to the amount of muscle mass I have retained over the years and my higher metabolism, if I gain a few pounds it is very easy for me to lose it so at this time weight control is not a problem. The added strength comes in handy when moving awkward heavy objects. I assume that it also was an instrumental factor in my good blood work and low blood pressure. And the negatives . . . . well, my knees are shot. I damaged my knees playing football in high school and was able to run up to about age 40. Now sprinting is difficult because the pain in my knees is excruciating, though I can still jog at an average pace without exceeding my pain threshold. If you squat very heavy weights after damaging a knee over time it does wear it down. (All of the bodybuilding magazine statements ran counter to this. I believe they were incorrect.) I can run a straight line but if I have to make a cut I die in my tracks. My shoulder joints also ache and one of them grinds and I believe this is from all the heavy lifting as well because I never damaged them at any time in the past. I now ride a bike rather than doing squats. I still lift but at a lighter level that doesn't tax my joints. I stretch and stay active because I don't won't to lose any mobility due to my damaged joints. So far, so good but we'll see how they respond when, or if, I reach 70 or older. My negatives may be a result of my situation and my bone structure but I do believe you can overdo it. If you have large bones and joints and your testosterone levels are normal you can build larger muscles and go to great weights. If you have small bones and joints like me and go too heavy I believe you can damage your joints. And maybe a big guy can do the same if he goes too far as well. So if you are a skinny, little guy I would say be careful how far you go with this. Also, I stopped fishing for a few years while I was doing this. Between work, family, lifting weights, and playing my guitar there wasn't a whole lot of time left for fishing. Bodybuilding requires tremendous discipline and dedication. Looking back, I wish I had eased up on the bodybuilding and kept fishing in the mix. But this is just my story and my opinion.

I'm going to pile on also. The Powell medium 7 foot spinning rod is a nice rod. Mine is paired with a Shimano Symetre.

Welcome to the Bass Resource community.

Fish a lake of 5,000 to 10,000 acres or more with no electronics and no previous knowledge of the lake and you are going to get skunked a lot. Much of the water won't be holding active fish. You have to be able to locate structures that hold fish and the trial and error of doing it without electronics can lead to many fishless hours in the beginning. On the other hand, if you fish a 200 acre lake you can cover much of it quickly and locate the fish by trial and error without electronics. If you fish a large lake and an old-timer has shown you the migration paths and fish holding structure you may do well without electronics. Otherwise, you will be lost. I would say it's the reverse of the OP's statement. On a huge lake, failing to use electronics takes the fun of catching fish consistently out of the equation.

Those are some great pictures!

Out of everyone who has posted in this thread only the OP appears to have not known about Dottie unless I missed someone.

The literacy rate among bass is a travesty.

Welcome to the forum.

Yes, that is a great write-up.

Alpster, I'm a VoIP and network engineer and we install VoIP and data networks and we integrate wireless phones with wired enterprise IP phones. We basically converge the entire customer network. In the Cisco world a missing voice packet can be predicted and concealed based on the surrounding data. Generally speaking though, if more than one voice packet is missing you can't conceal it and you end up with choppy voice. This sounds like a similar concept in wireless communication that you are talking about. However, the phrase that fourbizz asked about mentions DSL which I assume to be digital subscriber line broadband which is wired. Does the acronym, DSL, refer to a different technology in the wireless world?

Welcome to Bass Resource, Steve. I assume you are the Getfished from over at the Basspro forum?

Welcome to the community, Matt.

Welcome to Bass Resource, Gavin. Maybe you can be a good resource for those of us interested in fishing the state's rivers. I fish mainly lakes but I'm wanting to fish our rivers more especially for smallmouth.

Come on, Daniel. Get a shave. We have a bunch of rich owners who only want more, and we have a bunch of athletes who make enough money to fish for the rest of their lives after football (or whatever their hobby is). Unfortunately, as stated by others, many players don't handle their money very well. I can't agree with the 18 game season either. The owners state that it is still only 20 games counting two preseason games, but we're talking two more real games where the starters have to play all out unlike in the preseason. If paying for healthcare for these athletes is a problem I can't see that making them play 18 games a season will help in that regard.

Welcome back.

Good point, Catt. I think that if a bass "becomes conditioned" to a particular lure and you stop using that lure for a period of time, the bass "forgets" what it learned. It's not like I hang my fishing strategy on this idea of bass becoming conditioned. I just believe any fish can become conditioned to certain stimuli as I have read studies that support this idea. I can't prove when they have become conditioned as I stated in the post above. It is always best to assume that something I can control (location or presentation) will eventually lead to a bite.

I don't disagree with you. I have experienced this "evolution" on ponds as well though it seems to happen over a period of time for me. Senkosam stated: I don't see that what you and I believe is that far off from one another except for the conditioning piece. While I may believe that conditioning occurs it doesn't mean I will stop using a lure. For one thing, there is no way to prove the reason a fish isn't biting a lure at a particular time. I can't prove that a fish is conditioned to a particular lure. My first assumptions when I am not getting bit is I am in the wrong place or I am using the wrong presentation (or as your refer to it, lure pattern). I have to assume something that I can control is causing me to not get bit. Otherwise, I have no recourse but to go home.

By definition, classical conditioning does not occur with one experience. It takes multiple experiences within a time period that will reinforce the negative perception created.

Speaking in terms of an inactive fish not biting, the fish doesn't learn anything about the buzzbait that day except that the lure is moving too fast for it to care to chase it down. A slower presentation should be used. In terms of learning to ignore buzzbaits in the near future, in my opinion, unless a particular fish bites the buzzbait enough times in a specific period of time it will never learn to associate a negative consequence to that particular lure. It's perception of that lure would be neutral. Of course, I can't provide any definitive proof of this. I do believe I have seen instances of fish conditioning. I have walked down docks where I have seen carp gather near me and lift their mouths above the water expecting to receive food due to people pitching crumbs to them. I've also read articles about fish conditioning though I don't have them all at my fingertips. Below is one which describes the conditioning of zebrafish to choose a specific color of zebrafish to group up with based on socialization even thought the group may be a different color than the test zebrafish. Reference: Raymond E. Engeszer, Michael J. Ryan, and David M. Parichy. 2004. Learned Social Preference in Zebrafish, Current Biology. 14: 881-884. However, I am not a marine biologist. These are my opinions based on reading and experience. I'm definitely open to evidence that contradicts what I believe.

So I misunderstood to a slight extent. You are talking about the fact that in particular situations the slightest change to a presentation can turn on the bite. I am talking about the possibility of a bass experiencing a lure so much that they are classically conditioned to ignore it because they associate it with pain, or a non-edible entity. Some don't believe this happens, but I am in the camp that thinks it is very possible. As we both said, none of us can be sure why a bass does what it does, but we do know that slight changes in presentation can provoke a strike.

Great job, Goose! Those are some nice fish.

Congratulations! What lipless crankbait were you using?

That's a nice system, Raul. As Dodgeguy stated, fluorocarbon is not invisible. It is less visible but it can be seen.

Correct me if I misunderstood you but in a nutshell your post states the following: You believe once a bass is classically conditioned to ignore a lure, a change in the presentation of that lure will induce the bass to bite again. You don't believe bass are conditioned to fear or avoid a lure due to a perception of danger. No one knows for sure why a fish avoids a lure but we can make educated guesses as you are doing with your theory of pattern recognition. You do state that the fish was no longer fooled into eating it. That means he must have learned through classical conditioning to avoid eating that presentation or "he learned to avoid a lure he once ate with glee." Then when you change the presentation, he is induced into biting again. Whether he ignores the lure due to negative stimuli (perception of danger) or neutral stimuli (simply ignores it due to lack of interest) is really irrelevant to me as an angler. He ignores the lure just the same until I change the presentation.

Any bass that big is a nice looking fish.