Nonexistent. The only lower body soreness I've experienced all week was on Tuesday from my hamstring giving me the finger over attempting a gymnastics bridge at home. I've said it before and I'll say it again: the more frequently you train, the less sore you get. Don't know why, I just know that that's how it works out. Maybe frequent training desensitises nociception in the context of DOMS.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Ryan's Journal
- Thread starter Goldfish
- Start date
Good stuff. I agree, I'm the same way. If I take a deload week and come back hard, I get sore. When I set up my stuff at home when I started working out here and I was doing it every other day because I was excited about it, I wasn't getting as sore as I am now that I've calmed down a bit and let myself actually recover between workouts.
See? Recovery's bad. Don't do it.
I'm fascinated by my results so far. 5x5 squats are now up 10kg from the start of last week, but don't feel any harder. I had a twinge in my left hip before training today, but getting in and training seems to have sorted it out. Heavy squats: the cause and solution to all of life's problems.
I'm fascinated by my results so far. 5x5 squats are now up 10kg from the start of last week, but don't feel any harder. I had a twinge in my left hip before training today, but getting in and training seems to have sorted it out. Heavy squats: the cause and solution to all of life's problems.
See? Recovery's bad. Don't do it.
...
Heavy squats: the cause and solution to all of life's problems.
I just adore the nuggets of wisdom I find here!
I am not 100% but it looks as if you have bulked up across the shoulders since last vid. I know you declared yourself as undertrained but it hasn't done you any harm.
I don't think a deity with the sense of humour to place testes on the outside would have waited six days, if memory serves creation of mankind is in Genesis 1:27 on day 4, a few days before
Adam, gave a few days to introduce variety. One of my old training partners, heavy duty studied Christian, used to declare atheists as proof god had a sense of humour, priests used to hate him, little muscle head who could practically recite the entire bible in three versions, ignorance was not in his repertoire. He found it amusing how many thought of Adam as the first human and I do remember him stating he was a sign God was unhappy as he was the first human told to fornicate with himself, in fairness this was to a preacher who was getting on his nerves, I do the same to atheists who haven't studied too, so understood his annoyance.
I need to get in some deeper squats. Old damage makes them difficult at high weights unless knees are supported but I am not at max end in the current sessions so may go for it. Yours are what I used to call bounce squats, where you use the contact of hams and calves to get started, good system every good squatter I have known uses. I can't do that without impacting my hips, though in fairness I haven't tried in years.
I don't think a deity with the sense of humour to place testes on the outside would have waited six days, if memory serves creation of mankind is in Genesis 1:27 on day 4, a few days before
Adam, gave a few days to introduce variety. One of my old training partners, heavy duty studied Christian, used to declare atheists as proof god had a sense of humour, priests used to hate him, little muscle head who could practically recite the entire bible in three versions, ignorance was not in his repertoire. He found it amusing how many thought of Adam as the first human and I do remember him stating he was a sign God was unhappy as he was the first human told to fornicate with himself, in fairness this was to a preacher who was getting on his nerves, I do the same to atheists who haven't studied too, so understood his annoyance.
I need to get in some deeper squats. Old damage makes them difficult at high weights unless knees are supported but I am not at max end in the current sessions so may go for it. Yours are what I used to call bounce squats, where you use the contact of hams and calves to get started, good system every good squatter I have known uses. I can't do that without impacting my hips, though in fairness I haven't tried in years.
I doubt my shoulders have bulked since my last video...more likely the rest of me has gotten smaller, making them look bigger by comparison. Your hips and knees must be a lot of fun. I hope the ungodly amount of squats I'm doing right now isn't wearing away my cartilage anywhere.
Day 4 was the sun and the moon; Day 6 was mankind. I'm fascinated by those who believe that Genesis 1 must be interpreted as 6x24hr back-to-back, given that on the 6th day God creates man and woman in His image, whereas there seems to be some time elapsed between God creating Adam and God creating Eve in Genesis 2. If we do assume that Adam and Eve are the first humans (which, those who take Gen1 as a week of standard duration almost always do), then the duration between Adam's creation and Eve's creation should at least raise a few questions.
There have long been theories amongst Christians and Jews (long before Darwin was considered a big deal) dealing with a pre-Adamic race, which would basically imply that homo sapiens existed before Adam, but something divine happened in the creation of Adam, setting "human" apart from mere homo sapien. It's a convenient thought for reconciling the bible with conventional views of evolution, although I can't see any clear textual evidence for it. That might not be a problem, though, since ancient Jewish writers made an artform out of saying something by dancing around the topic and not actually saying it. There was often a lot of cultural capital assumed in ancient Jewish arguments, as they might have a dozen lines of argumentation all pointing to a specific conclusion, but it would be expected that you'd have the requisite knowledge to see what conclusion is to be drawn, rather than giving simple [this] therefore [that].
In the same way that you've been known to argue both against the existence of God and for the existence of God, I've spent a lot of time combining theology, philosophy and my best understanding of big key scientific issues (mostly expansion of the universe and abiogenesis+evolution) arguing both for a traditionally Christian 6,000 year old world and for a conventionally scientific 14 billion year old universe. I'm not personally convinced either way about the age of the cosmos, and neither option would have much of an impact on my view of God -- it was actually looking into these things when I was 18 that compelled me to move from a weak atheist (weak here meaning that, if asked, I would have said something like: "I don't really believe in God," as oppose to strong meaning: "There's no God, I'm sure of it") to a convinced deist.
Your old buddy's interpretation of God's relationship with Adam sounds questionable. Prior to creating Eve, God does position Adam to experience the kind of human loneliness that needs other humans as its cure, and God goes so far as to position Adam to know that nothing else will fulfill that need before finally resolving that need with Eve. I don't think that points to God being unhappy; I think it does point to God using a pattern of suffering to reveal good purpose and make what is inherently good even better from the very beginning. Similar to how the reddest red is as red as red can be...and yet it becomes even redder when you give it a green frame.
Day 4 was the sun and the moon; Day 6 was mankind. I'm fascinated by those who believe that Genesis 1 must be interpreted as 6x24hr back-to-back, given that on the 6th day God creates man and woman in His image, whereas there seems to be some time elapsed between God creating Adam and God creating Eve in Genesis 2. If we do assume that Adam and Eve are the first humans (which, those who take Gen1 as a week of standard duration almost always do), then the duration between Adam's creation and Eve's creation should at least raise a few questions.
There have long been theories amongst Christians and Jews (long before Darwin was considered a big deal) dealing with a pre-Adamic race, which would basically imply that homo sapiens existed before Adam, but something divine happened in the creation of Adam, setting "human" apart from mere homo sapien. It's a convenient thought for reconciling the bible with conventional views of evolution, although I can't see any clear textual evidence for it. That might not be a problem, though, since ancient Jewish writers made an artform out of saying something by dancing around the topic and not actually saying it. There was often a lot of cultural capital assumed in ancient Jewish arguments, as they might have a dozen lines of argumentation all pointing to a specific conclusion, but it would be expected that you'd have the requisite knowledge to see what conclusion is to be drawn, rather than giving simple [this] therefore [that].
In the same way that you've been known to argue both against the existence of God and for the existence of God, I've spent a lot of time combining theology, philosophy and my best understanding of big key scientific issues (mostly expansion of the universe and abiogenesis+evolution) arguing both for a traditionally Christian 6,000 year old world and for a conventionally scientific 14 billion year old universe. I'm not personally convinced either way about the age of the cosmos, and neither option would have much of an impact on my view of God -- it was actually looking into these things when I was 18 that compelled me to move from a weak atheist (weak here meaning that, if asked, I would have said something like: "I don't really believe in God," as oppose to strong meaning: "There's no God, I'm sure of it") to a convinced deist.
Your old buddy's interpretation of God's relationship with Adam sounds questionable. Prior to creating Eve, God does position Adam to experience the kind of human loneliness that needs other humans as its cure, and God goes so far as to position Adam to know that nothing else will fulfill that need before finally resolving that need with Eve. I don't think that points to God being unhappy; I think it does point to God using a pattern of suffering to reveal good purpose and make what is inherently good even better from the very beginning. Similar to how the reddest red is as red as red can be...and yet it becomes even redder when you give it a green frame.
Fitness stuff first. You have trimmed down well to be looking broader at the shoulders.
My hips and knees are working better than I deserve, I saw the x-rays of my hip from the worst injury and most would say I have no right to be squatting without a weight let alone with one. Your depth is always better than mine, even strapped up I generally only go to parallel. Might go for some low squats this time round, not chasing load but hypertrophy so as long as I overload I should be OK.
My old buddy was deliberately misinterpreting to show how weak the preachers argument was. Something he would often do to people who worked on the basis of faith meaning lack of thought, in fairness the preacher was evidently used to more ignorant followers and deliberately linking totally unrelated scriptures to justify torturing of a Muslim nation in Africa at the time. As far as my friend was concerned if you never questioned your own faith it wasn't very strong. I liked him immensely, our differences made the conversations more interesting and better for learning.
I checked and was a day out, mankind was day 5, in biblical terms.
Biblical day, love that one. I don't remember the psalm but there is one saying that for god a thousand years is like a day or a watch in the night (which is 4 hours). Taken literally this means a day could be 6,000 years on this alone, or the same age as the earth according to young earth creationists, interesting when you consider there is a living tree almost 5,000 years old and organisms older than 6,012 by a fair way. Throw in language and things get fun. Any biblical historian will openly tell you we know 40 days and nights is an expression for a long time not a fixed time. A linguist will tell you that the largest single word number in any of the languages the original old testament was written in is 1,000 so to write one million you would write one thousand thousand exactly like that without any punctuation to separate the words. So when translating a billion you could easily be forgiven for thinking the person was accidentally repeating a word, or the thousand years could be an expression for unfathomable length of time.
It was a science teacher that inspired me to look into theology more closely too, though not for the same reason. He declared scientific thought meant never totally dismissing something without empirical proof, at best that is believing something but being prepared to be wrong. That started me studying religions to get a fuller understanding of the potential reality of any given deity. By definition of the fact I am one of gods jokes (atheist) obviously none convinced me, in fact understanding the history behind them made me more convinced that there is nothing spiritual at all.
Of course if I am wrong you get a cloud and a harp and I get eternal torture, which considering my idea of training I will have spent most of my adult life preparing for.
I like the way it's astrophysics that has inspired your faith. It strengthened Newton's immensely, he felt the universe was too vast and complex to have come about by anything other than divine intervention and was in awe of how powerful such a deity must be. So you have a similar outlook to one of the fathers of modern physics.
I find the bad atheists annoying when they haven't bothered to find anything out either way. Lazy theology makes weak belief. I know atheism by definition is lack of belief in a deity or deities, because at the time the definition was written it was assumed at least 1 must exist. I don't think of mine as disbelief and view it in the same way as you would someone declaring your faith as fantasy. I believe to the very core of my being that there are no deities and never have been, but my faith in this belief is strong enough to accept the possibility that I could be proven wrong and give such evidence I would change my viewpoint.
My hips and knees are working better than I deserve, I saw the x-rays of my hip from the worst injury and most would say I have no right to be squatting without a weight let alone with one. Your depth is always better than mine, even strapped up I generally only go to parallel. Might go for some low squats this time round, not chasing load but hypertrophy so as long as I overload I should be OK.
My old buddy was deliberately misinterpreting to show how weak the preachers argument was. Something he would often do to people who worked on the basis of faith meaning lack of thought, in fairness the preacher was evidently used to more ignorant followers and deliberately linking totally unrelated scriptures to justify torturing of a Muslim nation in Africa at the time. As far as my friend was concerned if you never questioned your own faith it wasn't very strong. I liked him immensely, our differences made the conversations more interesting and better for learning.
I checked and was a day out, mankind was day 5, in biblical terms.
Biblical day, love that one. I don't remember the psalm but there is one saying that for god a thousand years is like a day or a watch in the night (which is 4 hours). Taken literally this means a day could be 6,000 years on this alone, or the same age as the earth according to young earth creationists, interesting when you consider there is a living tree almost 5,000 years old and organisms older than 6,012 by a fair way. Throw in language and things get fun. Any biblical historian will openly tell you we know 40 days and nights is an expression for a long time not a fixed time. A linguist will tell you that the largest single word number in any of the languages the original old testament was written in is 1,000 so to write one million you would write one thousand thousand exactly like that without any punctuation to separate the words. So when translating a billion you could easily be forgiven for thinking the person was accidentally repeating a word, or the thousand years could be an expression for unfathomable length of time.
It was a science teacher that inspired me to look into theology more closely too, though not for the same reason. He declared scientific thought meant never totally dismissing something without empirical proof, at best that is believing something but being prepared to be wrong. That started me studying religions to get a fuller understanding of the potential reality of any given deity. By definition of the fact I am one of gods jokes (atheist) obviously none convinced me, in fact understanding the history behind them made me more convinced that there is nothing spiritual at all.
Of course if I am wrong you get a cloud and a harp and I get eternal torture, which considering my idea of training I will have spent most of my adult life preparing for.
I like the way it's astrophysics that has inspired your faith. It strengthened Newton's immensely, he felt the universe was too vast and complex to have come about by anything other than divine intervention and was in awe of how powerful such a deity must be. So you have a similar outlook to one of the fathers of modern physics.
I find the bad atheists annoying when they haven't bothered to find anything out either way. Lazy theology makes weak belief. I know atheism by definition is lack of belief in a deity or deities, because at the time the definition was written it was assumed at least 1 must exist. I don't think of mine as disbelief and view it in the same way as you would someone declaring your faith as fantasy. I believe to the very core of my being that there are no deities and never have been, but my faith in this belief is strong enough to accept the possibility that I could be proven wrong and give such evidence I would change my viewpoint.
Doh, 2 days out and 6th day. I read it, thought it then mistyped it. Multi tasking meant doing one right the other totally wrong there.
I'm genuinely disgusted when Christians use "just have faith" (or words to that effect) to deal with issues being raised. Technically, it's a valid response, but by means of cultural implication, it becomes invalid.
The latter first: The cultural implication, of course, is "don't think about it, don't worry about it, just trust that it's all good." This attitude isn't very biblical, and doesn't prompt people to actually consider what the bible says/implies about an issue, or to think/talk things through. The whole "blind faith" discourse defies the majority of demonstrations of faith within the bible, so that should be a hint.
Now, "have faith" could be an appropriate response if it were meant in its full meaning ("just have faith" is still problematic, though, when the biblical meaning of faith is understood). There are several concepts wrapped together in the term faith. This includes trust, but not ignorance. On the contrary, one of the concepts tied into faith is theological reasoning. This closely ties into two other concepts within faith, which are 1) a knowledge of God as He's revealed himself, and 2) an expectation (based on this knowledge and aforementioned trust) of God's present and future behaviour (in particular promises being fulfilled) based on said knowledge. So, to have faith, or, as would be more relevant for dealing with issues as they arise, to develop faith, encompasses developing knowledge of God and trust in God, causing developments in expectations for God.
This is still terrible pastoral care, though, for the same reason that when someone's struggling to lift more weight or run further, it's terrible advice to tell them "lift more weight/run further" as the solution. "Hey, I really need an extra 10lb of muscle, but nothing I'm doing works. I'm frustrated and stuck and don't know what to do!" "Oh yeah, you should try gaining more muscle mass. That should do it." "Wow, thanks, I never thought of that! What helpful insight, you wise, considerate person!"
The latter first: The cultural implication, of course, is "don't think about it, don't worry about it, just trust that it's all good." This attitude isn't very biblical, and doesn't prompt people to actually consider what the bible says/implies about an issue, or to think/talk things through. The whole "blind faith" discourse defies the majority of demonstrations of faith within the bible, so that should be a hint.
Now, "have faith" could be an appropriate response if it were meant in its full meaning ("just have faith" is still problematic, though, when the biblical meaning of faith is understood). There are several concepts wrapped together in the term faith. This includes trust, but not ignorance. On the contrary, one of the concepts tied into faith is theological reasoning. This closely ties into two other concepts within faith, which are 1) a knowledge of God as He's revealed himself, and 2) an expectation (based on this knowledge and aforementioned trust) of God's present and future behaviour (in particular promises being fulfilled) based on said knowledge. So, to have faith, or, as would be more relevant for dealing with issues as they arise, to develop faith, encompasses developing knowledge of God and trust in God, causing developments in expectations for God.
This is still terrible pastoral care, though, for the same reason that when someone's struggling to lift more weight or run further, it's terrible advice to tell them "lift more weight/run further" as the solution. "Hey, I really need an extra 10lb of muscle, but nothing I'm doing works. I'm frustrated and stuck and don't know what to do!" "Oh yeah, you should try gaining more muscle mass. That should do it." "Wow, thanks, I never thought of that! What helpful insight, you wise, considerate person!"
There had to be a limit to how long it would be before the legs started finding the lack of recovery an issue. Still doing well there, wondering how much this will equate to when the benefits hit your next program.
Seems we both have the same attitude toward blind faith.
I am constantly disgusted by the volume of blind faith atheists, especially when they declare that it isn't a faith as if we have a proven case. Faith by the definition of many criticising religion is belief without proof, I believe there are no deities and cannot prove it so using that logic I have faith in my atheism.
It tends to get worse when I declare that considering my belief as faith is a good thing. I have spent a lifetime challenging faiths including mine and learned a massive amount from it. I have known many theists who have done likewise, and I would place the value of these well above an ignorant atheist who simply believes they are right because they think so.
When I was younger I took part in a lot of debates and it was often a source of surprise that it was the blind faith atheists who got the worst from me and who I challenged most often. I suppose I didn't want to be associated with people who were so lazily ignorant. Meant losing friends both sides but gaining a good deal of respect from people who had opposing views but appreciated my willingness to challenge anyone.
I am constantly disgusted by the volume of blind faith atheists, especially when they declare that it isn't a faith as if we have a proven case. Faith by the definition of many criticising religion is belief without proof, I believe there are no deities and cannot prove it so using that logic I have faith in my atheism.
It tends to get worse when I declare that considering my belief as faith is a good thing. I have spent a lifetime challenging faiths including mine and learned a massive amount from it. I have known many theists who have done likewise, and I would place the value of these well above an ignorant atheist who simply believes they are right because they think so.
When I was younger I took part in a lot of debates and it was often a source of surprise that it was the blind faith atheists who got the worst from me and who I challenged most often. I suppose I didn't want to be associated with people who were so lazily ignorant. Meant losing friends both sides but gaining a good deal of respect from people who had opposing views but appreciated my willingness to challenge anyone.
In PT news, I'm quite proud of of my female clients right now. Yesterday, one of them, who's been training for 8 weeks, deadlifting for 3, deadlifted a little bit more than her bodyweight for a fairly moderate set of 5.
Then in the evening, two girls who I've been training for 3 weeks had their first real taste of using barbells. I gave them 5x3 box squats with the empty barbell -- they both could have done much more than 3 reps a set, but my main goal was not to work them hard so much as it was to have them realise that a 20kg bar isn't that big a deal. I then got them doing bench presses, which they managed 3x5 with. I had them each do a set of just setting up, unracking and reracking the bar, which I found very rewarding, because not doing that with previous clients has always meant spending a long time getting them to consistently set up decently -- this meant they were good to go before their first actual rep. I also offered them the freedom to do as little as unlocking and relocking their elbows, but it they were comfortable to go deeper: they both ended up coming down to 1-2 inches off the lower ribs every time. Later came block pulls at 30kg and a few laps of hex bar carries.
Then in the evening, two girls who I've been training for 3 weeks had their first real taste of using barbells. I gave them 5x3 box squats with the empty barbell -- they both could have done much more than 3 reps a set, but my main goal was not to work them hard so much as it was to have them realise that a 20kg bar isn't that big a deal. I then got them doing bench presses, which they managed 3x5 with. I had them each do a set of just setting up, unracking and reracking the bar, which I found very rewarding, because not doing that with previous clients has always meant spending a long time getting them to consistently set up decently -- this meant they were good to go before their first actual rep. I also offered them the freedom to do as little as unlocking and relocking their elbows, but it they were comfortable to go deeper: they both ended up coming down to 1-2 inches off the lower ribs every time. Later came block pulls at 30kg and a few laps of hex bar carries.
I am somewhere between you two on flexibility. I could do box and front splits without issue, but not twist between them. Hip injury meant I prioritised getting strength in and lost some mobility. I think pursuing splits would be stupid for me now and the loose ligaments would likely cost me a lot of stability and ability. I could be wrong but I worked to hard to risk it.
Not done high bar in years, really don't like the feel now. We'll totally trust you on the PB.
Not done high bar in years, really don't like the feel now. We'll totally trust you on the PB.
Knowing that increased flexibility can mean decreased stability has been a good excuse for me not to stretch for years. Being able to do the splits wouldn't serve me in many functional ways at this point in time, but it would be a good party trick. I hear that if I practice every day, I could get there in as little as 18 months. Other party tricks on the agenda include pistol squats, juggling and fire twirling, which I wasn't too bad at a decade ago.
I first learned to do squats high bar, then when I learned to squat to parallel I transitioned to low bar. I got to the point where I was probably able to low bar squat 140kg, although never tested it, before returning to high bar in an attempt to improve the quality of my snatch, clean and jerk. I remember doing a couple sets of 5 at 50kg and it was brutal on my upper back, and especially on my upper traps. My shoulders aren't big fans of low bar these days. As a trainer I like high bar, just because it tends to be easier to coach and teach than low bar. Low bar's a more stable position, though, and has all sorts of mechanical advantages that can be summarised as increased posterior chain activation, resulting in increased potential loads.
I first learned to do squats high bar, then when I learned to squat to parallel I transitioned to low bar. I got to the point where I was probably able to low bar squat 140kg, although never tested it, before returning to high bar in an attempt to improve the quality of my snatch, clean and jerk. I remember doing a couple sets of 5 at 50kg and it was brutal on my upper back, and especially on my upper traps. My shoulders aren't big fans of low bar these days. As a trainer I like high bar, just because it tends to be easier to coach and teach than low bar. Low bar's a more stable position, though, and has all sorts of mechanical advantages that can be summarised as increased posterior chain activation, resulting in increased potential loads.
Old climber so had a few bizarre party tricks, splits being one but be aware of glass etc. on the floor. Pull ups on door frames were another. Ballet added lifts, high jumps and core stability to do some truly ridiculous things.
Juggling is a good one if you can use misshaped objects so haven't had to bring things with you. Never been able to do it myself.
I started on high bar, but having done low bar and gained that additional stability in squat I don't feel comfortable going high anymore. Not something I will likely do. I tend to advise people to go for low bar if I see them using a pad or bar cuff, because that means they are hurting their neck with the bar something low bar stops. Otherwise it's personal choice and many go high as you say because it's easier to learn for most.
Juggling is a good one if you can use misshaped objects so haven't had to bring things with you. Never been able to do it myself.
I started on high bar, but having done low bar and gained that additional stability in squat I don't feel comfortable going high anymore. Not something I will likely do. I tend to advise people to go for low bar if I see them using a pad or bar cuff, because that means they are hurting their neck with the bar something low bar stops. Otherwise it's personal choice and many go high as you say because it's easier to learn for most.