Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Alfa

Regulars
  • Posts

    676
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by Alfa

  1. This is a very interesting response. I have often felt "unworthy" because in many ways that's how i've been treated by others, pretty much since I was a kid. Also i've been unhappy about where I am in life and some pretty tough failures i've had to deal with. This has not exactly helped my self esteem. However it's not until recently that i've realised this and started doing something about it; pushing aside those negative influences and starting to find out things about myself that like, that are good and that I even think are admirable. Many times when I have dealt with people it has left me very disappointed. And when you feel bitterness and only expect people to dissapoint you, well, I guess a natural reaction is to distance yourself from them. But I have found that that's the exact opposite to how I want to live my life. Um, I guess what i'm trying to say is that I have sort of found the right mindset and self confidence. The difficult part I guess is how to proceed practically and integrate everything.
  2. That's how i've been going about it. Only problem is that this makes social situations really exhausting, when you have to force yourself to do things.
  3. Hi, Let me first start by saying that what i'm after here is no easy to explain. I will probably have to clarify it a bit later, but for now i'll try to make it brief. As the topic implies i'm looking for help in becoming more open and extroverted as a person. What i'm referring to, however, is not just about basic social skills - that's pretty simple. I'm talking more about being completely free and open towards others. This could for example mean being better at initiating contact with others(especially women, I guess), being clear, honest and straightforward when showing both thoughts and feelings... and, perhaps above all, speaking and acting in the way you want just because you want to - because it gives you pleasure just being the way you are without boundaries and percieved social limits. Or to put it more simply; how can I become better at showing others my lovely wonderfull self? Seriously though, I would very much appreciate your thoughts on this matter. I need to get some sleep now but later on, if needed, I can perhaps try and tie this more into some sort of context
  4. Yes, because I say so! Seriously though, in essence the game is an interactive graphical story - different types of art combined into one piece. Sure, you could argue that the "core" is just different sets of "puzzles" and "rules", and sort of reduce it to something "mechanical", but the gameplay is heavily story driven and the point is to tell a story which the player can take part in, and effect the outcome of. That is why I call it art.
  5. I think Baldur's Gate is second to Planescape Torment. Which, by the way, is art... For those of you who have missed this masterpiece... Planescape Torment starts with the main character waking up in a morgue, with no memory of who he is or how he got there. After breaking out you must begin to find out who, and what, he is. Obviously he is born, or reborn, "tabula rasa". The choices you make define him. This is coupled with a great story, with alternate endings, and a very strange world to explore. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planescape_Torment
  6. Haha, it was me who started that thread. Some christian there complained about your "fabrication and distortion" of the texts. That was kinda funny. I think most people liked your stories though.
  7. Mr. Flanagan would not have to chase you round the block, I bet he would catch you within 60 yards. Seriously, of course he's got too much muscle to be a runner. You can't expect a bodybuilder to outrun a runner, that won't happen. But it has nothing to do with cardiovascular health. Weight lifting alone cannot make you a good triathlete. You would, at the very least, need to develop some skill for the triathlons.
  8. Why do you feel this way about your friends? I think this is an important question, to determine if you are acting rationally about this. Others have given you good examples of when it's time to leave your friends. But, you say that you even have problems with people touching you. To me that sound like something is wrong. Do you have problems specifically with your old friends, or is it that you want to get away from people in general?
  9. Regarding Mentzer's health, I have read that Mike's heart failure was due to a rare blood disease, which basically made his blood "clot". This was was first discovered in his brother, Ray, but it's genetic so Mike got it too. And regarding no cardio and only HIT, I think a better example would be Dr. Ellington Darden...
  10. Ezekiel 5 - God was not happy with the people of Jerusalem... "Therefore the fathers shall eat the sons in the midst of thee, and the sons shall eat their fathers" Remember, God loves everyone... just don't piss him off.
  11. I agree Shortt seems a bit pragmatic and that´s where he goes wrong. I believe both are right on some things, and wrong on others. Myself i'm still looking for a perfectly consistent philosophy for training, but right now i'm only beginning to understand what works for me so there's a long way to go. I would not say that HIT type workouts have not worked for me. I can't say for sure how well they have worked(to do that I have to cut some weight so I can get a better look at the progress), but I have made great progress. One and a half years ago I was fat, weak, my body hurt from doing manual labor, and I was in a pretty bad condition. Today, even though I have gained some of the weight back, i'm a lot leaner, stronger and I can survive workouts that would have killed me. Perhaps, I don't know, I could have built more muscle. It's a possibility at least. But I have produced good results by any standard(and to have produced the same results with any other method would have taken much more exercise). So in that way I think HIT is great. And the changes i'm thinking of is not far away from any HIT method. I'm experimenting very much, changing routines often and trying to determine what my body needs to grow further. I'm also trying to be as scientific as I can; keeping a training log, taking pictures, measurments and also being aware of what I eat. When I first started training it was with a good friend of mine. I knew pretty much nothing about exercise. And, actually, I think he knows even less then I did then. Still, he has managed to build an impressive physique so I figured if I do what he does I should get the samre results. A big mistake, of course. He did several sets per exercise, with great intensity - often with forced reps. He's the kind of guy that when he want's something he's ready to put down lots of hard work to get it, and that's what he also put down in the gym. I liked the idea of lots of hard work, but now in retrospect it's pretty obvious where it led me - overtraining. The difference between me and my friend is. of course, genetics, and the fact that he had been training for years before me. He recovered much faster and was used to the workouts. So it seems logical that we also respond differently to different methods. ... Regarding MC I won't reject it before I know more about the ideas and before I have tried it properly. As for now, I think it's interesting although I am a bit sceptical about some of the things mentioned.
  12. Yes, that's true. Of course sitting around all day and doing nothing is not demanding, but in the context of exercise where you have intensity volume can add to the effort. I'd like to put intensity as the "quality" of stimulus. In cases there are any sort of stimulus, like when exercising, volume determines the amount of stimulus. So what then is the right quality and right amount of stimulus? Yes, I am pretty sure. Earlier I was going between rather low volume and specialization routines for a few weeks. Eventually it became too much so I felt the need to reduce the volume further, thus starting a Heavy Duty routine. Initially it worked good but now I need more volume and/or frequency. It's pretty obvious when i'm cutting weight and only getting softer. I've had a couple of weeks off without any improvement so more rest does not seem to work. On the other hand, fewer days between workouts have advanced progress a little bit. Also adding a couple of sub-maximal sets for squats and deadlifts have been productive, and only taking these exercises close to failure. "Instead of going to the gym, growing a little, and then going back in a few days, how about going once and then growing for weeks?" Looks like you are assuming which is the best. Those are interesting claims. And it would take some real convincing to make me believe that anyone not on steroids could gain 9.3lbs of muscle in 6 days. How well were the subjects monitored? It could be possible to gain that much water, which registers as lean mass. How were their diets checked? Also, what did they measure to get an idea about recovery? How was recovery defined? The bodpod can't measure protein synthesis. Also a higher protein synthesis does not necessarily mean a high protein balance, diet and hormone levels play a big part here. Yes, but the question is whether he has found them or if there are other principles. I would not recommend that either, but I don't know Hunter's training history and I don't know how he responds to different methods. I might not have read any of Little's work but I have read quite alot on HIT philosophy. I even like it very much. I just think it's incorrect in some places and it does not always seem to work as well as many of it's proponents claim, although some truly amazing results have been achieved with it. Contradictions cannot exist, so if they contradict each other at least one of them is wrong. I don't want to assume either one of them are right, though I think Andrew Shortt makes some good points.
  13. Ah, sorry my bad. Yeah, I guess it could be done with a pec deck, curls and maybe triceps pushdowns or dips. I'll experiment a bit and see how it works.
  14. Thanks Inspector! Your answer seems to indicate the difference between Max Contraction and Static Contraction. I saw an old article at bodybuilding.com by Joh Sisco where he mentioned doing leg presses the same way I was thinking. He also recomended a much shorter TUL. It looks like the method has evolved with Max Contraction, which is a good thing - I also think that isolation is better that compound for this and I believe longer TUL;s have better scientific support. Anyway, i´m gonna give it a try later today. I can´t use any isolation exercises for the legs with this, so i´ll stick to the leg press. Calf raises are unfortunatley out of the question, those weights would break my back(i´m having trouble already with my regular weights, so a 100% more does not seem like a good idea). This is a common practice with studies and $11 is a fair price. Usually scientists release abstracts with a short description and results of the study and if you want to review it more closely you have to by the full study.
  15. Inspector, I will attempt a response a bit later, when I got more time, but I have a little question regarding Max Contraction. It would be fun to give it a try but it seems difficult without a spotter. However one exercise that could work is the 45 degree leg press, since the movement starts near full contraction. Also I would have stops for safety so failure is no big deal. Do you think this could work? As I understand it I should move close to full lock out with a weight I can hold for a few seconds, doing no more than five repetitions. I think I read something like that in an article. Another question is, what do you think of pre-exhausting the quads with leg extensions(full range reps)? That should make the weights a bit safer, which is kinda important in my case(the seat in the leg press machine that I use is not very kind on the lower back when using heavy loads). I think this would be a fun experiment, and if it works... well, it works. This reminds me a little bit about a routine Ellington Darden posted on his board, called Big Jim´s Quick Grow Routine. Jim Flanagan would have one of his trainees start a few exercises with a 1 rep max 60 second negative, followed by a regular drop-set. That first reps also uses a very heavy load and such a slow negative is almost like static holds through the whole range of motion. I´ve tried it on a couple of exercise and it´s enough to make a grown man cry, and it lives up to it´s name.
  16. Because how it relates to volume, and how volume can cause adaptation... If the growth stimulus is in that last rep then only the ones working to failure could grow. The reps before that will pump blood and nutrients to your muscle, it´s possible that by achieving a big pump you can cause sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, and the wearing down seems like something positive - that would mean fatiguing more and more muscle fibres. The body adapts as a response to imposed demands(as long as the level of demands are apropriate and we are given enough rest). Volume can certainly be demanding. I think that is good as a general guidline, but sometimes I think that less intensity and more volume can be the right way to go(I have experienced it lately, however I think it´s temporary). I´m not sure if i´m familiar with that study... If i recall correctly a few subjects showed a very long recovery time, up to a month maybe? If i´m not mistaken most of the subjects showed much shorter recovery times, although I don´t remember how long. Is my memory getting old or am I on the right track here? What I would like to know is what kind of recovery and how it was measured. One interesting thing to note here is that the muscle protein synthesis is elevated up to 48 hours following exercise, after that it´s down to base levels. So it´s within that time span that the biggest growth is possible, only problem is recovery... Can´t you tell me about theese principles? I can´t buy Mr. Little´s books right now, unless they are made eatable and nutrient rich. I think the optimal combination can only be found for the individual, at a given time - of course within the rules and principles of exercise. Regarding Hunter´s routine I don´t think four sets of squats is that bad, if that´s all that he does. For squats and deadlifts I prefer to add a little warmup and get the form down properly before I do a heavier set to failure. Non-failure sets with a little lighter weights do not tax the recovery ability much at all. Looks like Hunter is doing something similar, working up to heavier weights. Yes, I have a broader view on what works(unless taking it down to an individual level). I think this article explains it pretty good(not very well written, but well thought in some parts atleast): http://www.zone-training.net/articles/methodmadness.html
  17. Really? As far as I know, and I might be wrong of course, this is the biggest mistake "HIT;ers" make. Arthur Jones saw that by reducing the volume and frequency, while increasing intensity, he made better gains than ever before. A reduction in volume and increase in intensity always seemed to produce better results for him. A fair conclusion then is that intensity is a key stimulus for muscle growth. I believe Arthur was right here. However, intensity cannot be the only stimulating factor involved. The basic fundamental variables of exercise are intensity, volume and frequency. You cannot isolate either one of them. Volume will, in one way or another, force the body to adapt to the demands. In that way it can be a growth producing factor. However, volume alone will produce nothing except atrophy. It´s like lying in bed all day, lots of volume but no intensity. So for exercise we need intensity. Intensity without volume, however, is impossible. That way it must be a combination of the two that stimulate muscle growth. But we also need some amount of frequency. As far as I know no optimal combination of theese variables have been found. I guess some guidelines would be hard work, not too much volume and plenty of rest. Not necessarily HIT, but probably not very far away from it. I think the rest would be fine tuning for individual needs and differences, and different techniques/strategies to impose apropriate demands for the body to adapt to(for example, I respond differently to exercise today than I did a year ago - what I did a month ago is not necessarily the best today). I think this is why people respond so differently to certain methods of exercise. Some HIT;ers for example get better results from a little more volume and less intensity. Others show the opposite. I know some who do HIT in short periods, they make good gains for a few months until they plateu. Sometimes more volume is the answer, other times less. In my short experience I have noticed that the best results have come from understanding theese variables and making the right changes, predicting the bodys response.
  18. Marathon runner's hearts might not be in such good health. Here´s an interesting article from the NY Times: "Is Marathoning Too Much of a Good Thing for Your Heart? By GRETCHEN REYNOLDS HE had not expected to spend his 60th birthday in a hospital cardiac unit. R. J. Turner, a commercial real estate broker from Frederick County, Va., had planned a robust celebration. "I was going to finish my 10th marathon," Mr. Turner said, "which isn't bad for a guy my age." But near the start of the Marine Corps Marathon on Oct. 29, Mr. Turner raised an arm to wave at bystanders, and "everything went black." Collapsing violently, he gashed his head, chipped a tooth and bit a deep hole in his bottom lip. Mr. Turner, who had passed a stress test a year before, had just had a heart attack. This has been an unusual season for the cardiac health of marathoners. After years in which almost no deaths were attributed to heart attacks at this country's major marathons, at least six runners have died in 2006. Two police officers, one 53, the other 60, died of heart attacks at the Los Angeles Marathon in March. The hearts of three runners in their early 40s gave out during marathons in Chicago in October, San Francisco in July and the Twin Cities in October. And at the same marathon where Mr. Turner was felled, another man, 56, crumpled near the 17th mile, never to recover. This year's toll has sobered race directors and medical directors of marathons. But, as Rick Nealis, the director of the Marine Corps Marathon, said, "Statistically, maybe, it was inevitable." Race fields have grown. In 2005, 382,000 people completed a marathon in the United States, an increase of more than 80,000 since 2000, according to marathonguide.com. Meanwhile, the risk of dying from a heart attack during a marathon is about 1 in 50,000 runners, said Dr. Arthur Siegel, the director of internal medicine at McLean Hospital in Belmont, Mass., and an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard. But some physicians, including Dr. Siegel, an author of more than two dozen studies of racers at the Boston Marathon, wonder if there is more to the deaths than mathematical inevitability: Does racing 26.2 miles put a heart at risk? A new study by Dr. Siegel and colleagues at Massachusetts General Hospital and other institutions is at least suggestive. Sixty entrants from the 2004 and 2005 Boston Marathon were tested before and after the race. Each was given an echocardiogram to find abnormalities in heart rhythm and was checked for blood markers of cardiac problems - in particular for troponin, a protein found in cardiac muscle cells. If the heart is traumatized, troponin can show up in the blood. Its presence can determine whether there has been damage from a heart attack. The runners (41 men, 19 women) had normal cardiac function before the marathon, with no signs of troponin in their blood. Twenty minutes after finishing, 60 percent of the group had elevated troponin levels, and 40 percent had levels high enough to indicate the destruction of heart muscle cells. Most also had noticeable changes in heart rhythms. Those who had run less than 35 miles a week leading up to the race had the highest troponin levels and the most pronounced changes in heart rhythm. The findings, published in the Nov. 28 issue of Circulation, a journal of the American Heart Association, were a surprise, and not least to the runners. None had reported chest pains or shortness of breath at the finish. All had felt fine, Dr. Siegel said (to the extent one can feel fine after pounding through 26.2 miles). Within days, the abnormalities disappeared. But something seemed to have happened in the race. "Their hearts appeared to have been stunned," Dr. Siegel said. "Although the evidence is not conclusive, it does look like the Boston study is showing some effect on cardiac muscle," said Dr. Paul D. Thompson, 59, the director of cardiology at Hartford Hospital in Connecticut, and an author of an editorial that accompanied the study. "It's far too early to draw any conclusions," he added. "We'd be seeing lots more bodies piling up if there were real lingering long-term cardiac damage" caused by running marathons. "Over all, the evidence is strongly in favor of the idea that endurance exercise is helpful in terms of cardiac health," said Dr. Thompson, who has run more than 30 marathons. But questions do remain. Another new study, this one out of the University of Duisburg-Essen in Germany, showed completely unexpected results in a group of experienced middle-aged male marathoners. In the study, which was presented in November at a meeting of the American Heart Association, the subjects, each of whom had completed at least five marathons, underwent an advanced type of heart screening called a spiral CT scan. Unlike echocardiograms or stress tests, spiral CTs show the level of calcium plaque buildup or atherosclerosis in the arteries. More than a third of the runners had significant calcium deposits, suggesting they were at relatively high risk for a heart attack. Only 22 percent of a control group of nonrunners had a comparable buildup. The researchers scrupulously avoided suggesting that marathoning had caused the men to develop heart disease. (After all, running may have kept them alive when they would otherwise have keeled over years earlier.) But neither did the authors rule out the possibility that in some baffling way distance running had contributed to the men's arterial gunk. What worries Dr. Siegel and some of his colleagues is that marathons present an opportunity for silent symptomless heart disease to introduce itself abruptly. The pulsing excitement, the adrenaline, the unpleasant process of "hitting the wall" may trigger physiological changes that loosen arterial plaques, precipitating a heart attack, Dr. Siegel said. His advice to runners with any history of heart trouble is "train for the race, getting the cardiac benefits of endurance exercise," then watch the event on television. The risk of going into cardiac arrest as a spectator, he said, is only about one in a million. (The applicable studies of spectators involved Super Bowl fans.) Anyone considering joining the ranks of marathoners should undergo a full medical screening, with a visit to a cardiologist for those over 40, Dr. Siegel said. Spiral CT scans are desirable (the cost can range from $250 to $850) and are covered by insurance if recommended by a physician. Those with a family history of cardiac problems should be especially cautious. "You can't outrun your genes," Dr. Siegel said, a reality that marathon medical experts call the Jim Fixx effect, after the author of "The Complete Book of Running," who died of a heart attack in 1984 at 52. His father had also died young. Still, the majority of cardiologists remain avid fans of marathons. "It is an extraordinary event," said Dr. Frederick C. Lough, the director of cardiac surgery at George Washington University Hospital in Washington. "But you have to respect that distance. It's not something everyone necessarily should attempt." Dr. Lough, 57, was less than a block behind Mr. Turner when the older man collapsed. He interrupted his own race to help revive Mr. Turner and accompany him to the hospital, before completing the marathon. "It was a vivid reminder that running does not make anyone immune to heart disease," Dr. Lough said. Experts familiar with the new cardiac studies of marathoners urge caution and perspective. The numbers of people studied were small, the findings unexplained, and results have not yet been replicated. Don't use the studies, in other words, to justify parking yourself smugly on the couch. "There's not yet in my opinion cause for alarm," Dr. Thompson said. "I would still tell people, run." His words doubtless will cheer Mr. Turner. "You know the worst thing about almost dying?" he said. "That I didn't finish." After having had a stent installed in his heart to open an artery that was about 98 percent blocked, he's now walking a mile a day and planning his comeback. "I want to get that 10th marathon in," he said. But not before he gets a full medical screening, including a spiral CT scan."
  19. I can't explain the science behind it, I just know that it works. To explain theese observations would be the scientists work, but let me raise a few questions(and since you seem to have studied this much more seriously than I have, it would be interesting to know your thoughts on this). My main question is regarding this line from the wiki: "During anaerobic exercise, the muscles being exercised have insufficient oxygen to meet the demands of the activity, and thus must also(my emphasis) use alternate, non-oxygen-dependent processes to produce energy." So, what is the function of oxygen during anaerobic exercise? Let me speculate a little bit here. Could oxygen be the primary source? In normal, everyday activities, it seems unlikely that we use much ATP. So what happens if we pick up a pair of dumbells and start exercising? At first it should be fairly easy, assuming we are able to do a few reps with the chosen weights. Maybe the body still likes to use oxygen at this stage? Then when it gets increasingly harder we end up at a stage where oxygen is not enough, so the muscles need a different source of energy. At this point we would then have a shortage of oxygen which the heart is trying to restore. Alot of blood is also going to the working muscles, and that means an oxygen shortage for the rest of the body. So maybe the heart is desperately trying to supply oxygen to the working muscles - failing that the muscles use ATP - and also trying to circulate the blood and supplying oxygen for the other parts. If i´m right here that sounds like a tough job, but I could be very much mistaken. Another thing that has not been mentioned is that it will probably get pretty hard for the heart just to circulate the blood. The blood pressure gets very high when lifting weights, especially during val salva manuevers. If i´m not completely mistaken I think it´s a well established fact that the heart gets stronger from weight lifting, due to thickening of the walls or something like that(although that might not have so much to do with the hearts ability to supply large amounts of oxygen). Anyway, regardless of how it works, it... well, somehow it does work. I know a few "HIT;ers" who have done stress tests with great results, without any cardio. Myself, I know I can perform pretty darn well in sports, and I don´t do cardio either. Atleast the way I train the heart does a hell of alot of work. I havent measured it, but I can´t be far from my maximum heart rate(I don´t know if the avarage heart rate is exeptionally high; usually it takes two exercises or sets before i´m up there, but the heart rate drops very quickly so only 10-20 seconds of rest results in a significant drop, and I can´t alway move that fast between exercises - I guess it becomes more like intervall training then). If in doubt, try to find a HIT trainer in the area where you live and ask him to show you(if you live in the US it´s probably not too hard to find a good trainer). I think that would provide a very convincing argument(and, atleast in my opinion, a very fun workout).
  20. I don´t know what you base this on, but something is wrong. I can give you a few observations that show this. When doing a one rep max the heart rate will rise. Not much of an aerobic workout and it won´t produce much lactic acid. One common reason that the muscles fail, when sets are taken to failure, is shortage of oxygen. By, sort of, hyperventilating it´s possible to get a few more repetitions. The above is know and practiced when it comes to squats, the so called "breathing squats". The idea is to take ones 12-15 rep max and when it gets tough you start to take one extra breath between reps, then one more and so on, until you have done 20 reps. This is to provide the muscles with enough oxygen to keep them going when they would otherwise have failed. If you havent tried this it might be mentioned that it feels like your lungs are going to implode, and the heart explode. It´s easy to reach ones maximum heart rate. A popular old Nautilus protocol was to make theese back-to-back with pullovers. You start with the breathing squats, then immediately jump into the pullover machine, and then you repeat it(no rest, of course). The pullover machine was called the upper body squat because it worked the whole upper body so hard and it managed to target the lats so well. The idea with doing the exercises like that was to first exhaust the legs, having lots of blood pumped into them, and then switch to the upper body which forces the heart to pump all that blood back up again - all the while the oxygen shortage is getting bigger. If they used this protocol in the West Point study i´m not surprised they recorded such high heart rates. This is of course not "mainstream" weight lifting. The common practice is to rest plenty between sets and not work with a very high intensity. Nothing wrong with that, if they prefer it that way, but it´s not going to give the cardiovascular conditioning we "HIT;ers" here are talking about. That´s also one reason why so many people are so skeptical towards getting "cardio" from weight lifting. It migh be difficult to imagine if you have not experienced it. Anyway, I think theese examples should show that the body needs large amounts of oxygen when weight lifting - without doing ridiculous amounts of repetitions. All forms of weight lifting will elevate the heart rate, and the more intense it gets with the more demanding exercises the higher the heart rate will get. There are also effects of transporting blood from one place to another to take into consideration, this could make it even more difficult on the heart. In som exercises, like squats, the lungs are also under alot of pressure.
  21. While I agree there are differences(I have yet to experience a real lung burn fron weight lifting), geting the heart into "overdrive" is just a matter of intensity.
  22. It just sounds a bit like the same mistake Mike Mentzer did, claiming that his Heavy Duty was superior to all other methods. Max Contraction is interesting though so I will take a closer look on it. Unfortunatley it doesnt seem that usefull to me since I don´t have someone to train with, and most of the machines in my gym are pretty bad(they do have a pullover machine though, which is why I continue to go there ). But maybe some of the ideas can be implemented in other ways - it´s always fun to experiment. The stress put on the heart is just as secondary in running as it is in weight lifting. What gets the heart going, in both cases, is working the muscles.
  23. This sounds like a VO2 Max test - which seems to be the standard for testing cardiovascular conditioning. It expresses the volume of oxygen the body can consume per minute. Now there´s a controversial statement! Based on what - why is it the most efficient way to train? Or do you just mean the most efficient way that you have tried?
  24. I have less fat and more muscle and I can do things I could never do before. Of course my best might not be so good compared to others, and I know I can improve on everything, but the important thing is what improvements have been made.
×
×
  • Create New...