Alfa

This is one of my absolute favorites. It's for everyone interested in... um... that... there... eh... fitness. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjOlEJC_Tqo (I just had to post that... )

I used to be more like that(actually, I guess I had a bit of a puritan view on sex) but it never lead to anything good for me. For me it was because of lack of confidence with women, and I wasn't sure if I had my values straight or what I wanted. Having changed that i've also become more comfortable with sex. Yeah, there certainly wasn't alot of getting to know each other between Roark and Dominique. However, I think there was alot of sub-communication going on and their actions displayed their character. A lesser man would never have done what Roark did, and a lesser woman would never have had him go to such extremes(not saying though that the whole "rape" thing would have been a good thing in reality, it just shows what an extreme test Roark had to pass to get her). Regarding the principles portrayed in this scenario I think it shows Roark as being absolutley clear about his values and with a complete trust in his own judgement. But does it matter(I mean from a more general philosophical perspective, obsviously it matters to you personally)? What I mean is that sometimes you make errors when judging people, but unless you have reasons to doubt your judgement then why not act on the one you have(granted of course that the person has proven him/herself)? Personally i'm very good at picking up when someone is lying, hiding something or trying to fake anything so I tend not to worry much about it at all. But then there's also alot less risk involved for a man.

Adrenal fatigue is a term coined by alternative medicine charlatans, which they use to con old ladies to buy their supplements. It's based on complete fraudulent BS. Adrenal Insufficiency and Addison's Disease are on the other hand very real, and very serious. Symptoms are hypoglycemia, low blood pressure, dizziness, disorientation, nausea, vomiting, diarreha, dehydration, weight loss...and more. Alot of people would be in serious trouble if they could get that from exercise. Regarding protein: Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab. 2006 Apr;16(2):129-52 Regarding steroid use in the avarage bodybuilder, it's something that's seriously exaggerated in HIT philosophy. Most guys don't train that much, and they're not taking steroids. That kind of thinking comes from a time where really high volume training was popular, probably because of made up routines in muscle mags. Generally people don't train like that today. It's more common with low to moderate volume(and failure is rarely used, which makes it alot easier to tolerate higher volume). And you certainly don't need steroids to handle (alot) more volume than a HIT routine.

Ideally, i'll probably know within the first two seconds and the rest is just to confirm and understand why. However, that happens very rarely and I may end up being wrong. So, usually I approach women with just some curiosity. You know, just to find out a little more about them. Then if she interests me, I like her, and I can see that there's potential i'll try to move things to the bedroom. I don't have to be sure about my judgement and I don't have to be head over heels in love with her. I'm fine with "wow, she seems like a wonderfull person!", and that's more like a sense of life thing than actually knowing her really well. Then of course it may turn out that I was wrong, or she didn't want me, or other reasons for it to not work out - perhaps we work better as just friends. It's rare that people really "wow" me. In my experience, if it takes much longer for anything to happen it usually never does. Either I won't be interested or she won't. Often it ends in the friend zone.

Yes, probably, and I think that goes for "normal" people as well as other Objectivists. I personally wouldn't need much more than a couple of dates to decide(even that excludes like 99.99% of women from my list though). What I meant was that promiscuous people probably lie, atleast alot of women would. You're right that guys tend to boast though. Women risk being regarded as sluts, and if they actually are... well, it's not likely they will tell you the truth. I'm not saying you should assume all women are liars, only that it's a better and more accurate way to focus on their character(and if you learn that she has a good character it doesen't really matter if she's got 1 or 20 previous partners). I agree. Perhaps i'm strange, but I simply have zero interest in knowing or telling. I much rather focus on other things, and that a potential partner would do the same thing. I also find it rather interesting how someone would deal with the subject and what kind of assumptions they make.

Personally I don't ask and I won't tell. This is because I don't think a question like that will reveal much about their character. It's also easy to read too much into the answer, unless you start to digg real deep(which is probably as romantic as an interogation). If she's promiscuous, suffers from low self-esteem and malevolent i'll find out soon enough anyway. Besides, promiscuous people(especially women) tend to lie about it anyway.

Allright, i'll take your word for it. I have only studied the subject in relation to artistic anatomy.

Yes, they are shaped differently but side by side it would be tough to tell them apart based on size - atleast the ones i've seen. Individual differences tend to play a much bigger part here. However, women tend to have smaller waists and store more fat on the side of their thighs, which often creates a nice curve around the hip. I agree, and just to clarify... I was trying to argue against preferences being "hard-wired", or instinctive, as I don't really believe in that and think it goes against the concept of free will. Yes, men are more visually oriented and we look for very different qualities. A man does not have be easy on the eyes, handsome or pretty to appear masculine, but similar qualities are important for a woman to appear feminine. An interesting thing with looks though is that it seems like men and women respond in a very similar way to it, the difference seems to be mostly in the strength of the reaction. That response seems to make the person more inclined towards being the sexual agressor. It makes men more inclined to go over there and talk to the woman, and women often respond the same way towards good looking men(though it's much more rare that they act upon it). However, while we like to be the sexual "agressor", women generally don't. Women are rather sexually responsive, and no matter how good looking the man, looks alone will never take her there. On the other hand, a gorgeous and seductive woman could make quite alot of men completely loose their minds. I agree however that minor preferences can change depending on the person. Which is a good thing because the ideal partner is not something one can order according to specifications on Ebay. I mean, if I came across a great woman I wouldn't go; "Nahh... I don't know... she's wonderfull and all that, but i'm not sure about the green eyes, and she's got a crooked tooth - her elbows are sharp too...".

If those preferences are embedded in our biology, wouldn't it be irrational to try and go against it? I mean, if it's hard-wired in me to be attracted to wide hips(actually womens hips arent wider than mens, it's got more to do with fat deposits, but anyway) wouldn't it be rather futile, and possibly lead to unhappiness, to work against that? I think though that there's alot of speculation and bologne to such claims. However it could explain why I find it so hard to think when i'm confronted with a nice cleavage. But the survival value of such things are probably pretty limited(boob size is not very important, for example), and hell... a cavewoman is not something any many today would pursue - it's something to run from. What we respond to is what we regard as being feminine. Boobs, waist/hip ratio, bigger eyes, fuller lips, delicate jawline, longer neck, more slender features etc. are generally more feminine. Men tend to have stronger jaws and brows, broader shoulder, more muscle(especially in their upper bodies). Of course our biology has set up those differences, but we still make our own evaluations of them. Some of them, like Jake mentioned, are formed from an early age. Ultimately though are preferences are evaluations of different aspects of femininity.

There's a very simple explanation for that also(and perhaps i'm stating the obvious now). Beauty is harmony, and when it comes to facial features they are by nature incredibly subtle. The variation between people is in fact very small, but we are very good at picking up the differences because it's so important for our communication. Just a small change in the facial muscles can entierly change the mood we percieve in a face. So for example in surveys with digitally altered photographs someone can be made too look more attractive to the opposite sex just by small changes, like a slightly smaller/larger jaw or brow or just improving the symetry a tad bit. On the other hand, if that would make people notice flaws about themselves it could be mentioned that altering hairstyle and clothing can change the perception quite dramatically also. Healthwise though i've seen speculations saying that a persons health during the developmental stages can have an effect on how well the features develop.

I agree with that. BMI is not a good measure of anything, and health does not necessarily relate to beauty(of course in some ways it does but you can have an ugly surface and be healthy, and the other way around). I think it's true that there are alot of things that can be done to enhance ones beauty. Personally I tend to find the volitional aspect much more attractive than someone who just happened to be born with perfect features and a good waist to hip ratio(though I certainly appreciate such aspects also). However, I don't think all women could end up in a Playboy centerfold. Why do you coclude that such preferences are instintive and irrational? Would it be irrational to find the 20 year old hispanic lady more attractive? If so, why? I personally like dark eyes, slightly larger than avarage noses, love a delicate neck-to-jaw line, think boobs are great and a nice waist/hip ratio can get all cylinders firing. Is that also irrational, and if so, why? I have a very different explanation than calling it instinctive and irrational, but i'd like to hear your reasoning first.

When it comes to love, beauty is also the essence of sexual attraction for a man. Though beauty can also be a quality of the persons character the physical aspect is still rather important.

From the look of it(i'm not too familiar with HST, so this is just based on what been posted here) the majority of people use similar principles as HST advocates; not necessarily the same routines, but training based on similar lines of thinking. So for empricial data a regular exercise forum should have lots to offer. I think the empirical support for HIT would be alot weaker. This is not to say that it doesnt work, because it does, the question would rather be if it produces the best possible results. Just to be clear though, i'm not too interested in the old HIT Vs... debate. Having seen lots of them I know how nasty they can get, and with abanger already having set the standard for insults here I can sense where this is going. My personal position is that i've managed a complete transformation using HIT, but that i've also been able to work through a long plateu with(so far) great results using a very different approach. So I kind of stand in the "I don't know shit" corner here(well, okay, I do know some shit, but exercise science is incredibly complex).

Nothing wrong with playing a little rough, eh? She looks more like she's anticipating a kiss though.

I like Isabella Rossellini.

Okidoki, I can't resist cookies so.... Here's the abstract: This is from a scientific article based on alot of different research(references included in the full length version, which I hope will get attached with this post) Concurrent Strength and Endurance Training: From Molecules to Man. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 38(11):1965-1970, November 2006: Concurrent_Strength_and_Endurance_Training_From_Molecules_to_Man.txt

Did you hurt your knee from running or playing sports? Knee problems seem very common among runners, so if you're thinking about doing that for cardio it might be wiser to choose some other low-impact form of exercise. As for leg exercises I would ditch the Mentzer routines, atleast for now. If I understand your situation correctly your leg muscles have atrophied and your knees probably lack stability because of that. For that reason it seems lika a better approach to first build a solid "base", where you carefully work all the involved muscles before going for more abreviated routines. Low frequency and volume routines can work well for increasing strength but I don't think they will give a good, even, development unless that's already there. Basically, if you only do a couple of compound exercises it's likely that the strongest muscles will compensate for the weaker ones. I've seen that tendency with myself when i've worked on correcting poor posture. I don't know what exercises are safe for your knees, or if you need to have any such considerations. Generally speaking though, leg presses are probably among the safest. Squats can be really bad if you can't keep your knees stable(otherwise, if performed properly, they are great). Hack squats are like asking for trouble. Leg extensions, especially in the extreme positions, can create bad shearing forces that could potentially cause problems(it's generally a safe exercise, but that's for already healthy knees). Abduction and adduction exercises are very good for stable knees, especially good adduction machines which will also help activate the glutes(strong gluteals are very important, especially on compound movements like squats, as they help the knees from buckling in... strong adductors and gluteals can also help with problems like knock knees). A good start is probably a few sets of leg presses, a couple of sets of leg curls and then some abduction and adduction exercises where you do a little more on adduction. Of course consulting your doctor first and being careful not to cause any pain when doing these. One way to reduce the risk of injury is to also have good lifting shoes, even if it's only for leg presses. Alot of people use shoes with soft soles, like running shoes, which give not stability whatsoever. If you can't plant your feet steadily your knees will suffer from it. I like to add though that I have no experience with rehab, this is just from a general knowledge of the exercises involved. I hope it helps as guidelines though.

I started with Arthur Jones work, where I liked his reasonng and no-nonsense attitude. Even though I now disagree with alot of things I still regard him as a genius. Later I moved to Ellington Darden's work and other HIT stuff. Tried Mike Mentzer's Heavy Duty for a while too, but that did nothing for me. I've managed a complete transformation with HIT style routines(and diet, of course), but I also plateued for a long while and havent made progress until lately when i've experimented with higher volume. I regard HIT as a very time efficient way to get in shape for most people, but i'm not sure it brings the best possible results if used exclusively.

I agree that it's possible to build muscle while loosing fat. It's just much more difficult. In your case if you're geting back in shape and havent done any strength training for a long while then that's probably why you're seeing such good results. Often muscle gains are also confused with increased glycogen(ie water) and inflamation of the muscle fibres, something that's particularly true with beginners. What it amounts to is a better muscle tonus, but an increase in actual muscle protein is a whole different matter. It's hard to gauge though without an accurate way of measuring(for example a bod-pod or DEXA-scan). But anyway, I agree that it's certainly possible - especially if you're a beginner or re-gaining your old form. In the long run though it gets increasingly difficult, and it depends alot on what goals you have. Bulking does not necessarily mean no cardio. I'd say that's a completely optional thing. Personally i'm not much for cardio at all, ever(I regard it as a slow, booring torture and i'm skeptical towards the claimed benefits), but it's not something that has to be cut from a bulking cycle and alot of drawbacks can be avoided by separating it as much as possible from strength training and just keeping it at a reasonable level. Most commonly people get fat from bulking because they... well, do an Alfa. Meaning, poor self-discipline and just eat way too much. It's easy to fall into that because as you eat more your apetite usually increases, and if you don't watch out it gets out of control. I personally counter that by having some restraint and knowing when to pull the brakes, but that's just my own preference. Of course your goals should ultimately dictate the strategy. Someone who just wants to look reasonably fit should avoid adding too much fat, and it's probably better to always stay lean. For purposes geared more towards bodybuilding I think the most efficient strategy is to have proper bulk and cut cycles but always maintaining good self-discipline(the Alfa-way is not the best, but what can I say... I like cookies ). By bodybuilding though, I don't mean Arnold as that look is not achievable without a crapload of steroids.

I think bulking and cutting are a necessity for obtaining the best results. Sure, it's possible to maintain an energy balance and build some muscle. It's just that it takes much longer, and it's harder the less fat you have(the body can, after all, use body fat as a resource; giving something like 35 calories per lbs of fat per day). For most people this results in them slowly getting harder. Building muscle on a calorie deficit is extremely difficult if you're not a beginner, and even then it's pretty hard(and again, the less fat you have the harder it is). A calorie deficit is catabolic, meaning that you're going to have a tough time maintinging a positive protein balance with exercise alone. The situation can be improved somewhat with the help of nutritional timing, but that's pretty tedious and won't help much if you train very infrequently. This is why bulking and cutting cycles produce better results. When eating above maintenance calories you're setting the body up for a positive protein balance, ie an anabolic state, and you recover faster after exercise. And on top of that you get the very positive effects from strength training. When it's time to cut it should not be a problem mainting what you've gained, unless you're going for extremely low body fat. However, bulking is often misinterpeted as pigging out and eating everything but the kitchen sink. That's a perfect recipe for getting fat very quickly and seeing no improvement after cutting. A controlled "bulk" is a better alternative, where you eat perhaps 300-400 calories above maintenance each day - or whatever it takes to move your body out of homestasis. Individual differences should also be taken into account. Some people can gain mostly muscle by overeating, while others gain alot more fat. Those who are naturally thin and underweight tend to gain mostly muscle from overeating. On the opposite side you have people like me who have been overweight and will always find it easier to gain fat. Aside from that it's of course also a question about how strictly you want to live with your diet. As far as carido goes I think it's a waste of time. Controlling what you eat is alot less time consuming. Granted, some people may find better control on their apetite after cardio. Personally though, I wouldnt do more than go out for a walk just so I don't sit in front of the computer all day. When it comes to reducing fat it's all about the energy balance you create. On a negative energy balance you'll loose fat, it doesnt matter how you do it, and more intense cardio demands more energy. However, more intense and prolonged cardio also has a negative impact on muscle building(i'm not sure it burns muscle though, as it also has an anti-catabolic effect; if I have understood it correctly it's got more to do with causing different adaptations that "take out" each other - I can try searching for references if you're interested).

If your shoulders hurt after wide grip pull ups it's an indication that your shoulder rotators are weak and lack mobility. It might be worth it to specifically work on correcting that as weak rotators would make your shoulders more prone to injury and could have a negative effect on your posture(inwards rotated shoulders). For example exchaning pull ups for rows, adding face-pulls and some light rotator cuff work. After working on that for a while you might also find it easier to activate the lats when doing pull ups(especially if you can perform them with chest up, elbows out and going behind the neck).

You will not be good at running long distances without practicing running. This is both because it's a skill and because heavy strength training will not increase the amount of mithochondria very much in the muscles. I also doubt that a Heavy Duty routine will do anything to help your cardio; the imposed demands are just too low. I mean, your heart rate will reach like 150-160bpm for 5 minutes, tops, once per week. If you want good results on your cardio while strength training I suggest a more typical HIT-routine. For example: Breathing squats (20-30 reps) Pullovers (repeat) Calf raises (20-30 reps with a brief pause at top and bottom) Overhead presses Chins or lat pulldowns Dips (repeat chins/dips) Abs (This can be rotated with a push/pull-routine where you do deadlifts, presses and rows instead of squats, chins and dips). Perform everything to failure without any rest(run between exercises if you can). You can also try resting 5-10 minutes and then perform the routine again, and if you are really serious about cardio you can try finishing off with 10-15 minutes of HIIT on the treadmill(good for cardio, bad for strength).

Creed - Overcome

That one is new to me. Do you have any quotes?

And that is exactly why it sounds awful.