Tags for this video have been changed from 'How To, Train, Mass, Arnold Schwarzenegger' to 'How To, Train, Mass, Arnold Schwarzenegger, bodybuilding, weight training' - edited by lucky760

Your assumption is incorrect. As I've stated repeatedly, I think people should be seen and assessed individually on the totality of their character. It's just that I see the inpracticality of that in institutional settings where a few people must assess tens of thousands of applicants in months. That necessitates putting people into groups and making assumptions, sometimes by necessity that's by race. Fund education better, they might screen better. Fund all education better, they might be able to abandon all criteria beyond past performance, but that just won't happen (but $12 billion for Trump's trade war's damage to soy bean farmers, no problem, who's next?).

Ahhh....but those discriminatory practices have, and still are encoded in the law against these groups in many forms. Some have been rectified, many not, and never has there been a reasonable attempt to make up the shortfalls/damages these policies have caused these groups over decades and centuries. If I beat you daily and take your lunch until 11th grade, then stop, it's still horrifically unfair of me to insist you meet weight requirements to be on my JV wrestling team and yet not offer you weight training and free lunch to help you get there. Same goes for groups, however you wish to divide them, that have been downtrodden.
Creating policies to address the damage done in order to get the long abused back to their natural ability level isn't bad unless they aren't ever modified once equality is reached. We aren't close yet.

Some won't, most do. You make a thousand little sacrifices for the greater good daily, one more won't hurt you. If your ability is actually equal to the poor kid trying to take your place, the advantages you have over them should make that point abundantly clear and your scores should be excessively higher. If they aren't, you just aren't taking advantage of your advantages, making them the better choice.

Time will tell, but I don't see this as political, I see it as rational realism vs irrational tribal wishful thinking.
My parents both worked at Stanford, and are Republicans, and both support giving less advantaged students more opportunities to excell, and both think diversity on campus benefits everyone to the extent that it merits using race and gender as points to consider during the application process if that's what it takes to get diversity.

Your main problem seems to be that it's decided purely by race. Let me again attempt dissuade you of that notion. Race is only one tiny part of the equation, and it's only part because they tried not including race and, for reasons I've been excessively sesquipedelien about, that left many races vastly underrepresented because they don't have the tools required to compete, be that education, finances, support of family, support of community, extra curricular opportunities, safety in their neighborhood, transportation, etc., much of which is caused by centuries of codified law that kept them poor, uneducated, and powerless to change that status. No white male with a 1600 and 4.0 is being turned away for a black woman with 1000 and 2.9, they might be turned away for a black woman with 1550 and 3.8 because she likely worked much harder to achieve those scores, indicating she'll do even better on a level field.

I don't see why Republicans care, they're now the proudly ignorant party of anti-intellectualism who claim all higher education is nothing but a bastion of liberal lefty PC thugs doin book lernin. Y'all don't want none of that no how. ;-)

Edit: note, according to reports I saw years ago, without racial preferencing FOR white kids, many universities would be nearly all Asian because their cultures value education above most other things so, in general, they test better than other groups.

Just read through this whole damn thread. And damn was that tiring. It's been a while since I've spoken up about anything on ye olde 'Sift, and now seems like a good time to do so.

Hi there, I'm a Type 1 Diabetic, and completely dependant on a regular dosage of insulin via a pump. I've been Diabetic for the last 15 years (diagnosed at age 15 during March Break of Grade 9). Thirteen years ago I was put on a pump because I was taking 9 shots a day to try and manage my wildly out of control "beetus". I was on a good diet as well, with few heavy carbs, but my body has a hard time maintaining a good balance of insulin sensitivity.

Now, on to the idea that Type 1 Diabetes can be "cured" or "treated" without insulin... Bollocks. Plain and simple.

Almost two years ago I set it upon myself to get fitter and healthier. I have never been overweight, just the less-than-average amount of fat I would say, but I was bored with how things were going and decided to try something new for my fitness routines; I went 100% Paleo.

Yeah, for almost two years I have rarely (and I mean rarely) eaten anything aside from fruits (one serving a day, two if I'm deserving of it) veggies, nuts and protein. Nothing processed, as little preservatives and chemicals as I can manage (I read *a lot* of nutritional labels when shopping for new foods) and I buy most of my meat and veggies from local farms and farmer's markets.

Has this helped my Diabetes? Extremely marginally. My insulin sensitivity has increased by a fraction... But that's it. Has my pancreas started creating its own insulin? Not a chance in hell.

While doing this whole paleo eating lifestyle I've also been doing a lot of intervals and weight training, and I've made some great strides. But back to the original idea of getting back to "natural" ways of living/eating and "curing" my diabetes? Yeah, no dice there, ladies and gentlemen.

I cannot be without my pump hooked up to my body for more than two hours before I would need to be sent to the hospital. Nothing I have done, with all my dedication, determination, and strong will, has made my Diabetes any "better" than it was when I was first diagnosed. If anything, it has taken more of my time and money and energy to get where I am now, with nothing to show for it from my condition's perspective.

If anyone, anyone at all, thinks they can cure Diabetes Mellitus by eating better and taking better care of themselves I'll suggest this: remove your pancreas and see if your body builds you a new one while you're testing out your hypothesis, because in all seriousness and fairness, that's what it's like to be Type 1. My body killed my pancreas making it a useless, lifeless organ. It will *never* awaken again to produce my own insulin without the help of true science and excellent doctors.

So, you know what I've done, and can take it from me that it will not cure you of your Type 1 Diabetes. Now I want you to tell me what I'm not doing to help "cure myself".

I'm an open-minded skeptic.

... But I'm not so open-minded that my brain will fall out.

>> ^NordlichReiter:

The reason you didn't lose weight when training for a marathon is because you were training for a marathon, not to lose weight. What I mean to say is that, most likely, you're body was storing up energy for the marathon.
In short three things: Diet, (Not going on a diet, but how and what you eat), Muscle Exercise, and Cardio.


I figure the long distance training made it impossible (and unwise) for me to maintain the calorie deficit in my diet. Now I'm looking for 5k events. While still motivating, I don't feel the pressure to replenish my reserves after a training run.

These days I'm doing well with a balanced diet (calorie restricted as much as I can stand), cardio (running and walking on alternate days), and weight training (working my way up to P90X).

The video above may be funny, but it also is motivating! If I let myself go, I would end up like them by the time I'm 50.

>> ^mgittle:
I'm just saying, "don't believe the hype". Despite strength training being an extremely common activity among athletes for a couple decades, emerging science is still calling into question many common and popular training practices. The following article is perfect for answering your query. I would strongly suggest anyone interested in weight training read and understand the entire article, but especially the sections about maximizing mTOR and minimizing muscle ATP usage, as well as the section about program features and tendon health. Oh...and don't forget push-pull methodology!
http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/strength-training-over
loading-increase-muscle-mass-40882

If you're doing something and it's working for you without injury, by all means go for it. Lifting weights is way better than not lifting weights. But, if you're looking to maximize your time and energy, which is always a concern for any busy person or (especially) athletes, there's always more to learn.
As for safety, training with machines is obviously safer than free weights. Machines are also ideal equipment for following the article's recommendations. When using a machine, angles are much more controlled (though you still need good form of course) and it's nearly impossible to drop anything. Any athlete would be best served by using machines since they offer the smallest chance of injury. Free weights and Olympic-style training may look flashy, but it's not an optimal way to train and has high chance of injury. Also, athletes need to spend most of their energy and time learning skills for their sport. Getting strong doesn't really take that much time in comparison to skills training.


@mgittle
Hey thanks for the link. There is definitely a lot of hype in exercises methodology and any real data is always appreciated. I'll look more in depth into this when I have the time.

>> ^mentality:
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.videosift.com/member/mgittle" title="member since September 25th, 2009" class="profilelink">mgittle
>> ^mgittle:
>> Repeated single rep maxes may be common, but that doesn't mean their use is an ideal way to train. Weight training programs (including those of college and pro sports teams) are full of bad information and cultural things that "work" but are in no way scientifically or practically sound if you're trying to maximize your time/energy spent and reduce the occurrence of injury.

Are you saying that single rep max is not the right way to train because you have proof of what scientifically and practically maximizes your time/energy? Or are you just saying it's controversial and you don't agree with this methodology? Some resources would be nice. Also keep in mind that 1 rep max is theoretically most efficient for developing strength, not muscle mass or endurance, and is hardly the only method of weight training that you'd do even if your focus is powerlifting.
As for the safety aspect, as with all lifting, it's important to warm up, use proper technique, have a spotter, and know how to safely ditch the weight when you fail. I don't think it's any more dangerous than other kinds of weight training.


Also every time I try to quote in my previous post, it just shows up as a bunch of broken HTML tags. So since I never would've looked here again if I didn't get the "soandso quoted you" email, so I'm semi-double-posting to try and fix it since you seemed genuinely interested in possible informations linkage type things.

Edit: ok so that didn't work and I have no idea why it worked yesterday but not today. It looks right in the preview so maybe it's just my browser for some unknown reason.

I'm just saying, "don't believe the hype". Despite strength training being an extremely common activity among athletes for a couple decades, emerging science is still calling into question many common and popular training practices. The following article is perfect for answering your query. I would strongly suggest anyone interested in weight training read and understand the entire article, but especially the sections about maximizing mTOR and minimizing muscle ATP usage, as well as the section about program features and tendon health. Oh...and don't forget push-pull methodology!

http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/strength-training-over
loading-increase-muscle-mass-40882


If you're doing something and it's working for you without injury, by all means go for it. Lifting weights is way better than not lifting weights. But, if you're looking to maximize your time and energy, which is always a concern for any busy person or (especially) athletes, there's always more to learn.

As for safety, training with machines is obviously safer than free weights. Machines are also ideal equipment for following the article's recommendations. When using a machine, angles are much more controlled (though you still need good form of course) and it's nearly impossible to drop anything. Any athlete would be best served by using machines since they offer the smallest chance of injury. Free weights and Olympic-style training may look flashy, but it's not an optimal way to train and has high chance of injury. Also, athletes need to spend most of their energy and time learning skills for their sport. Getting strong doesn't really take that much time in comparison to skills training.

@mgittle

>> ^mgittle:
>> Repeated single rep maxes may be common, but that doesn't mean their use is an ideal way to train. Weight training programs (including those of college and pro sports teams) are full of bad information and cultural things that "work" but are in no way scientifically or practically sound if you're trying to maximize your time/energy spent and reduce the occurrence of injury.


Are you saying that single rep max is not the right way to train because you have proof of what scientifically and practically maximizes your time/energy? Or are you just saying it's controversial and you don't agree with this methodology? Some resources would be nice. Also keep in mind that 1 rep max is theoretically most efficient for developing strength, not muscle mass or endurance, and is hardly the only method of weight training that you'd do even if your focus is powerlifting.

As for the safety aspect, as with all lifting, it's important to warm up, use proper technique, have a spotter, and know how to safely ditch the weight when you fail. I don't think it's any more dangerous than other kinds of weight training.

>> ^mentality:
>> ^Kevlar:
Clearly this gentleman is eschewing the 'multiple reps of smaller weights' approach that would be more appropriate to tone muscle; he's aiming for 'fewer reps of larger weights' for the purposes of muscle gain.
And by muscle gain, I of course mean heart explosion.

1 rep max is used to develop strength, not muscle mass. ie. 1-1-1-1-1-1-1 with as much rest in between as necessary is common in powerlifting and strength and conditioning programs. You don't do this if you're a body builder and want to look like Arnold.
Also, this guy is clearly a noob considering his form is terrible.


Repeated single rep maxes may be common, but that doesn't mean their use is an ideal way to train. Weight training programs (including those of college and pro sports teams) are full of bad information and cultural things that "work" but are in no way scientifically or practically sound if you're trying to maximize your time/energy spent and reduce the occurrence of injury.

damn I wished I lived somewhere I could make use of a scope like that. great f-'ing pics dude. share moar pleez!

btw - that weight training thing seems to have paid off. nice job.

Maybe this is an area that credible journalism would find it difficult to go.
money + fanaticism + nutjob is not a calming mix.

In reply to this comment by raven:
Yeah maybe, I watched it, and there is not much to report... they basically spent about 10 minutes on it, and just replayed a lot of stuff from the vid and focused on whether or not Tom Cruise was #2 in the church or not, and why he got into it in the first place, and some of the basic history of the Church and celebs... they interviewed the author of that new biography, and talked to Tom's Lawyer... there wasn't a whole lot of critical thinking going on though, and they stayed away from the really creepy and interesting subjects like Tom's wish for there to be no SP's in the future (SP= suppressive people, so basically, us), or the claims about how he has saved people's lives or cured "Ground Zero cough", which, frankly, I would like verified, as I've never heard of that before and it seems highly inflated.

But, that's what you get, 20/20, like most American 'journalism' these days, is utter fluff... they soon moved on to another fluff piece about how the mayor of a small town in Oregon posted pics of herself in a bikini (her hobby is weight training and body building, so, go fig) on her MySpace page and the ensuing small town fracas it has caused, but yet again, failed to ask any interesting questions that are fundamental to the story, mostly they just interviewed some old guys at a barbershop... sigh...

In reply to this comment by Thylan:
sounds fun. hopefully if its good, that will get on th net too.

In reply to this comment by raven:
There is a special 20/20 scheduled for tonight at 10 that is supposed to address it... I am counting down the minutes.

In reply to this comment by Thylan:
You have to love how the internet is so determined not to let this die, and how that has matched their determination to take this down.

If this clip ever gets shown on national news somewhere, just cos, I'd love to hear about it.

Yeah maybe, I watched it, and there is not much to report... they basically spent about 10 minutes on it, and just replayed a lot of stuff from the vid and focused on whether or not Tom Cruise was #2 in the church or not, and why he got into it in the first place, and some of the basic history of the Church and celebs... they interviewed the author of that new biography, and talked to Tom's Lawyer... there wasn't a whole lot of critical thinking going on though, and they stayed away from the really creepy and interesting subjects like Tom's wish for there to be no SP's in the future (SP= suppressive people, so basically, us), or the claims about how he has saved people's lives or cured "Ground Zero cough", which, frankly, I would like verified, as I've never heard of that before and it seems highly inflated.

But, that's what you get, 20/20, like most American 'journalism' these days, is utter fluff... they soon moved on to another fluff piece about how the mayor of a small town in Oregon posted pics of herself in a bikini (her hobby is weight training and body building, so, go fig) on her MySpace page and the ensuing small town fracas it has caused, but yet again, failed to ask any interesting questions that are fundamental to the story, mostly they just interviewed some old guys at a barbershop... sigh...

In reply to this comment by Thylan:
sounds fun. hopefully if its good, that will get on th net too.

In reply to this comment by raven:
There is a special 20/20 scheduled for tonight at 10 that is supposed to address it... I am counting down the minutes.

In reply to this comment by Thylan:
You have to love how the internet is so determined not to let this die, and how that has matched their determination to take this down.

If this clip ever gets shown on national news somewhere, just cos, I'd love to hear about it.

I say good job to DC and AW - and keep it up, whatever is making you happy.

But I think the most important thing is being left unsaid - at least in waters' intro vid and in this forum - LOVE THYSELF!

Also, and I suppose it's obvious, there is a huge difference between weight loss and weight training. Having the goal of a healthy body versus the goal of a ripped sixpack requires an entirely different kind of dedication. The latter requires a level of motivation that strains the imagination (at least for me). The former, however, really only requires some basic daily exercise. Either way, whatever your goal - make sure it's your goal, and not that of some idealized hero.

akis usually does a bit of powerball before (and after?) weight training. - fiarly sure hes into arm wrestling.

anyhow, yeah their actually really good if you use them right.