taxi

I am older than I look. In my 40s now. But thank you for the compliment, I think!

I am making progress, just slow on the bench. About 5 lbs per month, which is actually pretty solid. If I can keep this up I'll have a pretty competitive set of lifts by the end of the year. Hoping to hit a 300 lbs bench and a 400lbs squat in about 6 months. Hit prs of 325lbs x 3 reps on the squat tonight and 245lbs x 5 reps on bench tonight. So feeling good

I wouldn't use DB bench press except for isolation work and only with much lighter weights. The barbell is a completely different exercise that is going to engage your back and chest a lot more. My bench press has stalled out a bit. I'm hitting two reps at 265lbs, but can't get that third. I started a Youtube channel to track my progress: If you look at my older videos, the bar is moving slower through the first two reps. So you could call that progress. Really finding the Youtube videos great for tracking my progress, and also to motivate.

2100 is about 80 years from now. Even without a major global catastrophe, I'd expect Canada's population to grow substantially by then. In the last 70 years, Canada's population ahs tripled. I'd be surprised if Canada didn't have at least 80 million residents by 2100.

Another problem is the excessive amount of Nimbyism in Vancouver. So many existing home owners stopping development. They claim they want to keep the "character" of Vancouver, but they are really just concerned with their own property values. What kind of character does this city have if young families can't afford to stay here. The city is pressured by the Nimbys into not giving building permits. This creates false scarcity, which increases the value of the existing housing substantially. Then when a building permit is given out, the land its given for becomes ultra valuable. A large developer with huge pockets sweeps in and builds only "luxury" units.

Zoning is definitely a major issue. Vancouver proper is filled with decaying warehouses, where there should be apartment buildings. There should be no restrictions on turning houses into multi family units and low rises. The burns are filled with empty farmland. Zoning has created artificial scarcity.

Printing more money, isn't going to create more houses, only drive the prices further up.

My concerns with the intraset is that if you are limiting yourself to a 30 second rest, you may not have time to properly set up between intrasets. You also may be spending more time resting and not exhausting yourself enough to make gains. However instead of going 2x2x2, you can probably get the exact same effect from a single set of 3-4. If you are finding it works, then stick with it though. Different people respond differently to volume, and the intrasets are definitely a way to increase volume. It also depends on what your goals are. If you're bodybuilding for more size, then yes you need more volume, and things like bench followed by incline bench on the same day are beneficial. If it's pure strength training, then you don't need as much volume, and you should only do one specific type of bench per day, using variations on off days when you feel too unrecovered.

I was stuck at plateaus for many years with my strength lifts. For me, I found the only way was to drop the reps and lift heavier. With bench, I'm currently aiming for a heavy set of 3 at 265 lbs. I hit a set of two the other day. To get there I will switch up my rep schemes, but never go more than 5 reps in a set. I also use pause reps. So I bring the weight down slowly, and then have an active pause at the bottom. So to train for 265lbs, I'll do active pauses at 235 lbs one day. Another day I'll do heavy singles at 265 lbs. Another day I'll do sets of 3-5 at 245 lbs or 255 lbs. Another day maybe 3 sets of 3 at 245 lbs. It's also important never to fail at a rep. You don't want to teach your body to fail. So go heavy, but not so heavy you will fail. I've found this very effective for me. Prior to this I was stuck at 8 reps at 205 lbs. Now I can do 8 reps at 235 lbs. It's not a super quick process, as I've been lifting for over 20 years and every gain has to be fought for at this stage. Almost everyday I do make some kind of improvement though. It'll be another rep at a lower weight, another rep at a later set, etc... I do wish I'd switched to this system 10 years ago, as I could have really maxed out my bench. The problem with lifting heavy is that you have to really know what you are doing to avoid injury. You have to have good form and have been lifting long enough to know your body. I wouldn't recommend trying to max out at all on any lift, until your a very experienced lifter.

Lol. Since when is Pettersson considered the pinnacle of fitness. He has a very underdeveloped physique for a professional athlete. He looks like a 15 year old who's never worked out before. Talented hockey player. If anything he just shows that hockey players don't need developed upper bodies to play at the top level Definitely leaning into his stomach. You can see the shoulders and back arching forward. Try it yourself. Sit and bend your shoulders forward. It's not a good look for anyone.

His spine and shoulders are curved forward. That's going to make your belly look bigger. But yeah, this guy still might be extremely fit, even though he has a little fat. Hockey involves working very hard for 30-45 seconds and then taking a rest. It's not a pure endurance sport, so a lot of players will have excess body fat, which isn't necessarily a disadvantage. Look at the current Andy Ruiz Jr. He's the former heavyweight boxing champ and capable of going 12 round with the best boxers in the world. Fat as F though.

He's leaning forward, is in natural light, and probably had a few beers before the pic. Yes he has a bit of fat, but unless you're involved in high end endurance sports having more mass can be a benefit, particularly in a full contact sport like hockey. Also being constantly bombarded by Instagram pics and movie stars taking steroids has drastically skewed society's views of what a fit person looks like. Having sub 10% body fat and being in shape aren't the same thing. In fact, a lot of people who get to very low body fats are being very unhealthy to get there.

Started using a belt and knee sleeves for my squats, and they're making a big difference. Providing me with stability so I can focus on putting power through my legs. Went for a set of 3 at 315lbs today, and it was easy so I hit 4. Hit a single at 340 lbs the other day too that didn't feel too hard. My goal right now is 400lbs, and I'm quickly closing in. Hopefully I won't get injured and can reach that goal in 6 months. This is all at 170lbs bodyweight.

Quite a bit different. A strict press is pure upper body strength. The jerk portion of the clean and jerk involves very little upper body strength. The athlete gets under the bar and has to catch it with locked out arms. So they aren't even allowed to press. They then push the weight to a standing position with their legs.

Lower back is best treated with prevention. It may not even be your lower back that's the problem. For example, hamstring or even ankle tightness can result in lower back symptoms. I'm always doing mobility work, but it's never enough. Between sitting and heavy weight lifting it's a recipe for tightness. It also wasn't just the lower back tweak that was difficult to get over, but there was a period afterwards where my body was more sensitive to potential injury, even though it wasn't actually injured anymore. Kind of hard to describe but it took a while for my body to get physically confident enough to lift heavy again, despite being physically recovered and psychologically ready to do it. For a while my back would definitely seize up easier than it had despite being fully recovered.

5 hours of cardio in one day? You're running a marathon everyday?

Between gym closures and a minor lower back pull I wasn't squatting heavy for a little while...lost a lot of my strength. Have it back now though. Hit a 295lbs x 3 squat, and a 315 single. Both felt relatively easy. Was finally able to do a treadmill workout without a mask, which was glorious.

Not only that, the coalition is crazy broad. It includes Bennett, who is outspokenly right wing. It also includes an Islamist/Arab party and a Green party.

It's not victim blaming. The Palestinians have played a role in their own circumstances. When you launch 3000 rockets into civilian areas, you deserve some blame. Your position that the Palestinians are victims and, therefore, cannot be blamed for any of the conflict is just bizarre and totally unsupported by the actual situation. The idea that you think being a "humanist" means allowing Hamas to attack as many Israeli civilians as possible is strange. You also realize that Hamas persecutes other religions, homosexuals, minorities, political dissidents, etc...And yes, once again, Hamas was voted into power. The people who voted for them deserve some of the blame for Hamas being in power.

I don't see how Irgun making attacks 100 years ago has any relevance to Hamas now. Israel is not just going to roll over, and they have no choice but to respond to Hamas' attacks. And no one disputes that the Palestinians aren't suffering more. However, it's not just Israel is to blame for the Palestinian suffering. It's anyone who is encouraging Palestinians to violently attack Israel, and it's partially Palestinians themselves. I don't understand how anyone who claims to emphasize "empathy" could ever do anything but fully denounce launching rockets at civilian areas. Especially, when they know the only outcome is going to be counter attacks from Israel. Also to clear up the stats, on statistics, I'm assuming this is what you are quoting: I don't know why you can't just say 5,600 dead. Instead you have to state "115,000 deaths and casualties". This includes Palestinians killed by other Palestinians and also militants. A "casualty" only refers to someone killed or disabled, not all injuries.

I've never once said Israel is totally innocent. In fact I'vev stated that Israeli hardliners have the intent of taking over the whole West Bank. Hamas being violent does strengthen the hardliners in Israel. That's a fact. If the Palestinians put Hamas in power, then things will be worse for them. So it's not "somehow", it's choosing violence over negotiation.

I never disputed this. The USA also gives billions to Jordan, Egypt, Iraq, and Afghanistan. It spends billions on it's allies outside of the middle east too. Look at the budget involved in maintaining it's presence in North Korea and Europe. That doesn't change the fact that when Israel gets attacked by Iranian funded Hamas, the result will be a counter attack.

What's your point? Who cares how others label military groups. It doesn't matter if Hamas is a terrorist organization. What matters is that they are militarily attacking Israel. The natural response is for Israel to attack them back. Hamas gets billions of dollars from Iran to attack Israel, in a war it cannot win. What do you expect to prove with this argument? Israeli citizens are just going to let Hamas kill their children, because you see some moral equivalency here?

That was the original plan before the Arab nations invaded Israel. There's zero chance of either nation accepting that now. A major deficiency with many of the arguments here is the they refuse to acknowledge Israel is under a very real threat. If they lose one war it's over. Israel isn't just going to give to strategic positions under the hope of having eternal peace.

Wrong. By my logic. Hamas would have to stop being an independent military organization attacking civilians. If the Palestinian government outlawed independent militant groups and brought them under the control of a centralized government, there would be far fewer problems. Instead the Palestinian government encourages and funds small militant groups, who then attack Israeli civilians. Hamas consists of hundreds of thousands of members and militants. The only realistic possibility is to have many of them incorporated into a larger Palestinian military/government. Instead of the current status quo, which is just to have them make rogue attacks against Israeli civilians.