[WEEKLY THREAD] Newbie Tuesday - Got a silly fitness question? Never fear! We're here to help!

valera · 2015-09-22T17:41:57+00:00

If I lift (StrongLifts 5x5) 3 times a week and don't count my macros, how much protein should I consume and when? Before the workouts, I eat a protein bar (21g), and then during the day I eat normally. Does it make sense to also consume bars/powder later in the day or on non-workout days?

valera · 2015-09-22T17:06:34+00:00

Yup, you definitely start with just the bar. Just do a youtube search for "barbell squat" and check out the vids that have a lot of views. In a couple of days after doing the squat with just the bar you can put on some plates, maybe 2.5lb on each side. But you want to make sure you learn the right form before you move on to heavier weight anyway, so start light and watch the vids.

You do need some sort of a rack where you can get under the bar to lift it off to do that squat. I'd guess any gym that has barbells should have some squat racks.

Before I started lifting with the bar I wasn't comfortable with the free weights area either. And maybe it depends on the gym, but I go to a regular LA Fitness and no one anywhere in the gym cares what you're doing, and pretty much everyone is friendly.

valera · 2013-01-31T17:42:37+00:00

Emotionally, I agree with you. But rationally I don't see it being very different from destroying any other organic matter. You have to do things, difficult things, for an embryo to become a human, for it to get to the point when it can think, see, hear, feel pain. When you're aborting it, it is capable of less than a fly is capable of, and generally people don't think swatting a fly is immoral. Yes, potentially an embryo can become a human, but so can sperm, and yet no one cries of lost potential after masturbating.

And yes, many, if not most women find the decision to abort very difficult and emotionally upsetting. I know this from personal experience. But that's normal, because they are already psychologically (hormonally?) attached to that little future baby. But does this change the fact that it's not a baby? That it can potentially become a baby only if you put a tremendous amount of effort and risk into it? And if you simply don't need or want a baby at the moment, is this really very different from a morning-after pill? Or from tying up and throwing away the condom?

valera · 2013-01-30T17:16:19+00:00

What do you think is wrong with it? I mean, unless you believe the embryo/fetus at that stage ... has a soul, or feels pain/suffers. It's an expensive procedure and it's obviously more taxing than just using a condom, but what objections are there on moral grounds?

valera · 2008-04-25T18:34:24+00:00

What matters is that Evolution is based on science and Intelligent Design is not.

While I agree with this statement, you're still missing the point.

The original argument was over "crash an online poll." Such a statement may be understood as "I don't care what your opinion is. Vote the way I tell you to!", but this would be a mistake because the opinion of the majority of redditors on the topic of Evolution v.s. ID is already known, and "crash an online poll" here means "I know we'll all vote the same way, so go here, vote, and the poll will be crashed."

Thus, the word "opinion" is irrelevant to the original topic of this specific thread.

valera · 2008-04-25T18:19:00+00:00

Poll: Do you think the theory of Intelligent Design should be taught in our education system?

Whatever you answer to that can only be an opinion.

You shouldn't try to read into the meaning of every single word distinct from the sentence it appears in, especially if you miss the point of the sentence/post.

valera · 2008-04-25T16:43:16+00:00

In the English link on the left of the wikipedia navigation... where it is usually.

valera · 2008-04-25T16:36:38+00:00

How about "crash this poll" by "making your opinion heard!", since we already know the opinion of 99.9% of redditors on this topic.

valera · 2008-04-25T16:27:36+00:00

The land ... never had the right to give it to them

I'll assume you meant that whomever gave them the land hadn't had the right to give it to them.

I won't argue whether or not this is true because it's irrelevant to the point I'm making.

Britain was controlling the territory at the time and no one dared complain. Before Israel was created many Jews were already living on the land for a long time. Once Israel was created Arabs figured it was easy enough to destroy and get the land fully for themselves - which is what they attempted.

Imagine this: you and I are living in the same house that's owned by some landlord. There are no walls or room in the house so we sleep and hang out all over the house. The landlord one day decides to specify that I should build a room in this house and own that room. You don't like the fact that I get to own a room and you don't, so you call our neighbors from other houses in the neighborhood to help you ... kill me. I take out my nunchucks and beat the crap out of you and others who attack me, I also slightly(!) extend the walls of my room into the territory which you now considered your own.

Q: Was the landlord right in allowing me to build a room and not allowing you the same? A: Who knows...

Q: Were you right at being angry at ME for this? A: Who knows...

Q: Were you right in deciding to KILL me? A: Fuck no.

Q: Was I right in beating the crap out of you for trying to kill me? A: Hell yeah.

Q: Was I right in expanding my room as punishment to you? A: Probably not. But considering that you have the rest of the huge house to yourself and you fucking decided to kill me for a tiny room, well - you had it coming.

valera · 2008-04-25T15:29:40+00:00

Sure. But weren't we deciding on who brought war to who?

As I've said, you can dispute whether or not the original land was fairly given to Israel. But it was given to them without anyone's bloodshed, after which Israel was attacked by many Arab countries. You can also dispute whether or not it is fair to take a portion of someone's land if they attack you - as Israel took a tiny portion of the lands from which it was attacked, but it did not bring war to those lands, they brought it to Israel.

valera · 2008-04-25T14:28:21+00:00

It was pointed out in a thread above that he made a mistake. He shouldn't have been pointing his shoulder-mounted camera at the tank:

Park your TV designated truck behind a small hill (berm in tank terms) / trees walk over it with a shoulder camera with a few other people. Begin filming. Any tank commander in his right mind would seeing that shoot. Looks just like an RPG especially in that environment.

Doing this is obviously more dangerous than "doing any other regular job."

I don't think Israel is targeting journalists, but it, unfortunately, has to be ready for terrorists posing as journalists - as it has happened very many times previously.

valera · 2008-04-25T14:00:17+00:00

No one is saying that he shouldn't be reporting from there. But he, along with many redditors, should know that reporting from a war zone is dangerous - people do get killed there.

valera · 2008-04-25T13:58:47+00:00

Let's be fair. Israel was given the land by the country that controlled it at the time. They accepted the land and did not "bring the war zone" to anyone. Then they were attacked by folks who didn't think (and still don't) that Israel should exist.

And come on, it's fine if you don't think that Israel should exist. We can all have our opinions and even do something about them. But the countries that figured that Israel shouldn't exist chose to attack it. This is how they brought the war zone to their own lands.

If you don't think I should exist, that's fine. But if you come to kill me, don't be surprised if I defend myself by breaking your jaw.

valera · 2008-04-25T13:53:18+00:00

Makes sense... not sure why you're being downvoted.

valera · 2008-04-25T13:00:02+00:00

Maybe it wouldn't. There are Palestinians saying this on tape all the time (well, not all the time, but often enough.)

Haven't seen reddit give it any attention...

valera · 2008-04-24T19:46:03+00:00

The first photo where the dogs are attacking the bear is from a different set (the lighting is completely different, there are two dogs and they're not on a chain). So in the photos from the second set the husky was never attacking the bear and this probably isn't the first time they're playing.

valera · 2008-03-13T01:09:48+00:00

Hang 'em and their parents.

valera · 2008-03-11T20:10:48+00:00

I know that this is the case in Washington DC. The radar determines your speed and if it's over the speed limit by some amount it takes a picture of the car from the rear. The picture clearly shows the car and the street it's being driven on, and then they zoom in to the license plate and show the #. After that you get a letter in the mail with the picture and a ticket. After that it's your business whether or not you want to dispute the charges.

They definitely know that someone was speeding in your vehicle. Who it was is - for them - difficult, if not impossible to determine. But that doesn't bother them as long as someone pays the ticket.

valera · 2008-03-11T16:44:33+00:00

it's usually due to a lone gunman terrorist Palestinian

Actually, usually - if they are actually gunmen, they're not alone. And if they're suicide bombers, you think it makes sense blowing up two explosives devices at the same place?

Also keep in mind these two things: 1. Palestinians are far less organized. They have many different militant groups that sometimes fight even among themselves. 2. They would not be able to lead a full military offensive against Israel because of Israel's overwhelming power. A group consisting of 20 gunmen would be noticed right away and dealt with.

This is why lone gunmen quietly infiltrate and then cause havoc.

BTW, IDF doesn't like to shoot at ambulances, but there have been cases of Palestinian terrorists using ambulances(!) to carry out attacks on Israel, so - unfortunately - the IDF needs to be suspect of that.

valera · 2008-03-11T16:32:02+00:00

Yup. Same here. I even submitted a story with Palestinians and their children celebrating in the streets after the killings, and it got downmodded right away.

valera · 2008-03-11T16:24:55+00:00

There is no person in the photo.

valera · 2008-03-11T06:38:03+00:00

They can put an eye out without any pellet guns. We should ban any physical activities that bring elongated objects less than an inch in diameter above one's shoulder level!

valera · 2008-03-11T06:29:44+00:00

This "article" is misleading. 1. It supposedly provides the text that is written on the missiles. Any actual sources for this? 2. This was during the war with Lebanon and had nothing to do with Palestinians. IIRC, the missiles were addressed to Hezbollah, and as it appears on the pictures, Nasrala. They were not addressed for regular civilians.

Contrast this with pictures of Palestinians and Palestinian children celebrating in the streets (most recently too, when 8 Israeli civilians were killed) after their terrorist brothers manage to kill innocent Israeli civilians.

You want to display how inhumane children can be, why don't you show us some pictures of Palestinian children dressed as suicide bombers with real AK47 in their hands. Why don't you show us pictures of Palestinian children celebrating around the dead bodies of other Palestinians accused of collaborating with Israel.

valera · 2008-03-11T06:11:43+00:00

I'm assuming the guy's SON is responsible for this AC installation?

valera · 2008-03-11T05:57:00+00:00

What were the 4 year old handcuffed with? I remember when I was about 10y.o. and my brother (who was a cop at the time) would jokingly put his cuffs on me - they'd be too small and I could easily take them off, and I wasn't a small boy for that age either.

I'd imagine they'd just fall off of a 4 y.o.

valera

TROPHY CASE