Sep 14, 2025
seen from United States
seen from Belgium
seen from Belgium
seen from China
seen from United States
seen from Estonia
seen from Thailand
seen from United States
seen from Belgium
seen from Yemen
seen from Malaysia
seen from Belgium
seen from Yemen
seen from Belgium
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Belgium
seen from Malaysia
seen from Angola
seen from United States
seen from United States
rep 1: i am confirming the weight feels just as good as it did during warmup
rep 2: i am counting to 5
rep 3: more than halfway done to 5
rep 4: i need no extra breaths
rep 5: i remember these are called breathing squats*
rep 6: refocus on hamstring activation
rep 7: i am counting to 10
rep 8: anyone can count to 10
rep 9: breathe god damn you
rep 10: i straighten my lower back
rep 11: just 5 more
rep 12: anyone can count to 5
rep 13: bonus breath
rep 14: panting
rep 15: dont look down to pant, chest up
rep 16: just 3 more
rep 17: perhaps i will stop
rep 18: well it would be very stupid to stop now
rep 19: just do a single
rep 20: i am going to stand here and breathe until the pain of not being done is greater than the pain of finishing
*Super Squats, Strossen, Randall J., Ironmind Enterprises: 1989.
istockphoto image (sort of deceptive because in the 4th pic the cup is flipped rightside-up while in the first 3 it is upside-down, so the hamster did not achieve its victory on its own, but rather needed human intervention. I still like the image though - it sort of reminds me of those “progression of man” images with the ape, caveman, and series of humans walking progressively more upright.)
Feyerabend, who defended astrology and creationism, denied that he was antiscience. The weirder things get, the more relevant Paul Feyerabend becomes. Maybe that’s why the name of this philosophical trouble-maker has been popping up so much lately. See for example this four-part riff by philosopher Massimo Pigliucci on Feyerabend’s “defense of astrology.” I interviewed Feyerabend in 1992, and profiled him—as well as Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn--in my 1996 book The End of Science. I like to emphasize all the ways in which things are getting better (see for example “Yes, Trump Is Scary, but Don't Lose Faith in Progress”), but Feyerabend’s ferocious critiques of “progress” seem more apt than ever. Below is an edited version of my write-up of one of the most challenging, entertaining thinkers I’ve ever met.
“At the end of Farewell to Reason, Feyerabend addressed an issue "which has enraged many readers and disappointed many friends--my refusal to condemn even an extreme fascism and my suggestion that it should be allowed to thrive." Feyerabend suggested that condemning fascism would imply, wrongly, that it has been vanquished:
"I say that Auschwitz is an extreme manifestation of an attitude that still thrives in our midst. It shows itself in the treatment of minorities in industrial democracies; in education, education to a humanitarian point of view included, which most of the time consists of turning wonderful young people into colorless and self-righteous copies of their teachers; it becomes manifest in the nuclear threat, the constant increase in the number and power of deadly weapons and the readiness of some so-called patriots to start a war compared with which the holocaust will shrink into insignificance. It shows itself in the killing of nature and of 'primitive' cultures with never a thought spent on those thus deprived of meaning for their lives; in the colossal conceit of our intellectuals, their belief that they know precisely what humanity needs and their relentless efforts to recreate people in their own sorry image; in the infantile megalomania of some of our physicians who blackmail their patients with fear, mutilate them and then persecute them with large bills; in the lack of feeling of many so-called searchers for truth who systematically torture animals, study their discomfort and receive prizes for their cruelty. As far as I am concerned there exists no difference between the henchmen of Auschwitz and these 'benefactors of mankind.'"
...
“[hHis wife] said she had been infuriated when another physicist first described Feyerabend's views. "Someone was taking away from me the keys of the universe," she explained. When she read his books, she realized his perspective was far more subtle than his critics claimed. "This is what I think you should want to write about," Borrini told me, "the great misunderstanding."
"Oh, forget it, he's not my press agent," Feyerabend said.“
...
Feyerabend added, "Of course I go to extremes, but not to the extremes people accuse me of, namely, throw out science. Throw out the idea science is first. That's all right. It has to be science from case to case." After all, scientists often disagreed among themselves. "People should not take it for granted when a scientist says, 'Everybody has to follow this way.'"
If he was not anti-science, I asked, what did he mean by his statement in Who's Who that intellectuals are criminals? "I thought so for a long time," Feyerabend said, "but last year I crossed it out, because there are lots of good intellectuals." He turned to his wife. "I mean, you are an intellectual."
"No, I am a physicist," she replied.
Feyerabend shrugged. "What does it mean, 'intellectual'? It means people who think about things longer than other people, perhaps. But many of them just ran over other people, saying, 'We have figured it out.'"
I really enjoyed this article, it was very well written with lots of good humor and thought provoking subtleties. I am working through some philosophy books I’ve had sitting around for a while and I didn’t even know about my guy here. Sure, I don’t agree personally with everything, but as far as the weight and speed we’ve expected of progress, the focus on what is unknown or unknowable rather than the linear progression to scientific glory, the relativity of knowledge, at an individual level, and the ability to adapt and change our opinions as we grow... well, it’s important to talk about. And following my rant about Objectivism in Anthropology, it seemed like a good opposite-extreme to continue with. ^-^
The importance of novice programming
One of the most difficult tasks facing a novice is how to determine the optimum training volume—how many sets, reps, and exercises should I do? How many days a week should I train? What weight should I use? How much cardio should I do?
There is no single right answer to any of these questions. The answer varies widely dependent on a great number of factors, including but not limited to:
Exercise history (type, frequency, time since training regularly)
Age
Body composition
Injuries and limitations (such as mobility restrictions)
Individual tolerance for exercise
Goals
Time you are able to commit to training
Consistency of training
This is why, for novice trainees, the application of a simple, structured, progressive program is so important. A novice simply lacks the data to accurately gauge the correct answers to these questions. The purpose of a novice program is not to find the optimal exercise prescription right away—that takes months or even years—but to gather data.
Who is a novice?
A novice is someone who meets any of the following three criteria:
No regular exercise for 3 months or longer
This might seem counter-intuitive the case of advanced athletes who just take a long break, but even an advanced competitive athlete will have to spend time in a novice-type program following a long hiatus in order to optimally evaluate and redevelop their tolerance for training
Lack of experience executing basic compound exercise with consistent precision within clearly delineated technical parameters—in other words, having excellent technique in major lifts (squats, deadlifts, presses, rows, etc.) and lots of practice (for a rote novice, that can be anywhere from 6 months to 2 years) executing that technique.
Lack of prior experience or current conditioning in a given modality (i.e. strength training, kettlebell training, Olympic weightlifting, high-intensity interval training, etc)
Pretty simple! A novice isn’t just a rote beginner; it’s also someone who hasn’t trained consistently in a while. Someone who regularly misses workouts or fails to train consistently for an extended period of time will have a lot of difficulty moving past the novice stage.
Novice programming: simpler is better
Keeping in mind the goals of the trainee, a novice program should not be complicated. The goals may be any combination of:
General strength
Muscle mass
Muscle endurance
Aerobic capacity
Fat loss
Post-rehabilitation functional strength
Because we’re biased toward the simplicity and efficacy of barbell training here at Styrka, we generally recommend that novices begin by following a basic strength training program comprised of a small number of compound exercises (squats, deadlifts, pull-ups, rows, presses) for 3-5 sets of 3-5 repetitions per exercise, 3 sessions per week. Squats are trained every session, with the other exercises rotated. The weight starts as light as is needed for the trainee to demonstrate sound technical execution, and the weight is increased in small increments every session—this is called linear progression.
Regardless of the long-term goals, we generally recommend that accessory exercises, such as dumbbell exercises or cardio, be avoided at first. We want to begin with a simple program and assess tolerance. Often, just a simple exercise program can be pretty taxing for a novice. Each month, we can reassess the athlete and adjust the program as need. If fat loss is the goal, we can begin adding in cardio—again in small increments that increase very gradually. If muscle mass is the goal, we can start adding in moderate volume dumbbell work.
The key is to add as few variables as possible at any given time, so that the trainee is progressing consistently. Consistent progress in a limited number of variables will always, without exception, produce significantly better results than inconsistent progression across a wide variety of variables.
Trying to do too much
Too often, novices get excited about working out and they want to have it all. They want to be leaner, stronger, and more muscular. They want to have more endurance and better flexibility. But all of these domains require specificity of training. Sure, there is crossover—heavy barbell training, for example, can be very demanding on the cardiovascular system and will unquestionably develop muscle mass. But the primary goal of such training is the development of sound, consistent biomechanics and general strength, and it’s important to assess the trainee’s tolerance in basic training before expanding the modalities.
That’s why the best program for a novice is a simple on. You have to learn to walk before you can run! There are trendy fitness classes whose approach is constantly varying the training modalities and prescriptions, with the intent of “chasing fatigue” rather than ensuring the athlete is making consistent, measurable progress. Start small, take one step at a time, and you’ll accomplish great things.
Are you a novice looking to get started on the right foot? Visit our coaching page to find out how we can help!
Whiskey is bad for training.
My rad brother was in town Monday and we trained but oh it was very hungover.
LBBS 3x5 @ 75. I accidentally made a 10# jump and it was hard but not as hard as it could have been. Feeling like 100 is not far off and that is very rad. I’m chasing Annemarie’s numbers hard, hopefully I can catch up to he squat before my LP plateaus!
OHP 3x5 @ 50 again. It was awful. The end
DL 1x5 @ 105 and it was awesome. Matt helped me with my setup since I’m basically learning this lift all over again. I’m finally understanding the “squeeze your chest up” cue and I get to drop my butt a little bit in order to get my arms and shoulders where they should be. Bad news is he wants to to start hook grip now so I will be used to it when the weight gets heavy. Blah! So ouchy. Guess I’d rather now than later though.
I did like five reverse hypers before I felt like ass, and I barely walked, so accessory work was a bust. Don’t drink and lift kids!
Wednesday:
LBBS 3x5 @ 80. It was hard! But good! But hard! The technique is not all there and I need to allow myself more warmup time to focus on technique. I might actually do back off sets, I’ll ask my brother about it, because I don’t want time spent on eccentric movement in warmup to gas me for my work sets, but extra technique work would be a god thing for me I think. The good thing is my form breaks down less now than it ever has, and it doesn’t hurt when it breaks down like it used to so that’s a win too.
Bench 3x5 @ 57.5 Overall it’s feeling good, I guess my chest is finally understanding what I’m supposed to be doing. Slow and painful but in the right way I suppose.
Lat pulls @ 70, Chins at 70, 5x5 each alternating sets. One “heavy single” chin at 100 with a slow negative. I’ve decided to back off on volume sets and go for intensity instead so I can make bigger jumps in weight. Since I won’t start with a lot of chins it’ll be silly to work up to it by doing a lot. Maybe back off sets for these? Or just the heavy single? Dunno. Trying to get close to what’s recommended for people who can actually do negatives, which I can’t yet. Looking forward to it some day!
No walking so I could get home to The Spurs and The Wife. Back on My Fitness Pal to track macros, and I bought a kitchen scale today. No more guessing!!! Getting seriouser and seriouser.
LIFTLOG: “*pretending to listen, but really wish the person talking to me would stop talking*”
150527 MINI LP WEEK 1 DAY 2 Squat: 285x5x3 (+10 from last session) Dead: 345x5x1 (+10 from last session) Hip Stretches Front and Back 1:15 each side and front/back (+15 seconds from last session) Looks boring, but I was glad to have a punch the clock day. Couldve easily jumped 15-20lbs from previous session, BUTTTTT I might as well take the long road. Really working on my hips, not for depth but more for width of stance with my current depth. Ive also started to video squats and deads more now so ill upload it tonight. Mobility after is programmed/going to be progressed. Ive REALLLLLLLLLLLLY ignored it for way too long. So Ill hit some hips, which the kneeling hip stretch statically hits my hams too. I have chronically tight upper hamstrings.
Assignment #5.2 Alicia C
"Dissonance, if properly contained within what he (Schenker)called a 'linear progression', is a principal source of musical content, interest, and motion (a linear progression is a stepwise structural line that guised the music). But if dissonances are allowed to piled up outside the control of the linear progressions, the musical body becomes disabled. Properly controlled, dissonance enables mobility; uncontrolled, dissonances impair mobility - they produce musical 'paralysis,'..."
-Joseph Strauss, "Disability Within Music-Theoretical Traditions," 118
This quote presents illustrates the bodily image-scheme SOURCE-PATH-GOAL. It supports Strauss's argument that the language about music is always and inevitably metaphorical. By the lexicon used in the quote it also gives validation to the statement introduced at the beginning of the chapter that the central metaphor of the music theories surveyed in the chapter is that a work of music is a human body. Dissonances resembled unhealthy or malfunctioning organs in a human body, stigmatizing it as undesirable and threatening to integrity of the structure/consonance/normal.