assassin_696

Doesn't matter, they're still shown a lot on the television. Cricket doesn't have a particularly big following at the county level ("leagues") but there are national matches all the time (unlike football), which have a very big following. Rugby has a big following too.

Bit of a rant... Tbh I've never really come across this attitude. Of course people who play it and watch it a lot will probably consider it their favourite sport but I don't hear that many people claiming it's the best. Rubbish, never watched rugby?

I think your program is solid enough such that it's not the limiting factor. Weight at that level is purely a function of how much food you can be bothered to eat. Don't sweat the source of the calories too much. If you were to drink 4-8 pints of whole milk a day that would be an easy way to get extra calories in with good protein/fat ratios and contents.

Well then we disagree. Don't get me wrong, I do love CrossFit, the philosophy, structure and training and have recommended it to a lot of people and done a lot of the workouts myself. I just don't think this method is any more scientific. It probably does produce the most generally fit person, but not the most specifically fit. I don't see why general fitness is any more ultimate than specific, I agree it's probably more useful and interesting on a day to day basis but winning the Tour de France is still winning the Tour de France and in that specialisation the winner is the ultimate marker for fitness. But that's only one way of measuring it.

Static hold core work is also very important (for any lifting regime, but they work the abs nicely too) plus some dynamic core stuff. E.g. [hide]1) Sprinter Double Leg Sit Ups - 2) Reverse Leg Curl + Leg Lower - 3) Hip Pop Ups - 4) Plank Get Ups - 5) Side Plank - 6) Hip Touch & Reach - 7) MB Oblique Twists - 8) Plate Shifts - [/hide]

How many times can you exercise a week? I think you're right in that intervals would be most beneficial, but building an aerobic base by doing longer endurance is also important. If I were you, I'd do something like a 100m sprint followed by 50m walk as many times as you can without the sprint pace dropping too much. Aim for 10+ Shuttle drills would also be good for football, something like sprint 10m, back to base line, sprint to 20m, back to baseline, sprint to 30m etc. up to 100m + I mentioned an aerobic base, best thing for that is doing one long run or cycle per week if you can. The aim with this isn't to knacker yourself but to improve your overall CV fitness, which carries through to any sprint stuff you do. If you can get a heart rate monitor that would be good, for the AT (sprint) training your heart rate should be 90-100% of it's maximum (~200) whereas for the endurance stuff it'll be about 50-60%.

Optimum Nutrition is the one everyone raves about, but I'm not sure if it's really any better. As part of a sponsorship thing, CUBC (Cambridge University Boat Club) gets a 25% discount on SiS (Science in Sport) products, which are supposedly the only protein products tested for athletes (i.e. for dodgy additives that might show up in a doping test) but they're still not that cheap even with a discount. I just get Optimum Health standard whey protein. I don't think I take it regularly enough to see massive results but it's a useful post-weights recovery drink and all important extra calories right?

Yeah I'm familiar with the philosophy, I'm just saying there might still be "specialised" top athletes who, by nature of their sport, are still general enough to outperform CF athletes. I used the example of rowing, because top olympic rowers have phenomenal aerobic, anaerobic and lactate thresholds by the very nature of the their sport. Boxers spring to mind too. I'm not denying that top CF's are extremely fit in many different aspects of fitness, I just think there are also still professional sports out there that require enough generalist training to be competitive. My point about Lance Armstrong obviously wasn't that he'd be competitive in these kind of things, it's that how you define fitness still seems pretty subjective to me. You're going for the generalist option of someone who is very strong, balanced and has good cardio fitness within the parameters of these CF games is the fittest, but that's still artificial. CF is a good program in the way it's generalist but there's no way you could train for something like the Tour de France or the Marathon de Sables by doing it because it places different demands on the body. I could equally define fitness as "who can ride up Mt. Ventoux the fastest?" which is obviously no mean feat and then some Tour de France skinny hill climber could do it quicker than anyone. Basically, what I'm trying to get at is that fitness is subjective unless you're going to quantify it with something like VO2 max. Since it's subjective the winner of the CF games is no "fitter" than the winner of the heavyweight world title, they just have different types of fitness. Likewise even if you did choose to define fitness in a very general way there may still be some sportsmen (i.e. rowers) who could compete in those kind of games.

CrossFit's intense stuff, I have a lot of time for those workouts and the philosophy behind it. Will it determine the physically fittest person alive? Pretty hard to say, I can't think of anything else that gives a better all round representation of strength, aerobic fitness and balance/coordination etc. But it's got to depend entirely on how you define fitness, because as fit as an amateur who does CF daily workouts to a high standard would be, they still wouldn't be able to touch someone like a Tour de France rider for stamina and VO2 max. Basically, specialisation of top athletes in their sports means that they would be able to destroy CFitters in many of the individual challenges, but possibly not all round. I'm possibly biased, but I'd wager that the top rowers in the world would be as strong, balanced, flexible and have superior cardio to the winner of the CF games, just as an example. For sure the winner will be insanely fit, but it's hard to see them reaching the level of the world's best athletes with dedicated coaches, nutrition and tailored training programs with just lots of WOD's.

Didn't go to the cinema to watch much this year, but top three would be: Toy Story 3 Inception The Expendables

Vaguely... 1. Kanye West - My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy 2. The Tallest Man On Earth - The Wild Hunt 3. Bob Dylan - The Bootleg Series Vol. 9 The Witmark Demos: 19621964 4. Bruce Springtsteen - The Promise 5. Tame Impala - Innerspeaker 6. Beach House - Teen Dream 7. Arcade Fire - The Suburbs 8. Vampire Weekend - Contra 9. Girl Talk - All Day 10. LCD Soundsystem - This Is Happening

It's strange, intuitively I'll always try and sleep to something soft and gentle when I'm trying to sleep on a journey, but I find the nuances and intricacies hold my attention too much. Slap on a bit of hard rock though and I'm sleeping like a baby. No idea why. I never try and fall asleep to music at night though, doesn't do it for me.

No I perfectly get your point, I just don't think the university environment is as important as you make out for personal development. The "solid advantage" you mention for me is represented by the higher than average salaries of university graduates compared to other earners. If they're getting an advantage like this in terms of skill-set or personal development then I just can't see the argument why people who don't have that advantage should pay towards that. I get that they add value to society and hence economic growth so there's an argument why the government should subsidise, but I haven't seen any arguments that the increase in tuition fees will see a decline in the number of people graduating with solid degrees that will add value to society. And again, I'm not denying that there might be a causal link between education and growth (although solid causal links in macroeconomic trends are essentially bunk) but that link will probably be geared a lot more towards STEM subjects which are still going to be subsidised in the current proposals (and the science budget has been frozen in real terms instead of cut which is a massive testament to the importance of science in driving growth). My argument is primarily that the economic benefits of someone studying English literature for three years, learning some life skills and a certain academic skill set does not outweigh the economic cost of the government paying for that kind of degree. I mean, essentially they are because of the loan system so there's no barrier to entry and the cost of the degree is only repaid by the graduate once they are earning over a certain amount. This just seems fair to me, since everyone still has the chance of going to university regardless of current financial status.

More contradictions, more hypocrisy. How can anybody keep up with this society? :roll: What? Show me the contradiction and hypocrisy in that.

It's nice that people can learn maturity and find themselves whilst studying history, but that benefit to society is not as direct as learning applicable skills and you haven't convinced me that with a massive deficit taxpayers should still be paying for people to learn more about themselves. I don't doubt that people do learn skills studying arts and humanities, but the benefit is hard to quantify and the link between GDP and education levels could be correlation not causation. Even if they don't go to university they'll still have had many years of education and will be still adults. People can learn all the essential life skills that uni might teach them in a job that might be better suited to them in the first place. I don't buy the link between subsidising arts and humanities and government paying less in the long run. I'm not saying all funding to universities should be cut, that's a separate argument. I think the government should subsidise these kind of courses whenever possible for their own sake, but in the current economic argument it's pretty hard to justify. The argument about tuition fees however is separate.

I think a proper kiss always indicates some kind of sexual attraction. Which can be in the context of a relationship or just a one-night pull. I guess maybe the kiss has become slightly devalued, but pulling someone is never really worthless and is something people will still talk (usually gossip) about afterwards even if it was just in a club, which I think shows that it still has a special status. I don't really think it's a problem that it's done a lot outside of a relationship now. Like sex, it's fun, so why not? It doesn't make it any less special when it's done in a relationship.

False argument. Higher education will still be free at the point of entry for anyone because the loans will cover the increased tuition fees. The cost of living won't rise except in line with inflation so the maintenance grant will still cover that. I think the protesting students are taking a very privileged view that taxpayers should be paying for their degrees which are often being studied for the sake of their own interest. Of course degrees like science, medicine and engineering are adding value to the economy but is something like history? If people want to study that then that's fine but I haven't heard a good argument why taxpayers who might not have had the desire to go study their passion for three years should be paying for that. The deficit is a real and unavoidable problem, other public sectors are all sharing the cost of the cuts, why shouldn't higher education? It's hard to say what the effect will be but if it improves the quality of courses and cuts out all the mickey mouse degrees then that will be a good thing. If it cuts down the number of students taking degrees then that's probably a good thing too, since a lot are essentially unnecessary for their future jobs. I haven't seen any good arguments as to why it will decrease uni access.

Ah dammit. :razz: Iron & Wine - The Sea & The Rhythm http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MK7cmlJ-T0 [hide]Tonight we're the sea and the salty breeze The milk from your breast is on my lips And lovelier words from your mouth to me When salty my sweat and fingertips Our hands they seek the end of afternoons My hands believe and move over you Tonight, we're the sea and the rhythm there The waves and the wind and night is black Tonight we're the scent of your long black hair Spread out like your breath across my back Your hands they move like waves over me Beneath the moon, tonight, we're the sea [/hide] Poetry to make love to, for sure.

Yeah I know the release date isn't until Monday but I've got it physically pre-ordered so I don't feel bad about having an early sneek peak. Has anyone else heard it? It's seriously phenomenal, completely over the top in so many ways but Kanye is at his absolute best acknowledging all his flaws but carrying on regardless. The production on all the songs is gorgeous, although Runaway, Blame Game and Lost in the World stand out in this respect for me. Chris Rock's skit at the end of Blame Game manages to be both hilarious and heartbreaking when you consider it in the context of the whole song. Nicki Minaj's verse on Monster absolutely kills. I was pretty excited about this album and hoped it lived up to expectations, but it's smashed them for sure.

I pretty much know the square root of f-all about training for running so I'd take other people's advice on that front over mine, but assuming a 1 mile run is similar to a 2k rowing machine test in terms of mix of endurance and power (they're comparable time wise) the best way to train for those is to mix interval training of varying length, with longer steady state pieces each week plus one hard distance piece each week. So to equate it, maybe run for 30-60 mins 2-3 times a week at a reasonably comfortable pace, do varying length sprint intervals and one ~20 minute run where you push hard each week. It's the combination of anaerobic, aerobic and psychological training that makes this kind of mix effective for rowing fitness and I don't see why it should be too different for running. For sprints I'd work on explosive power as someone else said, box jumps, sled drags and squats are all good.

Had three rowing outings in the last three days after two weeks off due to "mystery killer virus" (baaad flu). The outing yesterday was a bit sloppy but today felt much better, felt like everyone was actually pushing all the way through. I have weights tomorrow morning then an erg (ah the joys of 2x30 mins...) tomorrow evening. Tuesday I will sleep lots and lots.

After I first started properly benching, probably about 3-4 years ago now, I had a bit of a nightmare when I got a puny 120lbs stuck on my chest with no spotting partner. Had to try and roll the bar down my body until I could sit up and try and inconspicuously put it back on. Not cool.

Yes, that's true. I suppose it's largely a matter of opinion at this stage because the full effect of the cuts will not take hold for a little bit yet. We'll have to see how they're carried through. I'm very much in favour of holding politicians to their campaign promises, but you have to admit that the Lib Dems are in a fairly unique position of being in power, but not really. I do agree that Vince Cable should be criticised if he has flipped his positions based on what he was campaigning on, unless he's genuinely changed his mind, perhaps in light of new evidence, which I don't think is unreasonable to do. But I think the venom that a lot of people seemed to express towards Nick Clegg purely for dealing with the Conservatives in principle is a little reactionary and very naive. Although I don't think that's a view that you seem to hold.

Brown's recovery package was a brave piece of politics which in my opinion was entirely the right thing to do. But to say that his economic policies caused the recovery or saved us from the recession is (I think) giving them a bit too much credit. Initial stimulus, yes, but Labour's proposal to continue massive investment in public services and the economy completely ignored the deficit problem, which in the long run is a lot more serious problem than this recession if left unchecked. That's why the Tories are cutting so much, it's not for the sake of it (although a bit of fiscal prudence makes a nice change from "throw money at it and hope" Brown), it's to get a hold on the deficit. And I think it's unfair the way a lot of Lib Dem supporters are labelling Nick Clegg a traitor. It's one thing to be a minority party of perfect principle but to actually take the opportunity for power and the ability to govern is something entirely different which he should be applauded for. He's trying to make changes that he thinks are right, and is in a better position to do so than any Lib Dem for many years.

Yeah, but you can attribute the National Debt to the government, they spent it. And I'm ignoring the bank bailouts with that (since they'll probably be repaid), it's the massive spending on public services which is worse. I'm very surprised Labour elected a man who won't be elected Prime Minister but maybe they want to go back to being the party for the trade unions. Either way I hope he does well, but David would have seemed the much more natural choice to me.