Transcript

When you have 21 minutes to speak, two million years seems like a really long time. But evolutionarily, two million years is nothing. And yet in two million years the human brain has nearly tripled in mass, going from the one-and-a-quarter pound brain of our ancestor here, Habilis, to the almost three-pound meatloaf that everybody here has between their ears. What is it about a big brain that nature was so eager for every one of us to have one?

Well, it turns out when brains triple in size, they don't just get three times bigger, they gain new structures. And one of the main reasons our brain got so big is because it got a new part, called the frontal lobe. And particularly, a part called the pre-frontal cortex. Now what does a pre-frontal cortex do for you that should justify the entire architectural overhaul of the human skull in the blink of evolutionary time?

Well, it turns out the pre-frontal cortex does lots of things, but one of the most important things it does is that it is an experience simulator. Flight pilots practice in flight simulators so that they don't make real mistakes in planes. Human beings have this marvelous adaptation that they can actually have experiences in their heads before they try them out in real life. This is a trick that none of our ancestors could do, and that no other animal can do quite like we can. It's a marvelous adaptation. It's up there with opposable thumbs and standing upright and language as one of the things that got our species out of the trees and into the shopping mall.

Now — (Laughter) — all of you have done this. I mean, you know, Ben and Jerry's doesn't have liver-and-onion ice cream. It's not because they whipped some up, tried it and went, "Yuck." It's because, without leaving your armchair, you can simulate that flavor and say yuck before you make it.

Let's see how your experience simulators are working. Let's just run a quick diagnostic before I proceed with the rest of the talk. Here's two different futures that I invite you to contemplate, and you can try to simulate them and tell me which one you think you might prefer. One of them is winning the lottery. This is about 314 million dollars. And the other is becoming paraplegic. So, just give it a moment of thought. You probably don't feel like you need a moment of thought.

Interestingly, there are data on these two groups of people, data on how happy they are. And this is exactly what you expected, isn't it? But these aren't the data. I made these up!

These are the data. You failed the pop quiz, and you're hardly five minutes into the lecture Because the fact is that a year after losing the use of their legs, and a year after winning the lotto, lottery winners and paraplegics are equally happy with their lives.

Now, don't feel too bad about failing the first pop quiz, because everybody fails all of the pop quizzes all of the time. The research that my laboratory has been doing, that economists and psychologists around the country have been doing, have revealed something really quite startling to us. Something we call the impact bias, which is the tendency for the simulator to work badly. For the simulator to make you believe that different outcomes are more different than in fact they really are.

From field studies to laboratory studies, we see that winning or losing an election, gaining or losing a romantic partner, getting or not getting a promotion, passing or not passing a college test, on and on, have far less impact, less intensity and much less duration than people expect them to have. In fact, a recent study — this almost floors me — a recent study showing how major life traumas affect people suggests that if it happened over three months ago, with only a few exceptions, it has no impact whatsoever on your happiness.

Why? Because happiness can be synthesized. Sir Thomas Brown wrote in 1642, "I am the happiest man alive. I have that in me that can convert poverty to riches, adversity to prosperity. I am more invulnerable than Achilles; fortune hath not one place to hit me." What kind of remarkable machinery does this guy have in his head?

Well, it turns out it's precisely the same remarkable machinery that all off us have. Human beings have something that we might think of as a psychological immune system. A system of cognitive processes, largely non-conscious cognitive processes, that help them change their views of the world, so that they can feel better about the worlds in which they find themselves. Like Sir Thomas, you have this machine. Unlike Sir Thomas, you seem not to know it.

We synthesize happiness, but we think happiness is a thing to be found. Now, you don't need me to give you too many examples of people synthesizing happiness, I suspect. Though I'm going to show you some experimental evidence, you don't have to look very far for evidence.

As a challenge to myself, since I say this once in a while in lectures, I took a copy of the New York Times and tried to find some instances of people synthesizing happiness. And here are three guys synthesizing happiness. "I am so much better off physically, financially, emotionally,mentally and almost every other way." "I don't have one minute's regret. It was a glorious experience." "I believe it turned out for the best."

Who are these characters who are so damn happy? Well, the first one is Jim Wright. Some of you are old enough to remember: he was the chairman of the House of Representatives and he resigned in disgrace when this young Republican named Newt Gingrich found out about a shady book deal he had done. He lost everything. The most powerful Democrat in the country, he lost everything. he lost his money, he lost his power, What does he have to say all these years later about it? "I am so much better off physically, financially, mentally and in almost every other way." What other way would there be to be better off? Vegetably? Minerally? Animally? He's pretty much covered them there.

Moreese Bickham is somebody you've never heard of. Moreese Bickham uttered these words upon being released. He was 78 years old. He spent 37 years in a Louisiana State Penitentiary for a crime he didn't commit. He was ultimately exonerated, at the age of 78, through DNA evidence. And what did he have to say about his experience? "I don't have one minute's regret. It was a glorious experience." Glorious! This guy is not saying, "Well, you know, there were some nice guys. They had a gym." It's "glorious," a word we usually reserve for something like a religious experience.

Harry S. Langerman uttered these words, and he's somebody you might have known but didn't, because in 1949 he read a little article in the paper about a hamburger stand owned by these two brothers named McDonalds. And he thought, "That's a really neat idea!" So he went to find them. They said, "We can give you a franchise on this for 3,000 bucks." Harry went back to New York, asked his brother who's an investment banker to loan him the 3,000 dollars, and his brother's immortal words were, "You idiot, nobody eats hamburgers." He wouldn't lend him the money, and of course six months later Ray Croc had exactly the same idea. It turns out people do eat hamburgers, and Ray Croc, for a while, became the richest man in America.

And then finally — you know, the best of all possible worlds — some of you recognize this young photo of Pete Best, who was the original drummer for the Beatles, until they, you know, sent him out on an errand and snuck away and picked up Ringo on a tour. Well, in 1994 when Pete Best was interviewed — yes, he's still a drummer; yes, he's a studio musician — he had this to say: "I'm happier than I would have been with the Beatles."

Okay. There's something important to be learned from these people, and it is the secret of happiness. Here it is, finally to be revealed. First: accrue wealth, power, and prestige, then lose it. (Laughter) Second: spend as much of your life in prison as you possibly can. (Laughter) Third: make somebody else really, really rich. (Laughter) And finally: never ever join the Beatles. (Laughter)

OK. Now I, like Ze Frank, can predict your next thought, which is, "Yeah, right." Because when people synthesize happiness, as these gentlemen seem to have done, we all smile at them, but we kind of roll our eyes and say, "Yeah right, you never really wanted the job." "Oh yeah, right. You really didn't have that much in common with her, and you figured that out just about the time she threw the engagement ring in your face."

We smirk because we believe that synthetic happiness is not of the same quality as what we might call natural happiness. What are these terms? Natural happiness is what we get when we get what we wanted, and synthetic happiness is what we make when we don't get what we wanted. And in our society, we have a strong belief that synthetic happiness is of an inferior kind. Why do we have that belief? Well, it's very simple. What kind of economic engine would keep churning if we believed that not getting what we want could make us just as happy as getting it?

With all apologies to my friend Matthieu Ricard, a shopping mall full of Zen monks is not going to be particularly profitable because they don't want stuff enough. I want to suggest to you that synthetic happiness is every bit as real and enduring as the kind of happiness you stumble upon when you get exactly what you were aiming for. Now, I'm a scientist, so I'm going to do this not with rhetoric, but by marinating you in a little bit of data.

Let me first show you an experimental paradigm that is used to demonstrate the synthesis of happiness among regular old folks. And this isn't mine. This is a 50-year-old paradigm called the free choice paradigm. It's very simple. You bring in, say, six objects, and you ask a subject to rank them from the most to the least liked. In this case, because the experiment I'm going to tell you about uses them, these are Monet prints. So, everybody can rank these Monet prints from the one they like the most, to the one they like the least. Now we give you a choice: "We happen to have some extra prints in the closet. We're going to give you one as your prize to take home. We happen to have number three and number four," we tell the subject. This is a bit of a difficult choice, because neither one is preferred strongly to the other, but naturally, people tend to pick number three because they liked it a little better than number four.

Sometime later — it could be 15 minutes, it could be 15 days — the same stimuli are put before the subject, and the subject is asked to re-rank the stimuli. "Tell us how much you like them now." What happens? Watch as happiness is synthesized. This is the result that has been replicated over and over again. You're watching happiness be synthesized Would you like to see it again? Happiness! "The one I got is really better than I thought! That other one I didn't get sucks!" (Laughter) That's the synthesis of happiness.

Now what's the right response to that? "Yeah, right!" Now, here's the experiment we did, and I would hope this is going to convince you that "Yeah, right!" was not the right response.

We did this experiment with a group of patients who had anterograde amnesia. These are hospitalized patients. Most of them have Korsakoff's syndrome, a polyneuritic psychosis that — they drank way too much, and they can't make new memories. OK? They remember their childhood, but if you walk in and introduce yourself, and then leave the room, when you come back they don't know who you are.

We took our Monet prints to the hospital. And we asked these patients to rank them from the one they liked the most to the one they liked the least. We then gave them the choice between number three and number four Like everybody else, they said, "Gee, thanks Doc! That's great! I could use a new print. I'll take number three." We explained we would have number three mailed to them. We gathered up our materials and we went out of the room, and counted to a half hour. Back into the room, we say, "Hi, we're back." The patients, bless them, say, "Ah, Doc, I'm sorry, I've got a memory problem, that's why I'm here. If I've met you before, I don't remember." "Really, Jim, you don't remember? I was just here with the Monet prints?" "Sorry, Doc, I just don't have a clue." "No problem, Jim. All I want you to do for me is rank these from the one you like the most to the one you like the least."

What do they do? Well, let's first check and make sure they're really amnesiac. We ask these amnesiac patients to tell us which one they own, which one they chose last time, which one is theirs. And what we find is amnesiac patients just guess. These are normal controls, where if I did this with you, all of you would know which print you chose. But if I do this with amnesiac patients, they don't have a clue. They can't pick their print out of a lineup.

Here's what normal controls do: they synthesize happiness. Right? This is the change in liking score, the change from the first time they ranked to the second time they ranked. Normal controls show — that was the magic I showed you, now I'm showing it to you in graphical form — "The one I own is better than I thought. The one I didn't own, the one I left behind, is not as good as I thought." Amnesiacs do exactly the same thing. Think about this result.

These people like better the one they own, but they don't know they own it. "Yeah, right," is not the right response! What these people did when they synthesized happiness is they really, truly changed their affective, hedonic, aesthetic reactions to that poster. They're not just saying it because they own it, because they don't know they own it.

Now, when psychologists show you bars, you know that they are showing you averages of lots of people. And yet, all of us have this psychological immune system, this capacity to synthesize happiness, but some of us do this trick better than others. And some situations allow anybody to do it more effectively than other situations do. It turns out that freedom — the ability to make up your mind and change your mind — is the friend of natural happiness, because it allows you to choose among all those delicious futures and find the one you most enjoy. But freedom to choose — to change and make up your mind — is the enemy of synthetic happiness. And I'm going to show you why.

Dilbert already knows, of course. You're reading the cartoon as I'm talking. "Dogbert's tech support. How may I abuse you?" "My printer prints a blank page after every document." "Why would you complain about getting free paper?" "Free? Aren't you just giving me my own paper?" "Egad, man! Look at the quality of the free paper compared to your lousy regular paper! Only a fool or a liar would say that they look the same!" "Ah! Now that you mention it, it does seem a little silkier!" "What are you doing?" "I'm helping people accept the things they cannot change." Indeed.

The psychological immune system works best when we are totally stuck, when we are trapped. This is the difference between dating and marriage, right? I mean, you go out on a date with a guy, and he picks his nose; you don't go out on another date. You're married to a guy and he picks his nose? Yeah, he has a heart of gold; don't touch the fruitcake. Right? (Laughter) You find a way to be happy with what's happened. Now what I want to show you is that people don't know this about themselves, and not knowing this can work to our supreme disadvantage.

Here's an experiment we did at Harvard. We created a photography course, a black-and-white photography course, and we allowed students to come in and learn how to use a darkroom. So we gave them cameras, they went around campus, they took 12 pictures of their favorite professors and their dorm room and their dog, and all the other things they wanted to have Harvard memories of. They bring us the camera, we make up a contact sheet, they figure out which are the two best pictures, and we now spend six hours teaching them about darkrooms, and they blow two of them up, and they have two gorgeous eight-by-10 glossies of meaningful things to them, and we say, "Which one would you like to give up?" They say, "I have to give one up?" "Oh, yes. We need one as evidence of the class project. So you have to give me one. You have to make a choice. You get to keep one, and I get to keep one."

Now, there are two conditions in this experiment. In one case, the students are told, "But you know, if you want to change your mind, I'll always have the other one here, and in the next four days, before I actually mail it to headquarters, I'll be glad to" — (Laughter) — yeah, "headquarters" — "I'll be glad to swap it out with you. In fact, I'll come to your dorm room and give — just give me an email. Better yet, I'll check with you. You ever want to change your mind, it's totally returnable." The other half of the students are told exactly the opposite: "Make your choice. And by the way, the mail is going out, gosh, in two minutes, to England. Your picture will be winging its way over the Atlantic. You will never see it again." Now, half of the students in each of these conditions are asked to make predictions about how much they're going to come to like the picture that they keep and the picture they leave behind. Other students are just sent back to their little dorm rooms and they are measured over the next three to six days on their liking, satisfaction with the pictures. And look at what we find.

First of all, here's what students think is going to happen. They think they're going to maybe come to like the picture they chose a little more than the one they left behind, but these are not statistically significant differences. It's a very small increase, and it doesn't much matter whether they were in the reversible or irreversible condition.

Wrong-o. Bad simulators. Because here's what's really happening. Both right before the swap and five days later, people who are stuck with that picture, who have no choice, who can never change their mind, like it a lot! And people who are deliberating — "Should I return it? Have I gotten the right one? Maybe this isn't the good one? Maybe I left the good one?" — have killed themselves. They don't like their picture, and in fact even after the opportunity to swap has expired, they still don't like their picture. Why? Because the reversible condition is not conducive to the synthesis of happiness.

So here's the final piece of this experiment. We bring in a whole new group of naive Harvard students and we say, "You know, we're doing a photography course, and we can do it one of two ways. We could do it so that when you take the two pictures, you'd have four days to change your mind, or we're doing another course where you take the two pictures and you make up your mind right away and you can never change it. Which course would you like to be in? " Duh! 66 percent of the students, two-thirds, prefer to be in the course where they have the opportunity to change their mind. Hello? 66 percent of the students choose to be in the course in which they will ultimately be deeply dissatisfied with the picture. Because they do not know the conditions under which synthetic happiness grows.

The Bard said everything best, of course, and he's making my point here but he's making it hyperbolically: "'Tis nothing good or bad / But thinking makes it so." It's nice poetry, but that can't exactly be right. Is there really nothing good or bad? Is it really the case that gall bladder surgery and a trip to Paris are just the same thing? That seems like a one-question IQ test. They can't be exactly the same.

In more turgid prose, but closer to the truth, was the father of modern capitalism, Adam Smith, and he said this. This is worth contemplating: "The great source of both the misery and disorders of human life seems to arise from overrating the difference between one permanent situation and another … Some of these situations may, no doubt, deserve to be preferred to others, but none of them can deserve to be pursued with that passionate ardor which drives us to violate the rules either of prudence or of justice, or to corrupt the future tranquility of our minds, either by shame from the remembrance of our own folly, or by remorse for the horror of our own injustice." In other words: yes, some things are better than others.

We should have preferences that lead us into one future over another. But when those preferences drive us too hard and too fast because we have overrated the difference between these futures, we are at risk. When our ambition is bounded, it leads us to work joyfully. When our ambition is unbounded, it leads us to lie, to cheat, to steal, to hurt others, to sacrifice things of real value. When our fears are bounded, we're prudent, we're cautious, we're thoughtful. When our fears are unbounded and overblown, we're reckless, and we're cowardly.

The lesson I want to leave you with from these data is that our longings and our worries are both to some degree overblown, because we have within us the capacity to manufacture the very commodity we are constantly chasing when we choose experience.

Thank you.

The next time you reach your goals but later say, 'crappy workout today', think of this.

Transcript:

Everybody talks about happiness these days. I had somebody count the number of books with "happiness" in the title published in the last five years and they gave up after about 40, and there were many more. There is a huge wave of interest in happiness, among researchers. There is a lot of happiness coaching. Everybody would like to make people happier. But in spite of all this flood of work, there are several cognitive traps that sort of make it almost impossible to think straight about happiness.

And my talk today will be mostly about these cognitive traps. This applies to laypeople thinking about their own happiness, and it applies to scholars thinking about happiness, because it turns out we're just as messed up as anybody else is. The first of these traps is a reluctance to admit complexity. It turns out that the word happiness is just not a useful word anymore because we apply it to too many different things. I think there is one particular meaning to which we might restrict it but, by and large, this is something that we'll have to give up and we'll have to adopt the more complicated view of what well-being is. The second trap is a confusion between experience and memory: basically it's between being happy in your life and being happy about your life or happy with your life. And those are two very different concepts, and they're both lumped in the notion of happiness. And the third is the focusing illusion, and it's the unfortunate fact that we can't think about any circumstance that affects well-being without distorting its importance. I mean, this is a real cognitive trap. There's just no way of getting it right.

Now, I'd like to start with an example of somebody who had a question and answer session after one of my lectures reported a story. [unclear …] He said he'd been listening to the symphony and it was absolutely glorious music and at the very end of the recording, there was a dreadful screeching sound. And then he added, really quite emotionally, it ruined the whole experience. But it hadn't. What it had ruined were the memories of the experience. He had had the experience. He had had 20 minutes of glorious music. They counted for nothing because he was left with a memory; the memory was ruined, and the memory was all that he had gotten to keep.

What this is telling us, really, is that we might be thinking of ourselves and of other people in terms of two selves. There is an experiencing self, who lives in the present and knows the present, is capable of re-living the past, but basically it has only the present. It's the experiencing self that the doctor approaches — you know, when the doctor asks, "Does it hurt now when I touch you here?" And then there is a remembering self, and the remembering self is the one that keeps score, and maintains the story of our life, and it's the one that the doctor approaches in asking the question, "How have you been feeling lately?" or "How was your trip to Albania?" or something like that. Those are two very different entities, the experiencing self and the remembering self and getting confused between them is part of the mess of the notion of happiness.

Now, the remembering self is a storyteller. And that really starts with a basic response of our memories — it starts immediately. We don't only tell stories when we set out to tell stories. Our memory tells us stories, that is, what we get to keep from our experiences is a story. And let me begin with one example. This is an old study. Those are actual patients undergoing a painful procedure. I won't go into detail. It's no longer painful these days, but it was painful when this study was run in the 1990s. They were asked to report on their pain every 60 seconds. And here are two patients. Those are their recordings. And you are asked, "Who of them suffered more?" And it's a very easy question. Clearly, Patient B suffered more. His colonoscopy was longer, and every minute of pain that Patient A had Patient B had and more.

But now there is another question: "How much did these patients think they suffered?" And here is a surprise: And the surprise is that Patient A had a much worse memory of the colonoscopy than Patient B. The stories of the colonoscopies were different and because a very critical part of the story is how it ends — and neither of these stories is very inspiring or great — but one of them is this distinct … (Laughter) but one of them is distinctly worse than the other. And the one that is worse was the one where pain was at its peak at the very end. It's a bad story. How do we know that? Because we asked these people after their colonoscopy, and much later, too, "How bad was the whole thing, in total?" and it was much worse for A than for B in memory.

Now this is a direct conflict between the experiencing self and the remembering self. From the point of view of the experiencing self, clearly, B had a worse time. Now, what you could do with patient A, and we actually ran clinical experiments, and it has been done, and it does work, you could actually extend the colonoscopy of Patient A by just keeping the tube in without jiggling it too much. That will cause the patient to suffer, but just a little and much less than before. And if you do that for a couple of minutes, you have made the experiencing self of Patient A worse off, and you have the remembering self of Patient A and lot better off, because now you have endowed Patient A with a better story about his experience. What defines a story? And that is true of the stories that memory delivers for us, and it's also true of the stories that we make up. What defines a story are changes, significant moments and endings. Endings are very, very important and, in this case, the ending dominated.

Now, the experiencing self lives its life continuously. It has moments of experience, one after the other. And you ask: What happens to these moments? And the answer is really straightforward. They are lost forever. I mean, most of the moments of our life — and I calculated — you know, the psychological present is said to be about three seconds long. Which means that, you know, in a life there, are about 600 million of them. In a month, there are about 600,000. Most of them don't leave a trace. Most of them are completely ignored by the remembering self. And yet, some how you get the sense that they should count, that what happens during these moments of experience is our life. It's the finite resource that we're spending while we're on this earth. And how to spend it, would seem to be relevant, but that is not the story that the remembering self keeps for us.

So we have the remembering self and the experiencing self, and they're really quite distinct. The biggest difference between them is in the handling of time. From the point of view of the experiencing self, if you have a vacation, and the second week is just as good as the first, then the two week vacation is twice as good as the one week vacation. That's not the way it works at all for the remembering self. For the remembering self, a two week vacation is barely better than the one week vacation because there are no new memories added. You have not changed the story. And in this way, time is actually the critical variable that distinguishes a remembering self from an experiencing self. Time has very little impact on this story.

Now, the remembering self does more than remember and tell stories. It is actually the one that makes decisions because, if you have a patient who has had, say, two colonoscopies with two different surgeons and is deciding which of them to choose, then the one that chooses is the one that has the memory that is less bad, and that's the surgeon that will be chosen. The experiencing self has no voice in this choice. We actually don't choose between experiences. we choose between memories of experiences. And, even when we think about the future, we don't think of our future normally as experiences. We think of our future as anticipated memories. And basically you can look at this, you know, as a tyranny of the remembering self, and you can think of the remembering self sort of dragging the experiencing self through experiences that the experiencing self doesn't need.

I have that sense that when we go on vacations this is very frequently the case, that is, we go on vacations, to a very large extent, in the service of our remembering self. And this is a bit hard to justify I think. I mean, how much do we consume our memories? That is one of the explanations that is given for the dominance of the remembering self. And when I think about that, I think about a vacation we had in Antarctica a few years ago, which was clearly the best vacation I've ever had, and I think of it relatively often, relative to how much I think of other vacations. And I probably have consumed my memories of that three week trip, I would say, for about 25 minutes in the last four years. Now, if I had ever opened the folder with the 600 pictures in it, I would have spent another hour. Now, that is three weeks, and that is at most an hour and a half. There seems to be a discrepancy. Now, I may be a bit extreme, you know, in how little appetite I have for consuming memories, but even if you do more of this, there is a genuine question. Why do we put so much weight on memory relative to the weight that we put on experiences?

So I want you to think about a thought experiment. Imagine that your next vacation you know that at the end of the vacation all your pictures will be destroyed, and you'll get an amnesic drug so that you won't remember anything. Now, would you choose the same vacation? (Laughter) And if you would choose a different vacation, there is a conflict between your two selves, and you need to think about how to adjudicate that conflict, and it's actually not at all obvious because, if you think in terms of time, then you get one answer. And if you think in terms of memories, you might get another answer. Why do we pick the vacations we do, is a problem that confronts us with a choice between the two selves.

Now, the two selves bring up two notions of happiness. There are really two concepts of happiness that we can apply, one per self. So you can ask: How happy is the experiencing self? And then you would ask: How happy are the moments in the experiencing self's life? And they're all — happiness for moments is a fairly complicated process. What are the emotions that can be measured? And, by the way, now we are capable of getting a pretty good idea of the happiness of the experiencing self over time. If you ask for the happiness of the remembering self, it's a completely different thing. This is not about how happily a person lives. It is about how satisfied or pleased the person is when that person thinks about her life. Very different notion. Anyone who doesn't distinguish those notions, is going to mess up the study of happiness, and I belong to a crowd of students of well-being, who've been messing up the study of happiness for a long time in precisely this way.

The distinction between the happiness of the experiencing self and the satisfaction of the remembering self has been recognized in recent years, and there are now efforts to measure the two separately, the Gallup Organization has a world poll with more that half a million people have been asked questions about what they thing of their life and about their experiences. And there have been other efforts along those lines. So in recent years, we have begun to learn about the happiness of the two selves. And the main lesson I think that we have learned, is they are really different. You can know how satisfied somebody is with their life, and that really doesn't teach you much about how happily they're living their life, and vice versa. Just to give you a sense of the correlation, the correlation is about .5. What that means is if you met somebody, and you were told, oh his father is six feet tall, how much would you know about his height? Well, you would know something about his height, but there's a lot of uncertainty. You have that much uncertainty. If I tell you that somebody ranked their life eight on a scale of ten, you have a lot of uncertainty about how happy they are with their experiencing self. So the correlation is low.

We know something about what controls satisfaction of the happiness self. We know that money is very important, goals are very important. We know that happiness is mainly being satisfied with people that we like, spending time with people that we like. There are other pleasures, but this is dominant. So if you want to maximize the happiness of the two selves, you are going to end up doing very different things. The bottom line of what I've said here is that we really should not think of happiness as a substitute for well-being. It is a completely different notion.

Now, very quickly, another reason we cannot think straight about happiness is that we do not attend to the same things when we think about life, and we actually live. So, if you ask the simple question of how happy people are in California, you are not going to get to the correct answer. When you ask that question, you think people must be happier in California, if, say, you live in Ohio. (Laughter) And what happens is when you think about living in California, you are thinking of the contrast between California and other places, and that contrast, say, is in climate. Well, it turns out that climate is not very important to the experiencing self and is not even very important to the reflective self that decides how happy people are. But now, because the reflective self is in charge, you may end up — some people may end up moving to California. And it's sort of interesting to trace what is going to happen to people who move to California in the hope of getting happier. Well, their experiencing self is not going to get happier. We know that. But one thing will happen. They will think they are happier, because, when they think about it, they'll be reminded of how horrible the weather was in Ohio. And they will feel they made the right decision.

It is very difficult to think straight about well-being, and I hope I have given you a sense of how difficult it is.

Thank you.

(Applause)

Chris Anderson: Thank you. I've got a question for you. Thank you so much. Now, when we were on the phone a few weeks ago, you mentioned to me that there was quite an interesting result came out of that Gallup survey. Is that something you can share since you do have a few moments left now?

Daniel Kahneman: Sure. I think the most interesting result that we found in the Gallup survey is a number, which we absolutely did not expect to find. We found that with respect to the happiness of the experiencing self. When we looked at how feelings vary with income. And it turns out that, below an income of 60,000 dollars a year, for Americans, and that's a very large sample of Americans, like 600,000, but it's a large representative sample, below an income of 600,000 dollars a year…

CA: 60,000.

DK: 60,000. (Laughter) 60,000 dollars a year, people are unhappy, and they get progressively unhappier the poorer they get. Above that, we get an absolutely flat line. I mean I've rarely seen lines so flat. Clearly, what is happening is money does not buy you experiential happiness, but lack of money certainly buys you misery, and we can measure that misery very, very clearly. In terms of the other self, the remembering self, you get a different story. The more money you earn the more satisfied you are. That does not hold for emotions.

CA: But Danny, the whole American endeavor is about life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness. If people took seriously that finding, I mean, it seems to turn upside down everything we believe about, say for example, taxation policy and so forth. Is there any chance that politicians, that the country generally, would take a finding like that seriously and run public policy based on it?

DK: You know I think that there is recognition of the role of happiness research in public policy. The recognition is going to be slow in the United States, no question about that, but in the UK, it is happening, and in other countries it is happening. People are recognizing that they ought to be thinking of happiness when they think of public policy. It's going to take awhile, and people are going to debate whether they want to study experience happiness, or whether they want to study life evaluation, so we need to have that debate fairly soon, How to enhance happiness, goes very different ways depending on how you think, and whether you think of the remembering self or you think of the experiencing self. This is going to influence policy, I think, in years to come. In the United States, efforts are being made to measure the experience happiness of the population. This is going to be, I think, within the next decade or two, part of national statistics.

CA: Well, it seems to me, this issue will, or at least should be, the most interesting policy discussion to track over the next few years. Thank you so much for inventing behavioral economics. Thank you Danny Kahneman.

Why am I doing this?

Why do we climb the mountain? Seriously, though, it's something that's been in the back of my mind but my obsession with heavy things has kept it on the back burner. Especially that damned deadlift.

Right now I have some setbacks. I have been layed off of training for a while but things are going well as far as getting back into it. However, overhead squats are presenting a big problem. My wrists are being killed by them because of the wide grip and my wrists being really bad in the first place. Problem is my shoulders will just not let me narrow the grip, right now. And even with moderate weights my wrists are ending up sore for days. I can't even do 80 or so without then screaming at me because of the angle. So I am going to have to buckle down and see if I can get the grip in, which means a whole long process and light weights. OH squat is important to me. I don't want to give it up without a fight.

Given that I needed something fun and challenging but that was a straight forward goal that I knew was well within my capability. I am very 'proficient' at pullups and I can handle 100 + extra pounds for a rep or two (not right now, laid off, remember).

So I will be doing my regular pullups getting my strength back as for extra weight plus getting the reps back up but that is the same old same old. So enter the one arm pull up.

What I plan is to talk as much about my mistakes as my failures. Since I am very advanced at pullups normally, it should be interesting to see how easy or hard this is for me. I don't know how many people go through the process of adding a whole lot of weight to their regular pullups before attempting the one arm pull-up.

I should note a little about terminology.

1. Although I'm saying one arm "pullup" really I'll be working towards what most would consider a one arm "chinup" which is with my hand suppinated or facing me. I'll probably use the terms interchangeably but for the forseeable future I will really be talking about a one arm chinup.

2. This is a one ARM ONLY pullup. This is not that thing where you grab the bar with one hand then place the other hand on the wrist of that hand. That may be a one HAND pullup but it is not a ONE ARM PULLUP. No, you cannot do 20 one arm pullups, 80% of bodybuilders on forums.

I leave this for the introductory post and make the next post about today's session.

His first show which ran for 6-7 seasons was called The Practice.

I used to watch this show as kid and I absolutely LOVED it.

BUT, it was too serious and gripping for most audiences. So they canned it.

David Kelly came back with a new show called Boston Public.

It was centered around Public School teachers at this public school in Boston. AWESOME show. Ran for 5 seasons but there's no way you'll ever find them because it was never released on DVD. A really sad thing. I've always admired the role teachers play in our lives since I am who I am because of several influential teachers in my childhood (meaning upto the 10th grade lol after which their quality has kinda gone downhill lol). This show to me was terrific.

After Boston Public came……BOSTON LEGAL!!!

This show had it all: the serious cases, thought-provoking scripts, entertaining antics, character-driven plots, etc etc. It had it all. It ended on a HUGE high. Infact, I think this has to be one of the best endings to any show ever.

I just felt like sharing. I know this thread is titled Boston Legal but it seems I'm just a huge fan of David Kelley :)

It's made by the creator/producer of the Law & Order series called Dick Wolf and I think this show was awesome.

I absolutely LOVE law dramas and after I finished the last season of Boston Legal (this deserves it's own thread actually) I've been hunting for one of those and Conviction was just AWESOME. I wish they didn't cancel the show after it's first season.

I'd give it a 10/10 rating!

I KNOW that this is not done intentionally. When you see the create thread or new post button whether you are signed in or not then it's easy to forget to sign in. So I'm not complaining! Just try to remember to sign in first. Thanks!

it would be nice if it ended there. so basically it "re-injures" every so often and can be triggered by any number of things. the therapist i saw at the time said it was something to do with the erector spinea muscles either going into spasm or being strained. when it is active it hurts to either rotate my torso or curve of straighten my back, localized to the centre of my back below and between the shoulder blades, mostly on the left.

i have no illusion of anyone on here having the solution, but i figure its worth a shot, so far phiso has been unsuccessful. so thanks of your time

Spent a while DC training with Dante - Yes, once again EXPANDING my knowledge base with all his tips and tricks. Learned A LOT. One thing I'll admit is that DC training is predominantly for people that can LIVE the lifestyle. In other words, having a demanding work schedule certainly doesn't go hand in hand with DC. Especially when I wake up and lift at 0400 alone LOL. In the end, it's just not something I'm interested in… Strength and conditioning especially are my main goals. Going from 345 pound incline smith pressing for 11 rest paused -> My FAVORITE type of training (full body 5x5) is about the toughest thing in the world LOL. I like volume - End of story. :)

So for about 6 months I was blasting DC, then from around Sept - Nov. I didn't really train at all. Just too burnt out training wise, and had a lot of work to do w/ selling my house, ect. It wasn't until about the end of Nov. when I finally got that fire burning again. I was douching around on Amazon.com and saw that Practical Programming had a 2nd edition that yielded a bunch of new stuff/edits. When I went to aasgaard, I bought that one AND Bill Starr's book (first place I finally found it!). After I was done absorbing, I finally got motivated enough to start from… Yep, the Ground Up. One thing that has ALWAYS been the case for me was to start my programming from one level lower than where I ended. This is very important. What I mean is, I ended DC as an low advanced trainee (IMO). Naturally, after a layoff, I had to train myself as an intermediate. Makes total sense. Not only did it make sense, but it worked like a charm! I decided on designing my program with my knowns (what works for me). The biggest factor in deciding my programming is my WORK SCHEDULE. So how do I accomodate the early AM workouts? I didn't use the Texas Method as I didn't think I'd be too motivated to do static weights yet. While I haven't trained seriously in quite a few months, I was still able to bench 275 for a static 25 reps fairly easy.

Enter Starr's genious - Heavy/Light/Medium (circa 1930's Mark Berry). I've never been so productive in my training (or motivated) as I have with this system. It really only calls for all out effort on Day #1. The rest, while still very challenging, is perfect for my schedule. Each day is totally contingent upon WORKLOAD, not weight. Zero isolations unless it's prehab type work.

My first 4 weeks I decided on fairly even and small increments during the ramping up sets. This drived up my workload. Coasted through up until I hit 385 lbs raw olympic squats. Barely squeeked out 5 reps - Which was directly due to only taking 15 lb increments (385 x 5, 370 x 5, 355 x 5, 340 x 5, 325 x 5). A lot considering I forgot my belt that day LOL! Everyone here knows me pretty well, and I love to be methodical. The next step for me (as you all probably guessed) was to ditch the increments. Since it drops the workload down a great deal, I started using back-off sets of 8-10 reps. And trust me, it was very easy to do these, which rocked since the workload increased significantly. Few more weeks, adding 15-20 lbs every week!

Which brings me to this very moment of time. I'm in dire need of a deload as I think I pushed a little too far without one. My right knee is pretty painful right now. Right above my kneecap feels a bit like a charlie horse. I never bounced, nor relaxed on the bottom of the squat, so that's not the issue. I think my knees just need more protection - Better yet, some form of knee sleeves that keep those puppies warm. I think that will go a long way. Next, my left pec right under my delt is starting to get really sore (where it partially tore a few years back). Sucked too because I was smoking 330 x 5 with 15 lb increments. So after a couple weeks off, I'll be using a closegrip for everything. Always something LOL.

That's the skinny on what I've been up to. Hope everyone had a great break over the holidays. I took the family up to Big Bear and got my winter sports going.

Bodybuilding has lied to you, and that’s why you’re still skinny.

2010 January 11

By Matt Perryman

Over the last say five, six years, I’ve pretty well managed to wall myself off from gym culture. I do lift in a commercial gym, though I have very little contact with the people there – unless you count staring in slack-jawed amazement at some of the antics and stupidity as contact. I don’t, personally.

Most of the people I talk to in person are real lifters of some sort or another, guys that like powerlifting and strongman and Highland games. The manly kind of sports that you can drink beer with. We don’t always agree 100% on the details, but we also know that the details don’t matter and that in every way that matters, we’re on the same page.

Online, I’ve almost entirely stayed away from sites like bodybuilding.com or the beloved T-mag precisely because they encourage so much of that Bro mentality – that faux-macho wannabe outlook that relies on being ‘edgy’ and ‘hardcore’ and ‘latching on to the nuts of this year’s popular guru’.

Since taking myself out of all that, I’ve developed what I can only describe as selective amnesia, because I’ve genuinely been surprised at some of the stupid that’s out there – and it’s layered, complex stupid. This can range from the mostly harmless repetition of Bro-mantras like the beloved ’shock the body to keep it guessing’, right on up to full on ‘I still weigh 60kg and can’t put on weight but let me tell you how to do things’.

I’ve discussed the abstract concept of stupidity before, and it’s an interesting thing. Stupidity isn’t just the absence of intelligence or information; it’s the active rejection of learning that works by convincing the stupid person that s/he doesn’t need to learn in the first place. Of course stupid and ignorant are relative terms, but I’m of the firm belief that most anybody can be coached or trained in the gym if they’re given enough guidance.

One thing that’s always struck me about the guys that are ’stuck’ – can’t get over 75kg, bench won’t go past 90kg – is their own lack of self-awareness. It should be simple to understand that, if your current behaviors aren’t moving you towards your goals, then you’re going to have to change your behaviors.

If what you’re doing isn’t working, you’re going to have to do something else.

This is such a staggeringly simple concept that I just can’t believe people don’t get it. But it happens every single damn day. If you go to any of the big busy forums online, you’ll see one question asked more than anything else: “why can’t I gain weight?” This question will come in different flavors and styles, but it always remains.

You see it in any commercial gym. Next time you’re in such a place, have a look at how many skinny-looking guys are walking around in the weights area. If you come back in a year, assuming they haven’t quit, none of them will look any different.

I drew up a flowchart outline to give a quick rundown of the thought process that these guys go through:

1. Recognize that I’m underweight, out of shape, and weak. Make a commitment to be at the gym five days a week.
2. Read a magazine with a big muscular guy on the cover. Find his workout.
3. Do the workout from the magazine, as long as it’s for: chest, shoulders, arms, or back. Skip legs because you run a lot.
4. Gain a little weight because of beginner gains. Don’t change your diet to increase protein or calorie intake.
5. Stall out because you’re not eating enough and because you insist on doing bodybuilder’s routine. Body weight levels off around 70-75kg and bench is stuck somewhere between 60-80kg.
6. Decide that you’re ‘cutting’ now, since you want abs for summer. If you’re really determined to get big, skip 6 and go to 7.
7. Ask the big guy in the gym for some steroids. Go on a cycle of test and dbol even though you’ve been lifting for a year and have no idea how to eat or train.
8. Get ‘good gains’ on your cycle, which is really just water-bloat and not gains at all, but you believe it’s gains because the scale goes up and all the other idiots tell you it’s gains.
9. Come off cycle and lose all your gains the water weight. Strength and stamina in the gym go back to shit because the only reason you could sustain your workout was because of the juice.
10. Go back to 7. If you’re now depressed and ‘over it,’ go back to 6.

That about sums it up I think. I’d guess that most every guy at your gym, with only a few exceptions that will be obvious, is stuck somewhere in this flowchart. Beginners seem to repeat steps 1-5 without fail, and guys that have more than a year or so under their belts are either bouncing between that or ‘cutting for the beach’. A few more will go on to repeat the endless loop of steroid cycling without any real muscle gains to speak of.

Why does this loop keep happening, and why do so many, almost 100%, get stuck in it? There are two fundamental reasons:

1) You don’t know how to eat. Popular bodybuilding wisdom encourages low-calorie diets of ‘clean’ foods, usually chicken and broccoli. That’s all fine and dandy, but it doesn’t add muscle to skinny bodies.

2) You don’t know how to train. Popular bodybuilding and ‘general fitness’ wisdom encourages you to split your training into 3-6 days a week, with each session devoted to one body part. That’s all fine and dandy, but it’s kinda missing the point.

These are hard truths, but you have to accept them. If you’re a skinny kid, the worst thing you can do is listen to what’s in the magazines and listen to what gym-culture tells you to do.

Gym-culture says you need to split up your body and focus on each muscle group to grow. That’s a load of horseshit, because for every guy you see that’s big or strong and uses that system, the majority of guys following it fail completely and spectacularly. And then instead of thinking ‘gee, maybe I should re-think this strategy,’ they either give up or start popping dbol like candy.

Then they grow, mainly because of water retention; and then once they come off, they lose all their gains water. That’s a productive strategy.

If you want the best gains, you need to focus on training regularly and training to get strong. Strength is size. Remember that. Repeat it. Say it out loud. Strength is size.

If you’re a big guy that uses body-part splits, by all means keep at it. If you enjoy it and think it’s productive, I’m not going to say you’re wrong. If you’re a skinny kid that’s hit a plateau, I’m telling you there’s a better way to do things.

The bodybuilding paradigm goes back to the 1970s and 1980s, stretching back to Joe Weider’s philosophy on pumping up the muscle with endless volume. This only got worse in the 80s when everybody was on the juice and could grow on the super-high volume splits that are still with us today.

A bodybuilding session will have something like 4-5 exercises per muscle group, with the premise being that you must hammer and grind and ultimately defeat the muscle by bludgeoning it with set after set. That’s not strength training; that’s endurance exercise. It may work for you as a beginner, but the biggest effect this training has is 1) inflaming your muscles and pumping them up right after the workout; and 2) bloating them up by increasing the amount of water, glycogen, and other goodies stored in there.

Needless to say, if you don’t have muscle to pump in the first place, this isn’t going to work very well. Leave the volume-training to big guys with a strength foundation.

Muscles respond most favorably to heavy, high-tension movements; and no, you do not have to work every muscle directly for them to grow. This is because muscle groups overlap and fill many of the same roles. Yes, this means that once you’ve worked the hell out of your bench press, your triceps probably don’t need that much work.

Bodybuilding has so poisoned the well that most people don’t even realize that they can train with any other system. If someone wants to grow, then they default to the five-day body-part split. I’m telling you right now: any ‘bodybuilding’ training should be secondary to your basic strength training; and only then if you’re really convinced you need it. If you’re 75kg and bitching that you can’t get any bigger, you probably don’t need it.

What you need instead if a basic program that focuses on getting stronger. ‘I don’t want to be a powerlifter,’ you say. ‘I want to build a good physique with mass and symmetry.’ The funny part is that most people that say that have no idea what it even means as it comes out of their mouths.

Strength is size. If you want ‘mass’, you need to get stronger with the big lifts. If you want ’symmetry’, well, you need to talk to your parents. Anything else is a function of leanness. To many would-be bodybuilders just don’t realize this, and they stay both small and weak as a result. At least until they go on the sauce.

If you’ve already got a decent base of strength from years of training, you might benefit from this lighter bodybuilding stuff. You might even want to play with the split routines for a change of pace. You just have no business following that kind of routine when you don’t have that foundation to build on.

Now what about diet? This is the other pillar of gaining muscle and body-weight, and it’s just as much of a spectacular failure for most people.

The gym-culture says to eat every 2-3 hours to ‘keep the metabolic fires burning’. Right. The diet itself revolves around lean meats (almost always chicken), green veggies (almost always broccoli), and ‘clean carbs’ with oats being the number one contender.

Okay look, that’s fine if you’re already big and trying to maintain some degree of leanness. If you’re a little dude, just give it a rest. Seriously. I don’t care about your damn abs if you’re bitching about being stuck at 70kg for the last year.

Shut up and go eat a cheeseburger.

There’s nothing wrong with eating lean meats and ‘clean carbs’ later on, once you’ve actually gotten strong and added some muscle. I want you to try eating enough to grow with that diet, though. Smaller guys will probably need to push 4000 kcals per day to grow. That’s a lot of chicken and broccoli and oats. Really dedicated guys can do it, but I’m telling you it’s pointless macho bullshit. There are easier ways.

Ways like pizza.

If you want a solid plan to grow without turning into a total fatass, a strategy to which I can relate, then set your daily calorie intake to around 18 times your body weight in pounds as a starting point. Set protein to at least 1 gram per lb first. Put carbs at maybe 2-2.5 times body weight, depending on your preference, and then make up the remainder from fat. The actual type of food doesn’t matter so much; if you can fit in cheeseburgers, fit them in. Cheeseburgers want to be eaten. Just remember that the numbers come first.

As to how many meals to eat, if you’re bulking you never want to be hungry. That sounds like one of those hard-liner absolutist statements, but there is truth to it. I’d make it a point to at least get protein every few hours to keep amino acid levels high.

Depending on how sloppy you want to get, you may find that you want to eat more than this. That’s fine too. Just remember that to be realistic, it’s probably not the best of ideas to add 50 lbs of fat in order to bump your squat 10 lbs. I’m all for bulking, but experience has taught me that bulking out of control is counterproductive. If you’re going to do it, do it right – make sure you’re actually adding strength and adding muscle.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/us/

Publix Issues Allergy Alert on Pecans in Publix Pumpkin Pecan Streusel Pie

December 29, 2009 – Publix Super Markets is issuing a voluntary recall for Publix Pumpkin Pecan Streusel Pie, because it was mislabeled and may contain undeclared pecans. People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to pecans run the risk of allergic reaction if they consume this product. Product was prepared at Publix stores for retail sale between November and December 2009. The recalled product has a UPC number of: 002- 95118-20399-7 and is packaged in a 30 ounce plastic container. The name of the product describes the product as "Pumpkin Pecan Streusel Pie.: The ingredient statement on the label does not declare pecan, which is an ingredient in the pie. The mislabeled pies were distributed in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Tennessee and South Carolina.

"As part of our commitment to food safety and in cooperation with the FDA, we are issuing this voluntarily recall," said Maria Brous, Publix director of media and community relations. "Since customers may still have these pies in their homes, we wanted to take every precaution to make them aware of the pecan as an ingredient. To date, there have been no reported cases of illness. Consumers who have purchased the product in question may return the product to their local store for a full refund. Publix customers with additional questions may call our Consumer Relations department at 1-800-242-1227 or by visiting our website at www.publix.com."

Publix is privately owned and operated by its 140,500 employees, with 2008 sales of $23.9 billion. Currently Publix has 1,014 stores in Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Alabama and Tennessee. The company has been named one of Fortune’s "100 Best Companies to Work For in America" for 12 consecutive years. In addition, Publix’s dedication to superior quality and customer service is recognized as tops in the grocery business, most recently by an American Customer Satisfaction Index survey.

If you are allergic to pecans and you buy a PUMPKIN PECAN PIE, you have other problems besides allergies. I don't think there is much chance that anyone with a known nut allergie would do that! But this does bring up an issue. Finished food products in grocery stores are notorious of being mislabeled. It's really easy for an overworked bakery person to slap on the wrong label. Not that I buy a lot of pies but I've seen a lot of them mislabeled. Be careful if you have allergies when buying supermarket prepared foods.

Michael Oher's story is very inspirational….and that thing the makers of the movie did at the ending where they talked about Michael's brother getting shot, etc reminded me The Grid Iron Gang - another of my top 10 movies.

There were a whole bunch of subtle and not-so-subtle motifs and themes throughout the movie which I was able to decipher but on the whole I think this is probably THE best movie I've ever seen. I have no idea why because I've seen many movies with more realistic plots however this movie left me with this feeling in me no movie has been able to deliver on. Maybe I'm just crazy…:-P

Haha if you guys start to notice why i post so many links from BBing.com. Its probobly because I waste 1-2 hours disecting the forums to see if there is anything worth reading again.

1. Don't Talk.

Do not say a word to the officer. Shut the F. up! I cannot stress to you the importance of this rule. Do not talk! Do not attempt to convince the officer of your innocence. Everyone is innocent, no one should be arrested and no one should be in jail and that is all the officer hears all day every day. He / she does not care generally whether you are innocent or guilty and there is nothing that he / she can do at this point. Most times, when people speak to officers they say something that makes their situation far worse. Keep your mouth shut, there will be plenty of time to talk later.
2. Don't Run.

I said above to listen to the officer and follow his / her instructions. Do not be scared and do not let the liquid courage aka alcohol convince you that you can outrun the twelve officers and helicopter that will track you down. Also, police become highly suspicious that someone running has a weapon and may be quick to draw their weapon. Additionally when they do run you down expect much stronger force used to subdue a fleeing suspect.
3. Never Resist Arrest.

Perhaps the most important thing not to do is touch the police officer at all! Again, sober up quick and follow what the officer says. Many people attempt to bump the officer or swat an officers hands away. This often falls under the assault statutes and now a minor misdemeanor arrest becomes a FELONY. Thus a reckless driving charge leads to a year or more in state prison. Additionally, touching the officer in any way can lead to a batton in the mouth.
4. Don't Believe the Police.

It is perfectly legal for the police to lie to get you to make an admission. The police frequently separate two friends and tell one the other one ratted him / her out. Because of the lie, the other friend now rats the first friend out. Police and detectives also state that "it will be easier" to talk now…LIES!!! DON'T BELIEVE THIS BS! It will only be easier for the police to prove their case!
5. No Searching.

Do not allow the police to search anywhere! If the police officer asks, they do not have the right to search and must have your consent. If you are asked make sure you proclaim to any witnesses that "You (the police) do not have consent to search." If they perform the search anyway, that evidence may be thrown out later. Also, if you consent to a search, the officers may find something that you had no idea you had placed somewhere, ie: marijuana left by a friend.
6. Don't Look At Places Where You Don't Want Police to Search.

Police are trained to watch you and react to you. They know that you are nervous and scared and many people look to the areas that they don't want the police to search. Do not react to the search and do not answer any questions. LOOK DOWN AND KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT!!!
7. Do Not Talk to the Police.

I don't care if you have been wrongly arrested and the true culprit is standing in front of you. Don't talk ! Police hear all day that my dad is the the Governor's Assistant's Intern and I will have your badge for this! Police have a lot of discretion in the upcoming charges brought. Police can add charges, change a misdemeanor to a felony, or even talk to the prosecutor that is ultimately prosecuting you.
8. If Police Come to Your Home, Do not Let Them In and Do Not Step Outside Your Home

If the police are confident you have committed a felony, they are coming in anyway, because they generally don't need an arrest warrant. Make it clear to the police by stating: "No you may not come in", or "I am comfortable talking right here", or "You need a search warrant to enter my home." If they return, your attorney can arrange for you to turn yourself in should that be necessary and you will spend no time in jail between the hearings.
9. Outside Your Home Arrested, Do Not Accept Offer to Go In Your Home for Anything.

The officer may say to you, how about you go inside and change, freshen up, talk to your wife, husband, get a jacket, or any other reason. The police will graciously escort you in and then tear your home apart searching through it. Also, do not let them secure your car. Your car is fine. Remember they are lying to you. They don't give a damn if you are really cold or if you need to talk to your wife or husband.
10. Don't say a word.

It's incredible how many people feel that they can convince the officer, the booking officer or a detective (if your case reaches that stature) that they are not guilty. YOUR CASE IS NOT DECIDED BY THESE PEOPLE. They have no affect on your records. Wait to speak to your lawyer! The courts give enormous weight to "confessions" during this stage. A suspect is almost NEVER released after being arrested.

Follow these ten simply rules religiously and many of your rights will remain intact. I don't care how nervous, scared or drunk you are, THESE RULES ARE VERY IMPORTANT, and will help you tremendously in the short and long run.
Quick Test Question

An altercation occurs with your live in girlfriend. When the police arrive they find you on the sidewalk, a few houses down the street. Your girlfriend points you out and the officers then arrest you for assault. During the arrest, they let you know that they do not intent to question you. They just need your name and address. What do you do?
Answer

Well the police are lying to you and rule number 1 is to keep your mouth shut, so you don't say anything. Your name is all you may need to give. If you give your address, that may indicate that you live together converting your alleged crime from a misdemeanor to a felony. An officer will attempt to get you to make an admission, especially when they have no evidence. KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT!

http://www.karemar.com/blog/top-ten-...u-are-arrested

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=120528011

I've have heard of a few of them to be actually decent. Just posting if anyone here is curious.

Now
Stats:
Age: 17
Height: 6'4" (6'6"in shoes)
Weight: 195lbs (Eating 3800 calories)

Before:
October 1st
Age 17
6'4"
185lbs

Lifts (Before on top. After on bottom, all lifts are from when this thread orginally started)
Deadlifts:
235 5x2
255 5 x 5

Front Squats
115 5 x 3
145 5 x 5-7

Bench Press
Now:
???
115 3 x 5

Back Squat
200lbs 3 x 5
225lbs 3 x 6-8

OH Squat
Learned movement
95lbs 3 x 6-8

OH Press
80lbs 5 x 4 reps
100lbs 3 x 4-7 reps

I'd like to wish everyone a Happy New Year and the best of luck for all your goals.

A new year means a new journal so welcome to Big Boy Basics!!!

Goals are as they have always been: to stay injury free and get stronger and hopefully lose some of the chub

For all newcomers, 4 weeks of training = 1 Mesocycle.

Today marks the start of Mesocycle 17. I don't do routines - I train. I follow templates. Here's the template for now:

THURSDAY: DEADLIFT TRAINING

1. Deadlifts
2. Front Squats
3. Core Training

FRIDAY: BACK TRAINING

1. Heavy Rows - either dumbbell, barbell, chest supported or machine done 3-5 sets of 1-5 reps depending on the exercise
2. Pull-ups - all weighted for as many sets and reps as I like. mostly I aim for 25-50 total reps all done with some added weight.
3. Medium Rows - either high or low cable rows or unilateral cable rows for 3-4 sets of 8-12 reps
4. Facepulls or Shrugs
5. Core Training

SUNDAY: SQUAT TRAINING

1. Overhead Squats
2. Front Squats
3. Back Squats
4. Grip Training
5. Core Training

MONDAY: PRESS TRAINING

1. Pistol Squats
2. Press Variant - either military or bench variants within for heavy work
3. Pull-ups - light for example; 3x8 or so
4. Supplementary Press
5. Core Training

I suffer from a slew of shoulder and lower back injures so staying injury free is my #1 goal.

For those interested, my "stats" at the moment are:

I weigh 195 lbs @ 5'7
Pistol Squats: 13 reps per leg
Back Squats: 365 lbs
Front Squats: 295 lbs
Overhead Squats: 185 lbs
Military Press: 185 lbs
Deadlifts: 475 lbs
Bench Press: 225 lbs

A very Happy New Year to everyone once again and I will check in later with a journal update hopefully.

Oh, and for those concerned, here's my youtube channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/anuj247

Cheers!

But how do you calculate how many calories a day you are suppose to eat anyway?

Requeim for a dream:

John Cafferty - Hearts on fire

Drake & Eminem - Forever (Matz Remix)

Chicago Bulls Theme Song

Motorhead - The Game.

Other than that, basically songs from the Rocky Series, Eminem, rap, and music like what I have posted. If anyone knows other songs that I might be interested, Im always looking for new music. If our taste in music is different, don't hesistate to post yours!

If someone can tell me why my videos didn't embed correctly, that would be of help also.

Conner is a freshmen football player from Arizona and has aspirations to become a professional strongman or a bodybuilder or a powerlifter. In any case, his focus is on strength training.

Conner's Squat workout roughly involves some heavy box squats to a bench, some deep ass to grass front squats with 315+ and some deep ass to grass back squats with 400+. His training is extremely impressive to me and I think the only reason he survives his training is because of the sheer amount of clean food he consumes. I have never met a more dedicated trainee who is only 18 years old.

Check out his video:

http://www.ironscene.com/play_hd.php?vid=3474

Must read.

Ego - The False Center

From Beyond the Frontier of the Mind by Osho
The first thing to be understood is what ego is. A child is born. A child is born without any knowledge, any consciousness of his own self. And when a child is born the first thing he becomes aware of is not himself; the first thing he becomes aware of is the other. It is natural, because the eyes open outwards, the hands touch others, the ears listen to others, the tongue tastes food and the nose smells the outside. All these senses open outwards.

That is what birth means. Birth means coming into this world, the world of the outside. So when a child is born, he is born into this world. He opens his eyes, sees others. 'Other' means the thou. He becomes aware of the mother first. Then, by and by, he becomes aware of his own body. That too is the other, that too belongs to the world. He is hungry and he feels the body; his need is satisfied, he forgets the body.

This is how a child grows. First he becomes aware of you, thou, other, and then by and by, in contrast to you, thou, he becomes aware of himself.

This awareness is a reflected awareness. He is not aware of who he is. He is simply aware of the mother and what she thinks about him. If she smiles, if she appreciates the child, if she says, "You are beautiful," if she hugs and kisses him, the child feels good about himself. Now an ego is born.

Through appreciation, love, care, he feels he is good, he feels he is valuable, he feels he has some significance.

A center is born.

But this center is a reflected center. It is not his real being. He does not know who he is; he simply knows what others think about him. And this is the ego: the reflection, what others think. If nobody thinks that he is of any use, nobody appreciates him, nobody smiles, then too an ego is born: an ill ego; sad, rejected, like a wound; feeling inferior, worthless. This too is the ego. This too is a reflection.

First the mother - and mother means the world in the beginning. Then others will join the mother, and the world goes on growing. And the more the world grows, the more complex the ego becomes, because many others' opinions are reflected.

The ego is an accumulated phenomenon, a by-product of living with others. If a child lives totally alone, he will never come to grow an ego. But that is not going to help. He will remain like an animal. That doesn't mean that he will come to know the real self, no.

The real can be known only through the false, so the ego is a must. One has to pass through it. It is a discipline. The real can be known only through the illusion. You cannot know the truth directly. First you have to know that which is not true. First you have to encounter the untrue. Through that encounter you become capable of knowing the truth. If you know the false as the false, truth will dawn upon you.

Ego is a need; it is a social need, it is a social by-product. The society means all that is around you - not you, but all that is around you. All, minus you, is the society. And everybody reflects. You will go to school and the teacher will reflect who you are. You will be in friendship with other children and they will reflect who you are. By and by, everybody is adding to your ego, and everybody is trying to modify it in such a way that you don't become a problem to the society.

They are not concerned with you.

They are concerned with the society.

Society is concerned with itself, and that's how it should be.

They are not concerned that you should become a self-knower. They are concerned that you should become an efficient part in the mechanism of the society. You should fit into the pattern. So they are trying to give you an ego that fits with the society. They teach you morality. Morality means giving you an ego which will fit with the society. If you are immoral, you will always be a misfit somewhere or other. That's why we put criminals in the prisons - not that they have done something wrong, not that by putting them in the prisons we are going to improve them, no. They simply don't fit. They are troublemakers. They have certain types of egos of which the society doesn't approve. If the society approves, everything is good.

One man kills somebody - he is a murderer.

And the same man in wartime kills thousands - he becomes a great hero. The society is not bothered by a murder, but the murder should be commited for the society - then it is okay. The society doesn't bother about morality.

Morality means only that you should fit with the society.

If the society is at war, then the morality changes.

If the society is at peace, then there is a different morality.

Morality is a social politics. It is diplomacy. And each child has to be brought up in such a way that he fits into the society, that's all. Because society is interested in efficient members. Society is not interested that you should attain to self-knowledge.

The society creates an ego because the ego can be controlled and manipulated. The self can never be controlled or manipulated. Nobody has ever heard of the society controlling a self - not possible.

And the child needs a center; the child is completely unaware of his own center. The society gives him a center and the child is by and by convinced that this is his center, the ego that society gives.

A child comes back to his home - if he has come first in his class, the whole family is happy. You hug and kiss him, and you take the child on your shoulders and dance and you say, "What a beautiful child! You are a pride to us." You are giving him an ego, a subtle ego. And if the child comes home dejected, unsuccessful, a failure - he couldn't pass, or he has just been on the back bench - then nobody appreciates him and the child feels rejected. He will try harder next time, because the center feels shaken.

Ego is always shaken, always in search of food, that somebody should appreciate it. That's why you continuously ask for attention.

You get the idea of who you are from others.

It is not a direct experience.

It is from others that you get the idea of who you are. They shape your center. This center is false, because you carry your real center. That is nobody's business. Nobody shapes it.

You come with it.

You are born with it.

So you have two centers. One center you come with, which is given by existence itself. That is the self. And the other center, which is created by the society, is the ego. It is a false thing - and it is a very great trick. Through the ego the society is controlling you. You have to behave in a certain way, because only then does the society appreciate you. You have to walk in a certain way; you have to laugh in a certain way; you have to follow certain manners, a morality, a code. Only then will the society appreciate you, and if it doesn't, you ego will be shaken. And when the ego is shaken, you don't know where you are, who you are.

The others have given you the idea.

That idea is the ego.

Try to understand it as deeply as possible, because this has to be thrown. And unless you throw it you will never be able to attain to the self. Because you are addicted to the center, you cannot move, and you cannot look at the self.

And remember, there is going to be an interim period, an interval, when the ego will be shattered, when you will not know who you are, when you will not know where you are going, when all boundaries will melt.

You will simply be confused, a chaos.

Because of this chaos, you are afraid to lose the ego. But it has to be so. One has to pass through the chaos before one attains to the real center.

And if you are daring, the period will be small.

If you are afraid, and you again fall back to the ego, and you again start arranging it, then it can be very, very long; many lives can be wasted.

I have heard: One small child was visiting his grandparents. He was just four years old. In the night when the grandmother was putting him to sleep, he suddenly started crying and weeping and said, "I want to go home. I am afraid of darkness." But the grandmother said, "I know well that at home also you sleep in the dark; I have never seen a light on. So why are you afraid here?" The boy said, "Yes, that's right - but that is MY darkness." This darkness is completely unknown.

Even with darkness you feel, "This is MINE."

Outside - an unknown darkness.

With the ego you feel, "This is MY darkness."

It may be troublesome, maybe it creates many miseries, but still mine. Something to hold to, something to cling to, something underneath the feet; you are not in a vacuum, not in an emptiness. You may be miserable, but at least you ARE. Even being miserable gives you a feeling of 'I am'. Moving from it, fear takes over; you start feeling afraid of the unknown darkness and chaos - because society has managed to clear a small part of your being.

It is just like going to a forest. You make a little clearing, you clear a little ground; you make fencing, you make a small hut; you make a small garden, a lawn, and you are okay. Beyond your fence - the forest, the wild. Here everything is okay; you have planned everything. This is how it has happened.

Society has made a little clearing in your consciousness. It has cleaned just a little part completely, fenced it. Everything is okay there. That's what all your universities are doing. The whole culture and conditioning is just to clear a part so that you can feel at home there.

And then you become afraid.

Beyond the fence there is danger.

Beyond the fence you are, as within the fence you are - and your conscious mind is just one part, one-tenth of your whole being. Nine-tenths is waiting in the darkness. And in that nine-tenths, somewhere your real center is hidden.

Part 2:

One has to be daring, courageous.

One has to take a step into the unknown.

For a while all boundaries will be lost.

For a while you will feel dizzy.

For a while, you will feel very afraid and shaken, as if an earthquake has happened. But if you are courageous and you don't go backwards, if you don't fall back to the ego and you go on and on, there is a hidden center within you that you have been carrying for many lives.

That is your soul, the self.

Once you come near it, everything changes, everything settles again. But now this settling is not done by the society. Now everything becomes a cosmos, not a chaos; a new order arises.

But this is no longer the order of the society - it is the very order of existence itself.

It is what Buddha calls Dhamma, Lao Tzu calls Tao, Heraclitus calls Logos. It is not man-made. It is the VERY order of existence itself. Then everything is suddenly beautiful again, and for the first time really beautiful, because man-made things cannot be beautiful. At the most you can hide the ugliness of them, that's all. You can decorate them, but they can never be beautiful.

The difference is just like the difference between a real flower and a plastic or paper flower. The ego is a plastic flower - dead. It just looks like a flower, it is not a flower. You cannot really call it a flower. Even linguistically to call it a flower is wrong, because a flower is something which flowers. And this plastic thing is just a thing, not a flowering. It is dead. There is no life in it.

You have a flowering center within. That's why Hindus call it a lotus - it is a flowering. They call it the one-thousand-petaled-lotus. One thousand means infinite petals. And it goes on flowering, it never stops, it never dies.

But you are satisfied with a plastic ego.

There are some reasons why you are satisfied. With a dead thing, there are many conveniences. One is that a dead thing never dies. It cannot - it was never alive. So you can have plastic flowers, they are good in a way. They are permanent; they are not eternal, but they are permanent.

The real flower outside in the garden is eternal, but not permanent. And the eternal has its own way of being eternal. The way of the eternal is to be born again and again and to die. Through death it refreshes itself, rejuvenates itself.

To us it appears that the flower has died - it never dies.

It simply changes bodies, so it is ever fresh.

It leaves the old body, it enters a new body. It flowers somewhere else; it goes on flowering.

But we cannot see the continuity because the continuity is invisible. We see only one flower, another flower; we never see the continuity.

It is the same flower which flowered yesterday.

It is the same sun, but in a different garb.

The ego has a certain quality - it is dead. It is a plastic thing. And it is very easy to get it, because others give it. You need not seek it, there is no search involved. That's why unless you become a seeker after the unknown, you have not yet become an individual. You are just a part of the crowd. You are just a mob.

When you don't have a real center, how can you be an individual?

The ego is not individual. Ego is a social phenomenon - it is society, its not you. But it gives you a function in the society, a hierarchy in the society. And if you remain satisfied with it, you will miss the whole opportunity of finding the self.

And that's why you are so miserable.

With a plastic life, how can you be happy?

With a false life, how can you be ecstatic and blissful? And then this ego creates many miseries, millions of them.

You cannot see, because it is your own darkness. You are attuned to it.

Have you ever noticed that all types of miseries enter through the ego? It cannot make you blissful; it can only make you miserable.

Ego is hell.

Whenever you suffer, just try to watch and analyze, and you will find, somewhere the ego is the cause of it. And the ego goes on finding causes to suffer.

You are an egoist, as everyone is. Some are very gross, just on the surface, and they are not so difficult. Some are very subtle, deep down, and they are the real problems.

This ego comes continuously in conflict with others because every ego is so unconfident about itself. Is has to be - it is a false thing. When you don't have anything in your hand and you just think that something is there, then there will be a problem.

If somebody says, "There is nothing," immediately the fight will start, because you also feel that there is nothing. The other makes you aware of the fact.

Ego is false, it is nothing.

That you also know.

How can you miss knowing it? It is impossible! A conscious being - how can he miss knowing that this ego is just false? And then others say that there is nothing - and whenever the others say that there is nothing they hit a wound, they say a truth - and nothing hits like the truth.

You have to defend, because if you don't defend, if you don't become defensive, then where will you be?

You will be lost.

The identity will be broken.

So you have to defend and fight - that is the clash.

A man who attains to the self is never in any clash. Others may come and clash with him, but he is never in clash with anybody.

It happened that one Zen master was passing through a street. A man came running and hit him hard. The master fell down. Then he got up and started to walk in the same direction in which he was going before, not even looking back.

A disciple was with the master. He was simply shocked. He said, "Who is this man? What is this? If one lives in such a way, then anybody can come and kill you. And you have not even looked at that person, who he is, and why he did it."

The master said, "That is his problem, not mine."

You can clash with an enlightened man, but that is your problem, not his. And if you are hurt in that clash, that too is your own problem. He cannot hurt you. And it is like knocking against a wall - you will be hurt, but the wall has not hurt you.

The ego is always looking for some trouble. Why? Because if nobody pays attention to you, the ego feels hungry.

It lives on attention.

So even if somebody is fighting and angry with you, that too is good because at least the attention is paid. If somebody loves, it is okay. If somebody is not loving you, then even anger will be good. At least the attention will come to you. But if nobody is paying any attention to you, nobody thinks that you are somebody important, significant, then how will you feed your ego?

Other's attention is needed.

In millions of ways you attract the attention of others; you dress in a certain way, you try to look beautiful, you behave, you become very polite, you change. When you feel what type of situation is there, you immediately change so that people pay attention to you.

This is a deep begging.

A real beggar is one who asks for and demands attention. And a real emperor is one who lives in himself; he has a center of his own, he doesn't depend on anybody else.

Buddha sitting under his bodhi tree…if the whole world suddenly disappears, will it make any difference to Buddha? -none. It will not make any difference at all. If the whole world disappears, it will not make any difference because he has attained to the center.

But you, if the wife escapes, divorces you, goes to somebody else, you are completely shattered - because she had been paying attention to you, caring, loving, moving around you, helping you to feel that you were somebody. Your whole empire is lost, you are simply shattered. You start thinking about suicide. Why? Why, if a wife leaves you, should you commit suicide? Why, if a husband leaves you, should you commit suicide? Because you don't have any center of your own. The wife was giving you the center; the husband was giving you the center.

This is how people exist. This is how people become dependent on others. It is a deep slavery. Ego HAS to be a slave. It depends on others. And only a person who has no ego is for the first time a master; he is no longer a slave. Try to understand this.

And start looking for the ego - not in others, that is not your business, but in yourself. Whenever you feel miserable, immediately close you eyes and try to find out from where the misery is coming and you will always find it is the false center which has clashed with someone.

You expected something, and it didn't happen.

You expected something, and just the contrary happened - your ego is shaken, you are in misery. Just look, whenever you are miserable, try to find out why.

Causes are not outside you. The basic cause is within you - but you always look outside, you always ask:

Who is making me miserable?
Who is the cause of my anger?
Who is the cause of my anguish?
And if you look outside you will miss.
Just close the eyes and always look within.
The source of all misery, anger, anguish, is hidden in you, your ego.

And if you find the source, it will be easy to move beyond it. If you can see that it is your own ego that gives you trouble, you will prefer to drop it - because nobody can carry the source of misery if he understands it.

And remember, there is no need to drop the ego.

You cannot drop it.

If you try to drop it, you will attain to a certain subtle ego again which says, "I have become humble."

Don't try to be humble. That's again ego in hiding - but it's not dead.

Don't try to be humble.

Nobody can try humility, and nobody can create humility through any effort of his own - no. When the ego is no more, a humbleness comes to you. It is not a creation. It is a shadow of the real center.

And a really humble man is neither humble nor egoistic.

He is simply simple.

He's not even aware that he is humble.

If you are aware that you are humble, the ego is there.

Look at humble persons…. There are millions who think that they are very humble. They bow down very low, but watch them - they are the subtlest egoists. Now humility is their source of food. They say, "I am humble," and then they look at you and they wait for you to appreciate them.

"You are really humble," they would like you to say. "In fact, you are the most humble man in the world; nobody is as humble as you are." Then see the smile that comes on their faces.

What is ego? Ego is a hierarchy that says, "No one is like me." It can feed on humbleness - "Nobody is like me, I am the most humble man."

It happened once:

A fakir, a beggar, was praying in a mosque, just early in the morning when it was still dark. It was a certain religious day for Mohammedians, and he was praying, and he was saying, "I am nobody. I am the poorest of the poor, the greatest sinner of sinners."

Suddenly there was one more person who was praying. He was the emperor of that country, and he was not aware that there was somebody else there who was praying - it was dark, and the emperor was also saying:

"I am nobody. I am nothing. I am just empty, a beggar at our door." When he heard that somebody else was saying the same thing, he said, "Stop! Who is trying to overtake me? Who are you? How dare you say before the emperor that you are nobody when he is saying that he is nobody?"

Part 3:

This is how the ego goes. It is so subtle. Its ways are so subtle and cunning; you have to be very, very alert, only then will you see it. Don't try to be humble. Just try to see that all misery, all anguish comes through it.

Just watch! No need to drop it.

You cannot drop it. Who will drop it? Then the DROPPER will become the ego. It always comes back.

Whatsoever you do, stand out of it, and look and watch.

Whatsoever you do - humbleness, humility, simplicity - nothing will help. Only one thing is possible, and that is just to watch and see that it is the source of all misery. Don't say it. Don't repeat it - WATCH. Because if I say it is the source of all misery and you repeat it, then it is useless. YOU have to come to that understanding. Whenever you are miserable, just close the eyes and don't try to find some cause outside. Try to see from where this misery is coming.

It is your own ego.

If you continuously feel and understand, and the understanding that the ego is the cause becomes so deep-rooted, one day you will suddenly see that it has disappeared. Nobody drops it - nobody can drop it. You simply see; it has simply disappeared, because the very understanding that ego causes all misery becomes the dropping. THE VERY UNDERSTANDING IS THE DISAPPEARANCE OF THE EGO.

And you are so clever in seeing the ego in others. Anybody can see someone else's ego. When it comes to your own, then the problem arises - because you don't know the territory, you have never traveled on it.

The whole path towards the divine, the ultimate, has to pass through this territory of the ego. The false has to be understood as false. The source of misery has to be understood as the source of misery - then it simply drops.

When you know it is poison, it drops. When you know it is fire, it drops. When you know this is the hell, it drops.

And then you never say, "I have dropped the ego." Then you simply laugh at the whole thing, the joke that you were the creator of all misery.

I was just looking at a few cartoons of Charlie Brown. In one cartoon he is playing with blocks, making a house out of children's blocks. He is sitting in the middle of the blocks building the walls. Then a moment comes when he is enclosed; all around he has made a wall. Then he cries, "Help, help!"

He has done the whole thing! Now he is enclosed, imprisoned. This is childish, but this is all that you have done also. You have made a house all around yourself, and now you are crying, "Help, help!" And the misery becomes a millionfold - because there are helpers who are also in the same boat.

It happened that one very beautiful woman went to see her psychiatrist for the first time. The psychiatrist said, "Come closer please." When she came closer, he simply jumped and hugged and kissed the woman. She was shocked. Then he said, "Now sit down. This takes care of my problem, now what is your problem?"

The problem becomes multifold, because there are helpers who are in the same boat. And they would like to help, because when you help somebody the ego feels very good, very, very good - because you are a great helper, a great guru, a master; you are helping so many people. The greater the crowd of your followers, the better you feel.

But you are in the same boat - you cannot help.

Rather, you will harm.

People who still have their own problems cannot be of much help. Only someone who has no problems of his own can help you. Only then is there the clarity to see, to see through you. A mind that has no problems of its own can see you, you become transparent.

A mind that has no problems of its own can see through itself; that's why it becomes capable of seeing through others.

In the West, there are many schools of psychoanalysis, many schools, and no help is reaching people, but rather, harm. Because the people who are helping others, or trying to help, or posing as helpers, are in the same boat.

…It is difficult to see one's own ego.

It is very easy to see other's egos. But that is not the point, you cannot help them.

Try to see your own ego.

Just watch it.

Don't be in a hurry to drop it, just watch it. The more you watch, the more capable you will become. Suddenly one day, you simply see that it has dropped. And when it drops by itself, only then does it drop. There is no other way. Prematurely you cannot drop it.

It drops just like a dead leaf.

The tree is not doing anything - just a breeze, a situation, and the dead leaf simply drops. The tree is not even aware that the dead leaf has dropped. It makes no noise, it makes no claim - nothing.

The dead leaf simply drops and shatters on the ground, just like that.

When you are mature through understanding, awareness, and you have felt totally that ego is the cause of all your misery, simply one day you see the dead leaf dropping.

It settles into the ground, dies of its own accord. You have not done anything so you cannot claim that you have dropped it. You see that it has simply disappeared, and then the real center arises.

And that real center is the soul, the self, the god, the truth, or whatsoever you want to call it.

It is nameless, so all names are good.

You can give it any name of your own liking.

You know, the truth is that I have given a great deal of my personal time through the years training people at no charge. Helping people in the hopes that they will pay it forward, and to see them succeed has always been the only reward I really wanted for it. I don't mean that to be goody two-shoes, I'm just being honest. But there should be an old saying. "If you want to find out who your friends are; start a web site!"

Well I've found out who my friends are and it hasn't gone unnoticed. We have poured so much of our time and passion into this thing so far and I want to thank Anuj, Joe, and of course Phil for being there with me and making it possible. I've taken a lot of chances and made a lot of sacrifices to do this and without those guys there would be no GUS and we certainly wouldn't have come as far as we have. It's actually hard to believe it hasn't even been a year because it feels like five years of work!

Today I went to a new gym (Goodlife, as if that matters, they're all a bunch of f&*%ers) and signed up for a membership. On a side note, not many things make my skin crawl as much as when I'm talking with a 'trainer' about a gym membership. The list of questions I was asked was pretty ridiculous, do you have experience training? would you like a dietitian? would you like a tanning membership? would you like a personal trainer? would you like to join our bodyblast group exercise program? and the list goes on….and on…

I talked to the manager before to see what the club offered and aside from not allowing chalk (I'm stuck so I can live with this and/or smuggle in a little bit…. shhhh don't tell) it should make for a decent enough place to, temporarily, hang my hat.

I have to go back for an assessment later this afternoon which will undoubtedly be a big pile of bs and most likely consist of max reps on chinups and pushups, at which point they somehow evaluate my overall fitness levels. After this is done I'm going to try and get a much much needed workout session in.

For today's session I'm planning something like this:

Deadlifts 4-5 sets of 3 (3 reps, not triples)
Pullups 4-5 BW sets
Pistols 2-3 sets
Bicep Curls (just so everyone else thinks I'm one of them)

For the time being, until I strengthen my back up again, I'm tempted to go with a 3 day routine and keep it very light in terms of how heavily I work my back. So squats, deads, OHs, and all of my beloved strength exercises will have to be lighter than normal in terms of both density and intensity. I'll be playing it by ear to see how the recovery goes.

I used to be into the muscle mags and for the past few years have grown to hate them and their ridiculous 'training routines'. But this sort of thing is not exclusive to muscle mags, we also have the 5x5s, HSTs, 5/3/1's and Westside's floating around. ALL of which are, essentially meant to 'not be f*(&ed with'. You may have some choice in exercise selection but in the end you're still just a cookie on a baking sheet.

It still amazes me that:

1) People still buy muscle mags and believe that the routine will work and

2) Believe that the program was written by some bodybuilder rather than some scrawny little guy sitting in an office chair

3) That people think the bodybuilder actually used that program to get to the level he is at.

4) That every month there is a new way to add inches to your arms and shred your abs in 6 days.

I've read most of, but not all of his books. My favorite probably being "A Dirty Job" but all of them have been a romp. He has a website and a blog but I'm not much on reading authors's blogs as I tend to think that detracts from, rather than adds to, their work. His thing is taking these various mythos and whacking them up. Think in terms of what Douglas Adams did for the space opera.

His novel Coyote Blue could be compared with Neil Gaiman's Anansi Boys but I liked Coyote Blue a lot better. I found Anansi Boy's to be tedious and couldn't get through it. Not get down on Neil Gaiman since I've only read that and "Coroline" and Coroline was just downright spooky althouh I think the comparisons to Narnia are just a bit much. But the "other" element is very disturbing in Coroline, and it is much more so than the "other" in science fiction as in Invasion of the Body Snatchers, etc..I think though someone compared it to Philip K. Dick's "The Father Thing" which is such a great example of that.

Coyote Blue is about "Old Man Coyote" which is a Native American myth whereas Gaiman's is about Anansi the Spider God from native African mythology. I don't know enough about Gaiman to get further into what he writes. I will definitely give him another chance, though.

Incidently, Moore lists Neil Gaiman's site on his blog's "friends list" and Neil Gaiman wrote "Don't Panic: The Official Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy Companion" so connections, connections…

Christopher Moore

Myth: Eat Small Meals Every 3 Hours - Contrary to Michelle May claim this is not based on any observation of skinny people eating like this. Rightly or wrongly the theory behind this "many small meals idea" is that when you reduce total calorie intake over the day, you can biochemically fool your body into thinking that it is not starving, thus preventing it from going into "famine survival mode" (i.e. ramping down BMR). That is you eat every three hours to let your body know that there is still plenty of food around and that it doesn't need to conserve energy to survive a famine. You eat small meals because many big meals won't exactly help you lose fat.

"Myth: Don’t Let Yourself Get Hungry" and "Myth: Follow Your Diet Six Days a Week Then You Can Have a Cheat Day" are for the same reason as above, i.e. not letting your body go into "survive a famine" mode, by trying to convince it that there is no famine to defend against (by conserving energy).

When you put in a link put an asterisk right before the url like this: [*http://url.com]

That will cause the link to automatically open in a new tab even if the person doesn't right click and select new tab. Very useful when reviewing videos and especially since youtube hangs up the back button. At least it does for me.

Also remember that you all can embed youtube videos directly and also a few others..Daily Motion, I think. Just copy and paste the embed code (you can customize it with the youtube settings as well), select the text, and hit the little video camera in the menu. Or just surround the embed code with:

 [[embed]] video code [[/embed]] 

I can embed pretty much any other video with a bit more rigging so let me know if you are using services other than youtube and want to be able to embed videos (and I can instruct anyone who is willing to learn). Remember that if you embed TOO many videos in your journal it will cause the page to load very slowly.

I picked up Patricia Cornwell's novel (I am so used to saying "story book" lol) featuring Dr. Scarpetta and I have to say…although both authors write in the gruesome crime genre, I like Patterson a lot more…with Cornwell I get bored easily.

I haven't been reading enough over the last week but I plan on picking up some cool science fiction / fantasy books this weekend if my college library has them.

Yes, I am a nerd.

Now, one movie which I DO want to see is:

The Book of Eli

Contact:
Dave Dixon
888-795-0444

FDA Press Release - Oviedo, FL – November 12, 2009 -IDS Sports announced today that it is conducting a voluntary nationwide recall of five of the company’s dietary supplement products sold under the following names: Bromodrol, Dual Action Grow Tabs, Grow Tabs, Mass Tabs, and Ripped Tabs TR.

The Food And Drug Administration (FDA) has notified IDS Sports that the recalled products contain the following undeclared substances, which FDA considers to be steroids: “Madol,” “Turinabol,” “Superdrol,” and/or “Androstenedione.”

Acute liver injury is known to be a possible harmful effect of using steroid-containing products. In addition, steroids may cause other serious long-term adverse health consequences in men, women, and children. These include shrinkage of the testes and male infertility, masculinization of women, breast enlargement in males, short stature in children, a higher predilection to misuse other drugs and alcohol, adverse effects on blood lipid levels, and increased risk of heart attack, stroke, and death.

The recalled products listed below were distributed in either black boxes containing blister packs of 60 capsules or white bottles with black labels containing 30 or 60 capsules.

Although no illnesses or adverse events have been reported to the company to date in connection with the products listed above, customers who have these products in their possession should stop using them immediately and contact their physician if they have experienced any problems that may be related to using one or more of the products. Any adverse events that may be related to the use of these products should be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting program online [at www.fda.gov/MedWatch/report.htm] or by returning the postage-paid FDA form 3500 [which may be downloaded from www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm] by mail [to MedWatch, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20852-9787] or fax [1-800-FDA-0178].

The FDA has been apprised of this recall and IDS Sports is cooperating with the FDA in this recall process.

I was wondering if any of you have had experience with athletic pubalgia (incorrectly called sports hernia) ? I'm in the middle of conservative treatment/PT and I'm not convinced my Physical Therapist is right on. He says the main structural issue that caused the wear and tear in my groin/lower ab, eventually causing the tear (which is essentially what athletic pubalgia is) is from lack of TVA activation in stabilizing my pubic bone. I'm concerned because I've talked to no one that the conservative treatment has worked on, and everyone says they eventually get surgery which I obviously don't want.

I'm 29, 6'2, 200 played small college hoops. Never had any real injury's except for a couple ankle sprains, but I gotta a mean anterior pelvic tilt. I hurt myself playing flag football, but the injury is a gradual one that I did sprinting, playing flag football, etc. Love to train and was finally getting close to my goal of double BW squat before I hurt myself! Now I haven't trained in 3 weeks! No surfing, basketball, football, weights, nothing!!

Sorry for the long post I'm eager to learn about this condition as much as I am eager to heal from my injury. Have learned a lot about it but want to get more input from others. Anyone?

As a for instance, you will get more potentially carcinogenic chemicals from a cup of coffee, organic or otherwise, than you will from a year of exposure to chemical pesticide residues. All the chemicals presents in the foods we eat…same picture. There are also many PROTECTIVE chemicals in the foods we eat. Including in coffee (bold statement seeing that coffee is supposed to have around 1000 chemicals of which twenty something have been investigated).

However there is no significant evidence that coffee, carrots, peppers, kung pao chicken, etc pose a real cancer risk.

Realize that when scientists are investigating chemicals for their carcinogenic properties they are NOT trying to "prove" that the chemical causes cancer. They are looking for potential. And they are certainly not, by extension, trying to prove that the associated food causes cancer.

Even though you get so many potentially harmful organic chemicals form the food you eat, so much so that that exposure might be said to pose a greater risk than pesticide chemical exposure, it is no where near the ridiculously large amounts that laboratory rats are exposed to! Also, a fact that many people don't know is that "strains" of rats that are "prone" to certain types of cancer are chosen for many of these trials. The idea being is that if you think a chemical causes skin tumors you pick a strain that is prone to skin tumors (not saying much since rats are particulary prone to skin tumors).

As a by the by..rats go down with cancer a dime a dozen. Even your really nice pet store rats. Simply put, they were never meant to live the cushy lives they do in captivity and thus their small and short lived bodies have few defenses against the toxic chemicals that build up in their tissues when they live unnaturally long lives.

For those of you who know me, here's a chance to see me keep it to 255 characters or less. Bet you didn't think I could do it!

Feel welcome to start threads here on any of the individual tips if you would desire further discussion.

Bartender says "Sure, but why the big pause?"

Panda says "These? I've always had these."

There are a LOT of stupid things in that article.

Point #1:

The caption below the photo is "Chad weighing in at a thick 286"

How the heck is Chad at 286 lbs? Is he 8 feet tall??

Point #2:

There's no substitute for chins and dips from rings.

What? How about chins and dips from normal places to do chins and dips? And so everyone who doesn't have access to rings is spinning their wheels doing dips for parallel bars and chins from regular bars?

Point #3:

Pushing an athlete when he wants to be pushed doesn't do any good. You must push him when he's off balance.

Chad's claim to fame is making his trainees fall down when they least expect it. Great.

Point #4:

If I decided to put back on 30 pounds of muscle, I'd have one helluva time getting female clients in this town. That's something I don't want.

So putting on 30 pounds of muscle is that easy? LOL….

LOL Waterbury is such an idiot…

Don't view the pictures if you're a dog lover or if you love pit bulls.

http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2009/10/leaked_photos_of_dead_pit_bull.php

Especially regarding the fact that you became "Too Flexible" to perform RDLs optimally.Another good write up for sure.

Now for the article on Janda situps!!! (these are a mystery to me : )) or did I miss that one??

I'll provide the absract, conclusion and then a link to the full article.

Calories Do Not Explain Extension of Life Span by Dietary Restriction in Drosophila

William Mair, Matthew D. W. Piper, Linda Partridge

Centre for Research on Ageing, University College London, Department of Biology, London, United Kingdom

Abstract

Dietary restriction (DR) extends life span in diverse organisms, including mammals, and common mechanisms may be at work. DR is often known as calorie restriction, because it has been suggested that reduction of calories, rather than of particular nutrients in the diet, mediates extension of life span in rodents. We here demonstrate that extension of life span by DR in Drosophila is not attributable to the reduction in calorie intake. Reduction of either dietary yeast or sugar can reduce mortality and extend life span, but by an amount that is unrelated to the calorie content of the food, and with yeast having a much greater effect per calorie than does sugar. Calorie intake is therefore not the key factor in the reduction of mortality rate by DR in this species.

Conclusions

The response of Drosophila life span to nutrition is not governed by calories, but rather by specific nutritional components of the food. This finding represents a departure from the generally accepted model in rodents, where it has been suggested that the level of calorie intake per se, not the source of calories, is critical for life-span extension [1]. The apparent disparity between the factors in the diet that affect life span in fruit flies and rodents leads to two possible conclusions. First, the mechanisms by which these organisms respond to food shortage could be different. Second, the long-held view that calorie intake is the critical variable in the response of mammalian life span to DR may require further evaluation.

Despite some reports in the literature that DR did not extend life span [38,41,42], the overwhelming majority of data support the idea that DR in some form extends life span across diverse taxa. However, it is still unknown if life-span extension under DR is achieved through common mechanisms in different species. A case for conservation of the mechanisms by which DR extends life span can be made from evolutionary considerations. It has been suggested that, during times of famine, diversion of resources away from reproduction towards somatic maintenance will increase the chances of an organism surviving to more plentiful times and thus increase long-term reproductive success [43–46]. The selective advantage of shifting resources from reproduction to maintenance when food is restricted could be the “public” factor shared between diverse organisms. However, the mechanisms by which extension of life span is achieved could be an example of convergent evolution, producing the same plasticity of life span in response to food shortage through mechanisms at least to some extent specific to different organisms, dependent upon their diet, experience of food shortages, and life history. More work is needed to elucidate the precise relationship between the composition of the diet and life span in different organisms, including mammals. Our results suggest that it may be possible to obtain the full extension of life span by DR by reducing critical nutrients in the food without any reduction in overall calorie intake.

http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.0030223

Stats:
Age: 17
Height: 6'6" (Measured over the weekend)
Weight: 185 (Eating 3500 calories to gain a pound per week, 200g+ of protein, as clean as possible)

Mobility Excercises:
1.) Supine Bridge - 12 reps
2.) Wall Ankle Mobilization - 10 reps
3.) Pull-Back Butt Kick - 10 reps per leg
4.) Cradle Walk - 10 reps per leg
5.) Squat-to-Stand - 10 reps
6.) Seated 90/90 Stretch - 15 seconds per side
7.) Walking Spiderman - 10 reps per side

Deadlift Warmup
135 1 x 5
175 1 x 5
205 1 x 3

Deadlift Work Sets
235 5 x 2 Details: Felt pretty good with this weight, took around 2 and a half to 3 minutes between sets (I'll have a digital time counter for next time to make sure) it didn't seem all that heavy and I do not believe form was compromised at all (It felt good and the people watching me didn't seem to have any complaints).

Front Squat Warmup
Pretty much warmed up with an empty bar, rested, added weight, rested, added weight, rested. Maybe not as much rest as taken with the deadlifts. But I think I got the movement and ROM down path and feeling confident about doing this excercise again. My last set ended up being 135 for 3 reps. Pretty good form, but it was also my first time doing the excercise. I can drop the weight if needed to get better ROM. No ego here guys.

Planks
I know this is going to sound silly but because I did not have a timer. I couldn't tell exactly how long I was going for. But it felt like forever :P. Don't worry, I am very serious about it.

Took me around 80 minutes to complete (Wolf said between 70-90).

Hope I posted enough detail to help you guys out. If there are any more questions just ask.

This comes with "Sony Ebook Store" software. But you can get books all over the place. Whats more..you can check out books from you local library! I checked out two yesterday..you HAVE to download the Adobe Digital Editions for this and you need to have an adobe account but it's pretty killer. Hard to find books that aren't checked out but still…of course you can get audio books for your mp3 that way as well.

I thought about the kindle and it IS nice but the Sony lets you do things the kindle doesn't. The sony doesn't have wi fi but that is no big deal to me.

I read a while on the reader in bed last night just like a regular book. Didn't take long to get used to it. The screen simulates a page very nicely and you can even use this in the sun with not glare.

So far I'm pretty jazzed with it.

This is the one I have: