dust

Yes, better to eat something than nothing, I'd suggest that advising Taoway on a healthy and nutritious diet will help him feel healthier and put on weight (if he's really too skinny)

No, that's not true.

You're describing an American diet, sure. You're also describing the highway to heart disease, stroke, diabetes, and even dementia. This diet could make him bigger, but not in a good way. Health should not be sacrificed for size. I think the rest of your advice is great, but eating lots of animal products is incredibly unhealthy. Ask for the evidence and it will be given. For starters, though, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/04/150412-longevity-health-blue-zones-obesity-diet-ngbooktalk/ Fat is good, not saying it's bad. For healthy, delicious, calorie-dense weight-gainers, I'd suggest nut butters (peanut being the cheapest, also an excellent source of protein and micronutrients), hummus (can be cheap), beans (very cheap), stuff with vegetable oil (olive, rapeseed, sunflower, etc), and maybe fish (price depends on location; also a source of essential and usually lacking nutrients like DHA and vit D).

This theory is nonsense.

https://www.hiscox.co.uk/business-blog/uk-tech-industry-bigger-problem-gender/ In a nutshell: there's a gender gap in the tech industry in the UK, fewer women truly computer literate than men, but more than that there is a general skills gap when compared with other countries (USA, India, etc) and this will be detrimental to the UK in the future. Thoughts? I'm aware of having been told -- for a good many years -- how literate my generation is in computer technology compared to our forerunners. But I'm equally aware that almost everyone I've ever met would shriek and run a mile at being presented with even the most basic line of code. Most of us don't actually understand anything past the GUI, so to call us "computer literate" might be a stretch.

Indeed, functional literacy is an issue. I'm often struck by it online. http://www.literacytrust.org.uk/adult_literacy/illiterate_adults_in_england But that is not to say that it's worse now than it was before. If functional literacy is measured against general literacy, it must always be lower (only literate people can be functionally illiterate). When literacy levels were 20% lower than they are now (roughly 80% in 1860 by eyeing the graph above), functional literacy levels must have been within this 80%, which most likely means more than 20% functional illiteracy. Well, I'd guess a good deal more.

Another instance of me having no clue what you're talking about....I fear another 3-page disagreement. Let me put it this way: Literacy in England, 1580-1920 – Clark (2008) Literacy isn't the only way to gauge education, but it's a pretty good indicator.

I'm quite sure actual intelligence hasn't changed since the 1860s, and undoubtedly the education/knowledge of the average person is greater now than it was then. I might agree that there's been a change from a well-educated "upper class" in charge to a moderately-educated population (supposedly) in charge. (The result is probably much the same, though I certainly don't think we'd be better off going back to the times when women couldn't vote and most men had little opportunity.) In the 1860s there were a lot of people who had no education other than a hereditary "Father's a farmer, I'm a farmer" type -- a caste system, really. It was a rare few who actually knew much more than their labour, let alone anything about philosophy or science or the workings of the government, or had any power to change their circumstance. Butcher, baker, candlestick maker. Now, thanks to a few (mostly educated and powerful people) who worked very hard to change things, everyone has a better education and some power, and thanks to technology everyone in the West has access to knowledge if they want it. I can't speak on the '60s with any authority. But though the original Leary album "turn on tune in drop out" refers to playing said album and taking drugs, the phrase is applicable to television and radio and a few other things, including the internet. Having recently watched HyperNormalisation I have been struck by the notion that all our modern access to knowledge is something of an illusion: as now we have so much choice, such ease of access, we daily tune in to our "recommendations" and "liked content" and favourite websites, and tune the rest out, which eventually funnels many into a world where their preferences are continually fed back to them and they rarely encounter anything that challenges their worldview. So, yes, I'd agree that we're getting dumber, though I'd not like to claim any particular starting point for it.

Thanks cheya. The thing I like about that is the simple way he's explained it. To the point. I've read about PNF, PAILs/RAILs, and other similar techniques, but they all make it seem very complicated. If this is really all one needs to know -- simultaneous contraction and lengthening -- it makes things a lot easier. It's close to the sinew / resistance stretching we both mentioned earlier in the thread (page 2). I suppose this might explain why ballistic stretching / light pulsing against a load seems to have been working for me. PNF uses isotonic loading with a partner, PAILs uses isometric loading by oneself, LPS (loaded progressive stretching) uses isometric resistance against a load, RFST uses continuous isotonic loading either by oneself or with a partner, and the pulsing I've been working with uses isotonic loading in small bursts. And I guess the stretching that occurs as a result of good Taiji practice is similarly based on working against resistance into a lengthened position.

Irresponsible Boomers?

I know. And it's not true -- every generation has its culprits -- I just felt like being provocative.

Hehe. I'm Gen X, rather than Millennial, but am well aware of and grateful for the immense opportunity I've had in my life; I know a few Millennials, and they are as aware and grateful as I. Not sure what you mean by "later generations" but If any generation has, in or around my lifetime, committed irresponsible action, the Baby Boomers are the worst culprits by far. (..oops.. should I have opened this can of worms?)

Thanks. I have been appreciating the exchange between Taomeow and dwai (however over my head) but it's nice to have some more simple stretching advice! The partner-aided stretch confirms again that I would benefit from a partner to help with such sinew / PNF / whatever-one-wants-to-call-it stretching. Hmm.. I'll post a couple of my favourite stretches / mobility routines later on (try to fill in some 'gaps' from all the good advice offered so far)

The way many people pronounce them, "Sun Tzu" and "Sun Zoo" sound exactly the same. And people who work in Chinese restaurants aren't always Chinese, even if they look like they could be. So, Your first problem was, possibly, assuming that this woman, just because she works in a Chinese restaurant, can speak a language other than English. Your second problem was, possibly, assuming that anyone would think you were talking of Sun Zoo rather than Sun Tzu. Your third problem? Everyone in that second video is using English (yes, even the hairy one who seems to be speaking gibberish -- I caught some English words in there), and the title has some Korean in it. So, asking a woman who may or may not be Chinese / Chinese-American to translate the words in an English rap with an English-Korean title by a mostly Filipino-American group... doesn't make much sense. What did you want it translated to?? She probably thought you were crazy...

Edited to reflect. I often speak in haste, though I stand by what I said about Trump. He's not a bad man in charge yet, and certainly he doesn't come close to the nastiness of some leaders in the world today, but he's not someone I am able to find any good in, even if such was my way.

A number of other topics regarding rape, race, sex, violence, conflict, politics, philosophy, etc, and the opinions espoused within these by certain members, go a long way past what some might consider unacceptable on such a forum. So I'm not clear on the problem of speaking (my view of) the truth -- in figurative terms -- about a sociopath under the spotlight of world politics. At the same time, I was mostly just being over-the-top in my description of Trump to highlight what 'unkind' really sounds like; to show that the Dalai Lama was really rather tame and innocent in his 'unkindness'.

I will concede that not every ancient person in every ancient culture had a deep respect for wildlife and a keen instinct for protecting their habitat. During the Bronze Age, they did indeed cut down a lot of trees here. (Well, a lot by their standards.) But as I have said, such behaviour was all on a much smaller scale than now. It was not, at that time, ever going to become threatening to the island, let alone the environment beyond. Nowadays, the extent of deforestation in many places is unimaginable by Bronze Age standards. As far as mammoths -- any scientific consensus does not blame humans alone but also natural climate change and perhaps meteorites. Yes, things other than humans may wreak havoc and kill blindly. As far as midden heaps... well, I can imagine that wherever there were middens, there was a nasty area and some fish probably died... but is this something to look at with nostalgia, or with disgust? Anyway, your comments only serve to help my case, however they're taken. If you're right, and man has always polluted, the only reasonable conclusion is to decide to actually start learning from history, (as I continually hear people talking about doing but rarely actually doing). Apparently, we haven't learned anything and we're happy to expand our pollutive behaviour exponentially until everything is dead. If you're wrong, and man has not always polluted, then we have a time at some point in history during which humans did indeed respect their habitat. Which is nice. The truth is somewhere in between. Not every culture has been respectful, but it's become worse as time has gone on. The bigger our brains became, the more we learned to do, the more we produced, the more we farmed, the more we were likely to damage things around us. But as we do now have these big brains and have learned a lot of stuff and have greatly exceeded necessity in our production, we might start to look around and think "Oh, shit... look at all this shit. It's horrible."

Trump looks like a deformed cartoon fish with a wig. Every time he opens his mouth, a bucket of shit slops out. He's disgusting mentally and physically. If he ever said anything nice or positive, if he was a kind and warm person, he'd probably seem a lot less ugly. But he's not, and he doesn't. So, I don't see the Lama's 'impression' as unkind. It's a fair impression, and with no hint of malevolence when he does it. Unlike what I just said. That was unkind. But still fair.

That depends on what you mean by ancient humans , in any case , how could you possibly know that ? In my experience, in direct relationship with one of the oldest surviving cultures on earth ( not that their behavior indicates what ancient humans did , but it seems the closest indicator we have ) certainly do have a need to protect and a very clear concept of what protecting the environment is .... so do many other indigenous cultures around the world that are at latter stages of technological development . Even some of the earliest scripture of 'ancient humans' ( Avestas ) outline laws for environmental protection. As I see it, ancient humans had no need to protect the environment the way we talk about protecting the environment because they caused little of the various kinds of damage we cause (massive deforestation, industrial waste, plastic in the oceans, etc etc) and on a much smaller scale. It might seem like nitpicking, but I was only drawing the distinction, for Karl's sake, between what's happening now and what happened in the past. Currently there are global human-caused environmental problems, but a few thousand or tens of thousands of years ago the human-caused problems could only have existed on a smaller habitat scale. So, yes, they had the concept of environmental protection, but calling it that seems a bit strong when I consider how we think about environmental protection these days. I certainly did not mean that ancient cultures did not respect and care for their habitats...

Not really sure what to call this topic or exactly what I want to talk about, so I'll just start here and see. Bear with me. http://www.theinertia.com/surf/the-five-elements-of-athlete-its-all-about-neurotransmitters/ Looking up strength programming, and in particular looking for info on the methods used by Charles Poliquin, who has apparently produced Olympic gold medalists in "18 sports" and has influenced some of the more successful strength and movement professionals currently active, I found this. In this article, we learn that Poliquin's approach was initially based on comparing the Five Elements of traditional Chinese philosophy/politics/medicine/science/mysticism/etc -- Fire, Water, Wood, Metal, Earth -- with the four primary neurotransmitters -- dopamine, acetylcholine, gamma-aminobutyic acid, serotonin (and the fifth being a balance of all four). This leads us to look at the Braverman test, which apparently helps us to figure out our neurotransmitter profile. Assuming you've read the article and test and know a little about the Five Elements, a few questions (suggestions, really -- conversation doesn't need to be limited to these): One: The Five Elements Do you believe in the five elements as applied to personality? Can this approach apply to physiology / exercise? Do you know what your personality type is? If you are versed in the area: How would you advise someone to find out their dominant element? Can you point to an accurate online summary of the five? Is the above article accurate? Two: The Neurotransmitters Where are you (apparently) dominant? (or are you balanced?) Where are you (apparently) currently deficient? (or are you perfect?) Do you believe in this approach as applied to personality? Do you believe in this approach as applied to physiology / an exercise regime? Three: Putting them together Can the Five Elements and neurotransmitter personality profiles coalesce? Does Earth correspond with being balanced in the other four in the same way that the fifth neurotransmitter profile means being balanced in all four? Is Poliquin a nutter? As far as me: The test suggests that I am generally slightly more dominant in dopamine and GABA, and least dominant in acetylcholine; but currently deficient in GABA. I have, however, been told in the past -- and agreed with the notion -- that I am a 'Wood' personality, which apparently should correspond with acetylcholine. So that's all a bit of a muddle... unless conflicting information is presented, I'm not much convinced that they can coalesce. Though I think there may be something to them both taken separately. I may look into improving the balance, trying to increase GABA, just to see how it affects me. Interested in hearing others' views / experiences. Sorry it's all a bit of a muddle.

Interesting to hear. It's an almost mystical group, hard to find much info about details, pricing etc unless one emails them directly as far as I can tell... but from what I've gathered from the net there are those who love it and those who think it's a waste of money. Some I've seen saying that practicing 3 hours/day 6 days/week for 3 months straight, of course someone will see improvements. Then there are those claiming the deeper level of programming that one can't find just anywhere. Certainly I most look forward to a seminar, or even Movement Camp one year, but won't rule out coaching just yet. Thanks for the GB link. Heard about Sommer but haven't looked into them much. Looks like the blog might have some useful ideas. (As far as training, if I were to part with money, it would likely be for Ido and friends..)

Aha! Finally some backup! The first article rings true. In general, boys might prefer trucks, etc. (Not true in my case, but there we are.) Forcing children to be neutral in their play, making everyone play with everything, would be as big a mistake as forcing them to choose based on gender stereotype, certainly. "Multiple studies in humans and primates shows there is a substantial male advantage in mental rotation, which is taking an object and rotating it in the mind," whichsurely relates to the abstract activity of programming. And programming is certainly not social in nature. The second article seems to agree with both of us on different points. I skimmed, but might wonder why you claim that women are "over represented" in certain fields -- the article talks of parity, i.e. a roughly even number. It says "Women earned 46.3 percent of the PhDs in the biological sciences", for example, which is great, but not over represented, I think. If we take it that women do indeed prefer not to go into coding, that (as the first article would suggest) certain sciences are of more interest to men, then unequal numbers in some areas are not to be seen as a major problem, and you have some good evidence here (I'm honestly glad to see some, finally). A little more and I'll happily concede that you're right that there might not be a problem with lack of women in programming -- though there's still the question of why women used to be more into coding than they are now. At the same time... "Why do women exit the STEM workforce? The answer is not genetic disposition or lack of interest. If this were the case, then female STEM students would underperform their male counterparts in college and graduate school. The data show the contrary: women outperform men academically, receive more awards, and have higher graduation rates and better attitudes toward education. Interviews, case studies, and statistical research consistently suggest that two primary factors stand out among the multiple forces pushing women to leave the STEM workforce: the need to balance career and family and a lack of professional networks." ... the article does still seem to suggest a general disparity in the STEM workforce. And none of this goes any way to solving the main thing I took issue with, which is you refusing to even consider the question in the first place....

Really? Cuz...well, he's the one claiming to be in it for a fight......

Haha! We're on the same page. I've been following Ido (just online) for maybe 2 years. Among a few other influences, he's changed my perspective a lot too. I look forward to a time when I can spare the money for a few months of online coaching, or when he happens to have a seminar nearby. I've always been a generalist in most areas of life, but I was stuck in a weightlifting/bodybuilding routine for many years, thinking it was all I needed -- I barely moved at all except for that. When I discovered this guy espousing a generalist movement philosophy, even talking shit to specialists, I was hooked. But I've had a lot of work to do on mobility. Knowing about some of his methods (LPS etc) and applying hasn't been enough. Or, I want to learn more. That's what has me asking the guys here about their various stretching methods...

The way you describe the photo, it does sound disturbing. And yes, some gay people force themselves to stand out for what I would agree are the wrong reasons. And involving children in some of it would be nasty. On the other hand, perhaps you're simply not sharing the photo because it's not as bad as you describe? Maybe they're just dressed as animals for fun, like people do sometimes -- Hallowe'en, birthdays, parades, etc. It is quite common to dress up. And let's not pretend that what you describe -- if it's true -- is the norm. Google image "gay pride parade" and I find very few images of children at all, let alone in the situation you describe. Lots of colour and topless people, sure, but I see no problem with topless people.