Fun fact, that gene is only about whether you can smell the compound in the piss, not whether your body processes asparagus into that smell.
They tested this by having people smell other people's urine, and found that the people who can smell it in their own piss can also smell it in the piss of everyone who eats asparagus, even of the people who claim not to produce that smell.
Week 3 of 5/3/1 with training maxes of deadlift/squat/bench of 385/335/180 lbs.
I was coming off of some mild illness that left me with no appetite all weekend, and I was definitely dehydrated coming into the week.
Deadlift: I hit 5 reps of 370 lbs on my 1+ set. Didn't love that, but I went for a joker set anyway and did 2 reps of 405.
Squat: Warmed up with the wrong bar (25 kg instead of 45 lbs), started to get confused why it felt so heavy on my 5-rep set. Double checked and switched over to a 45-lb bar. For my 1+ set, I did 6 reps of 320 lbs, then a joker set of 3x350.
Bench: Did 5x170 on my 1+ set, did a joker set of 2x190. Felt ok. Accessory work after felt pretty good, though. Not sure what to make of that.
Overall, I'm a little bit disappointed with the reps I managed on these workouts. Can't tell how much was loss of sleep, dehydration, illness, whatever, but I think I wasn't 100% this week. Still, I think I'm ready to try to move up by 20 lbs on deadlift/squat training max and 10 lbs on bench, as I recover and should feel much better next week than I did this week.
Standard way to talk about weight includes the bar weight (usually 45 lbs or 20 kg, but I've seen others out there).
It's not a big deal when you're just tracking your linear progress, as long as you're consistent, but it's still helpful to include the bar weight when talking to other people (who will expect the bar weight to be included), and if you get later into more advanced lifting programs that prescribe certain percentages of some reference weight.
Barbell arithmetic becomes second nature after you've been doing it a while, too.
I like stir frying for the versatility in playing around with different ratios of vegetables to meat as your macros allow (and can be paired with rice as macros allow). Yes, sometimes that's broccoli, but often it's something like snap peas, onions, carrots, bell peppers, celery, even peanuts or cashews. And you can rotate through chicken, beef, pork, shrimp, tofu, seitan, etc. It's basically a formula that takes away a lot of the thinking while giving the versatility to make full use of the ingredients you have on hand, and doesn't get tedious or repetitive.
Similarly, I use a lot of vegetables for pasta, and do some kind of pasta primavera pretty often: blanch some combination of broccoli, broccolini, peas, snow peas, snap peas, asparagus, fiddleheads, etc., and then put in with your cooked pasta and cover in freshly grated parm, maybe some cream or butter. Add chicken or shrimp if you'd like to take it in that direction. Use high protein or whole grain pasta if you'd like.
Or even a traditional tomato based pasta sauce has a ton of room for other vegetables, meats. And it doesn't even have to top pasta, if your macros don't have room for those carbs. A red sauce can be put on eggplant or zucchini and still tastes great.
Everybody's punching up.
The diversity in preferences makes "up" impossible to define and order consistently between people. If you take a survey of a population for an ordered ranking, in desire ability as potential spouses, of a particular sample set, you might get wildly different rankings.
And then those same people might rank things differently depending on who they would most want to have a one night stand with.
Even laying out specific physical characteristics and asking about attractiveness will get those isolated features ranked differently. Heterosexual men will disagree on whether it is attractive, unattractive or neutral for a woman to be:
We're all just looking for compatibility. What that means will vary from person to person, and what is very attractive to one person might be a huge turn off to another.
I'm generally of the view that you want to be with someone whose unique traits are positive to you, and who sees your unique traits as positives, too. That way both can fall within that stable equilibrium of both believing that they've married "up."
If you're accommodating another group of people you should produce enough to always feed them, too, not just sometimes in surplus years. The whole point is that you've gotta plan for a surplus, otherwise you risk starvation in bad years (and it doesn't make it any better, morally, if the people who bear the risk of starving are "another group or people").
how does waste prevent a shortage from becoming a famine ?
Making the expected production a higher number than the expected need will give the headroom necessary to deal with a shortage without people starving.
If you're aiming to produce food for a population of 100,000, but have the capacity to make food for 200,000, then you can afford to waste half of your food without starvation. You can also accommodate a 50% drop in production without starvation.
So that buffer is expected waste, but it's also starvation resistance.
Each item in this list is a euphemism for drinking Corona.
There's a quote in The Catcher in the Rye, attributed to Wilhelm Stekel:
The mark of the immature man is that he wants to die nobly for a cause, while the mark of the mature man is that he wants to live humbly for one.
In most cases, one can do a lot more aggregate good over a long period of time than in a flashy moment, and we should live our lives in recognition of that reality.
Predate rationalism? Modern rationalism and the scientific method came up in the 16th and 17th centuries, and was built on ancient foundations.
Phlogiston theory was developed in the 17th century, and took about 100 years to gather the evidence to make it infeasible, after the discovery of oxygen.
Luminiferous aether was disproved beginning in the late 19th century and the nail in the coffin happened by the early 20th, when Einstein's theories really started taking off.
Plate tectonics was entirely a 20th century theory, and became accepted in the second half of the 20th century, by people who might still be alive today.
It means you have a lot more strength to gain. I think you can afford to just maintain while getting stronger, maybe for a few months, and then when you start cutting again it'll be easier.
I dunno, I think he looks good. He has noticeably more muscle than the average guy on the street, and I'd imagine that if he didn't work out he'd look worse with general flabbiness.
I had a similar build in my late 20's. At one point, I had just started dating someone new, and I said something self deprecating or playful about my own body, and she outright scoffed at me, and blurted out "what the fuck are you talking about, you've got an amazing body" and it was just the little jolt of self esteem boost I didn't know I was looking for.
Understanding the difference between bodies one would have working out for a year versus not working out that year is important. It's still a significant difference that people notice, even if there's another significant difference between the one-year guy and the professional fitness model in the magazines.