Adarq.org

Quote from: LBSS on June 06, 2011, 02:29:39 pm

wide stance is only for people who plan to be soliciting sex in bathrooms in the minneapolis-st. paul airport

How do you know that precise location? Have you... you know...

No, but this guy has...

wide stance is only for people who plan to be soliciting sex in bathrooms in the minneapolis-st. paul airport. if your stance is too narrow there no one can see your coded foot taps. narrow stance, which protects the bunghole rather than inviting penetration by anonymous strangers, is much better suited to building general leg strength.

duh.

I hate that shit, when I feel like I can get 1-2" below peak with ease, over and over but then can't get beyond it. Oh well, just gotta try to do better next time.

jet lag caught up with me

BW = ???
SORENESS = hamstrings a tiny bit, not really noticeable
ACHES/INJURIES = none
FATIGUE = moderate to high

session 1: volume

- warm up

- sprints : 10-20's
2 x 60%, 4 X 90%

- DLRVJ
x 15-20 == started with some drop steps, then second full run-up was very good considering how tired I was today, probably legit 32, grabbed rim easily. downhill from there, though, most other jumps in the 30.5 range. oh well, still felt pretty good.

- squat 3 x 5
285,285,285

- BSS 3 x 5
skipped because i think these are causing some knee pain, gotta get that figured out

- light calf raise: 4 x 5
185,185,185,185

- core
--chin up x 10+3+3 lol
--dip + 43 x 3, +33 x5,5 lol
--ab wheel roll out 3 x 20

- stretch

upper body is weeeeeak. fml.

Was in San Francisco visiting friends from Thursday-Tuesday. Absolutely amazing. Didn't work out but did get in plenty of catch, hiking and stretching and mostly just relaxing and being around people that I miss a lot and wish I could see more often, but they live 3,000 miles away.

Got back late last night and DC is now basically the Amazon but with less biodiversity. Didn't sleep well and hadn't worked out in days so was planning to just get in the gym, warm up, sprint a bit, jump a bit, do some random other shit, stretch and call it a day. Mission accomplished, plus a pleasant surprise.

BW = 170.2 and lean as fuck, you jokers who said I didn't have abs in those pics a while back should see me now. I got abzzzz, kids. 
SORENESS = none
ACHES/INJURIES = none
FATIGUE = moderate

- warm up
shot around, lacrosse balled the buhjesus out of my shoulders and hips

- sprints x 15y
2 x 70%, 2 x 90%

- drop step VJ
a few submax, maybe 10

- DLRVJ
a few submax, maybe 8, but 4 or 5 were 30.5+ with a couple of 31-31.5's and a possible 32. wowthatwasnutswtf.

- pull ups and chin ups x some

- push ups and chest-tap push ups x some

- KB swings 3 x 8 x one of the big ones

- stretch

it's brutal outside. window A/C unit is going in right the fuck now.

sick. 

LBSS,

Now you're creating a strawmen. I never said blacks were better dancers and I never said dumb people were better dancers. I said people thought to be highly intelligent that think a lot generally aren't good dancers (or good athletes).  And they aren't. Regardless of skin color.   The evolution of the human brain particularly with regards to front brain development does explain why if you link that with movement skills.

okay, fair enough. you never actually said that dumb(er) people were better dancers than (more) intelligent people. but that's a pretty logical next step from "more intelligent people tend to be worse dancers." i mean, if they're worse dancers, then they have to be, well, worse than somebody. because your category was "more intelligent people," then by default the compared-to category is "less intelligent people." i mean, right? is "less intelligent people" not basically the same as "dumber" people? if not, forgive my laziness earlier. i should have changed all references to "dumb" or "dumber" people to "less intelligent people," to be more in keeping with your original statement.

i never said in my responses that you'd said that black people were better dancers, but i think i get why you thought i was implying that. for the record, i was thinking of, among other people, this unbelievably nerdy guy (the dude went to st. john's college: they learn calculus by reading principia mathematica) i met at a wedding recently who was cleaning UP with the bridesmaids and other female guests because he'd started swing dancing when he was a kid and never stopped. not that he was even swing dancing at the wedding, he was just dancing. panties were flying off all around him. if i didn't already have a girlfriend to dance with my clumsy ass and then have sex with me later, i would have been envious as shit.

the point is, you're still just making the strange, possibly true (but probably not) conjecture that people who "think a lot" or who are "thought to be highly intelligent" are not as good dancers as people who "think less," as defined by yourself. and i'm telling you that whether they're "thought to be intelligent" is probably completely irrelevant to whether they're good dancers or not. to my mind, unless you can prove it in some way other than a casual reference to "the evolution of the human brain with regards to front brain development" (what does that even mean?), then you're just babbling.




also, lamp, "young males of west african descent" =/= "black people." barack obama is also referred to as black, but he's half kenyan and half white (irish). if you can link to those studies, i'd love to see them. "young males of west african descent" is at least a somewhat defined category. ffs.