Second unilateral workout.
- 8 @ 22.1
- 8 @ 24.5
- 8 @ 24.5
- 8 @ 22.1 X3
- 8 @ 19.5 X3
- 8 @ 29.5 (8 @ 26.5) X2
So I've made a second blog again using Blogger, A GTD Journey. I've been meaning to implement GTD for a while now, having seen it around a lot. I'm seperating these two blogs out so that both me and the readers can get a better view of the GTD system being formed and moulded.
I missed my workout on Friday because my abs were killing me, the uniateral stuff on Wednesday really worked my core hard.
Anyway, today I did 3 sets of bounding, richochets and depth jumps.
I then did acceleration work, basically just trying to get up to full speed as quickly as possible. I did 9 sets, 3 of a different starting stance (standing facing foward, standing facing back, jogging backwards).
Pretty good workout, still had a lot in me at the end but I felt like I got a lot accomplished.
As per this post I decided to do some unilateral work today. I didn't go heavy with the weights, but still had a good workout, it was still pretty hard.
I was reading an article over at T-Nation, 10 Things to Do...in the Gym, in the Kitchen, and in Your Head, and two of the things mentioned are ones I'm really keen to try.
One is a unilateral day, where all the moves are just using one limb basically. For me now is a great time to try it during my one gym day a week. I'm just about to go workout so I'll have some results in a short while.
The other was the snatch grip deadlift off a box, which I am keen to try. I'll probably fit this in my next strength routine after this speed one.
Another random thought I had today was about my speed workouts, maybe I'm doing too much volume. I'm all for intensity and a high volume, but since I'm sprinting twice a week I probably should do around half or a third of what I planned too on my speed days.
The final thing was regarding whether I can do some leg work in the gym. I'd like too, and I'm probably going to throw in a few dynamic squats, for both power and a bit of light recovery in the middle of the week. I won't be doing it tonight though; I'm still too sore.
First speed workout.
I warmed up with some plyometrics, 4 sets of Jump Running, 4 sets of Lateral Jumps and 3 sets of Bounding. Went alright, my calves got pretty sore though.
I then did a few sprints:
When outlining any course of action, the most important aspect to nail down is why you are doing it. What is the purpose of what you are doing?
For the next three week I'm going to be working on my speed. I'm going to do this three ways; sprints for co-ordination and conditioning, pylometrics for power and weights work for maximum strength.
So I've got my plan for the next three weeks (21 Jan - 11 Feb).
M - Spirnts (speed) & Pylometrics
W - Gym
F - Speed (accl) & Pylo
On Monday I'll probably run at the track, doing 200, 100 and 50m sprints, focusing on my top speed. Friday I'll focus on shorter sprints, just getting up to top speed as fast as possible.
Pylometrics will be the same routine of:
I missed my run today, not too worried though. I'm going to both go to the gym and do my strength workout tomorrow, then run either after that, or on Sunday (21st).
After that, it's onto three weeks of pylometrics, sprints and power work in the gym.
I'm in Melbourne for the week but I'm keeping up my running. I'll be back in the gym on Saturday, a day late but I'm not too worried.
Anyway I managed a 20min run today, struggled a bit, mostly due to the heat here I think. A bit of a set back given how well my running as been going, but no worries.
Had my second strength workout of this part of the program:
GTD is an Internet phenomenon, with sites like 43 Folders, lifehack.org and Lifehacker all featuring it heavily.
I've played around with it before, but as I've never read the book it didn't work out too well. I liked what I saw though, and am going to give it a crack this year.
First off I need the book, which I'll try get in the next week. I'll then spend a month or so getting my personal GTD system ready, and then try do a 'clean install' when I start Uni on the 26th of Feb.
I'll track my progress here, and add it as a new principle on my reviews.
People, usually atheists, often use the many examples of violence and forceful behaviour that have plagued religion for centuries as a good argument against it. Sometimes members of one religion will just single out another religion, as often happens today with Christians and Islam.
Theists then point out the atrocities committed in the 20th century by atheist dictators, mostly Communist. It's a sufficient counter argument, but not a good argument at all. If we step back and look at the bigger picture, the truth becomes clear.
Totalitarianism (I won't call the regimes of Stalin and Mao et al communist) and religious institutions have one major idea in common; the idea of unfaltering belief in some piece of dogma. Religions it may be a holy book or holy man, totalitarianism it is usually the leader, perhaps some fuzzy concept like national strength or the common good.
It's this unfaltering dogmatic belief that really causes violence to occur. Dogma can't change; especially when it's bound in a book or is a single person. This unwillingness to change goes against a basic truth of life; change is constant.
When you get something that doesn't want to change coming up against the force of change, unrest and violence occurs. People who speak out against the leader are killed, new theories (weather scientific or equally dogmatic, like a competing religion) that contradict the dogma are and must be quashed violently in order for the institution to survive.
Another important point is based around the difference between what an institution stands for and what it actually does. Given the dogmatic nature of both totalitarianism and religion, it becomes easy for one person or a group of people to gain control.
It's patently obvious how this happens in a dictatorship, and is just as obvious when you look at an institution like the modern Catholic church, the early Christian church or even just your local church with it's one pastor, reverend or priest. The same goes for Mosques and Mullahs, the Synagogue and the Rabbi or the Buddhist Temple and it's head monk.
The ease at which a small group of people can control entire faiths or countries leads to them easily being corrupted; Marx never foresaw the gulag just like Jesus never preached about the Inquisition, and they or their teachings certainly shouldn't be blamed.
As we have seen, the actual systems in itself aren't really at fault. The Bible never killed anyone and the Communist Manifesto never enslaved millions. It's the dogmatic nature of both these systems that will always lead to violence.
At the end of the day, people either struggle to cope with their holy book being undermined by progress and lash out violently, or just use the institution as a vehicle for their own evil ways. People are the problem, weather ignorant or evil, but that shouldn't surprise us.
So I've been running.
On the 8th I did 20mins, on the 9th 10mins.
Pretty shit really, I'm quite unfit at the moment but I'm not stressing as I've got a bit of time to get it back. I'm having a few stops if I need it; I'm training for football so I don't really need to stress the constant pace thing.
I've just got an account at Flickr, and I'm uploading a few of my better shots. I've went digital with a Canon 300D a while back, but I've still got a drawrer full of slides to go along with a few albums of prints. Eventually I'm going to get it all in one place and backed up, until then though here is a small sample:
There is talk in the football world about Javier Mascherano, the Argentine midfielder joining Liverpool on loan.
I can understand why he'd want to leave West Ham, he hasn't even been making the bench for some games and they've lost every game he's played in. I can understand why he'd want to join Liverpool, because well, it's Liverpool. sdnasjld
But why Benetiz would want Mascherano, I can't figure out. Our midfield is already our strongest area in the squad (Gerrard, Alonso, Sissoko and Zenden can all play there) and from what I saw at the World Cup Mascherano is a central midfielder too.
There is talk that he may not even be eligible to move with the FIFA ruling that a player can't play for more than two clubs in a season (Corinthians and West Ham).
That put aside, I still cannot see the logic behind the move. He is a quality player, even with his torrid time at West Ham, but for my money he won't be coming to Anfield. A move to Juventus or Inter Milan would be more likely.
As for the transfer window in general, I think the chances of Peter Crouch moving to Newcastle are total bollocks. Crouchinhio will know that he has been given a gift with Liverpool, and that it's got him his England place. He owes too much to the club to want to leave, and I can't see Benetiz wanting to sell him either.
David Villa of Valencia is another name linked with Liverpool. He has been on top form in Spain, and if anyone was to come calling Benetiz would be the one Villa answered too. I still can't see this move coming off, what with Kyut, Crouch and Bellamy all in fine form. Furthermore after the failure of Morientes, I am a bit more hesitant of foreign imports.
I think Liverpool will be looking to strengthen the right side if anything, perhaps Dani Alves who was the original target over Jermaine Pennant. Even then, I wouldn't be surprised if Liverpool had a very quiet summer, the calm before the glory to come in May!
I'm probably going to rotate this with another full body workout I've got in the back of my mind. I'm doing this once a week, mainly for maintenence rather than actually to see major gains.
I was reading Erik Vossman's post on Google Analytics, so I decided to sign up. Exactly what it does, I'm not sure. I'm going to use it to replace Sitemeter, which has been good so far, but I don't really enjoy it. It looks like it's a pretty powerful tool, so hopefully it'll be useful in the future.
I found that in order to install it, you have to add in a piece of HTML code onto your site. If you're using blogger like me, it's eaisest to just add it as a page element in your template, rather than trying to edit the HTML like I did!
Went for my first run of my new programme (I'm not counting the one a week ago though).
I'm not really focusing on going quick, not stopping or distance, just on getting my heart and breathing rate up.
Anyway the run was 10 mins long, was quite good too. I felt quite comfortable.
Gym tomorrow, I've not yet decided on what I'll do there but my programme for the next two weeks will go something like:
I don't support the death penalty, whatever the crime, whoever the criminal. Seeing as Saddam Hussein was hanged just recently, it's a good time to explain why I will never support it. First I'll outline why I disagree with it generally, then in terms of Saddam.
The death penalty is supported for a variety of reasons, three main ones: 'eye for an eye', protection of society and preventing further crime via deterrence.
The 'eye for an eye attitude' is an ancient one, and not coincidentally barbaric. The idea of fairness is an idea that every human holds on a very primitive level; most complaints arise this way, especially in children (and the ignorant/socialists). I don't agree with the eye for an eye principle mainly because you lower yourself to their level by 'punishing' them for their crimes. Isn't it plainly ironic punishing a murderer by killing them?
Secondly is the idea that killing a criminal who has proved themselves dangerous protects society. It's true that a dead man can't kill again; it's also true that a man in prison for life can't either. Why go to the extreme of killing someone when we have a perfectly good alternative?
The last reason the death penalty is supported is the claim that further violent crimes will be prevented by making the penalties harsher. This claim is not supported by evidence, a study by William Bailey (1998) in Oklahoma found that the death penalty provided no deterrence for murder over the period it was in effect compared to when it wasn't. Indeed it found that murder increased after it was introduced.
The reason that people believe the deterrent effect is quite obviously that people won't risk being caught and killed, but they will risk it for life in prison. This seems logical, but the fact is many murders are in the heat of the moment, unplanned or committed by people who are willing to risk anything. People don't really sit down and think about killing another human.
However, the most important reason for not supporting the death penalty is the imperfection inherent in any justice system. Innocent people will be convicted, guilty people will go free. It's always going to happen.
With the death penalty, there is no turning back. You can't set a dead man free. You can release a man in prison for life. Here again evidence shows this, with 123 people being released on death row since 1973 in the United States. Until we have a perfect justice system, we cannot have a death penalty.
With regards to Saddam. The latter two arguments for the death penalty, protection and deterrence are easily rebutted in this case. It's unlikely Saddam would ever escape imprisonment, and even if he did it's preposterous that he would ever rise to power again. I also doubt that other dictators such as Kim Jong Il are going to be deterred from further totalitarianism after Saddam's execution.
Another point that doesn't really relate to any of the arguments relevant to the debate on the death penalty in general is the effect that Saddam's execution will have on Iraq. As I've said above, it will calm the fears of many Iraqis of Saddam coming back to power, however irrational that fear is. It also is likely to stir violence in the state, Saddam still had many supporters despite his atrocities. Even though the execution was ordered and performed by the Iraqi government, the feeling still will be that this was the United States meddling once again.
The third argument, the idea that the death penalty is a just punishment for heinous crimes, is a stronger one in this case. I hardly doubt Saddam was innocent; his atrocities are well documented and numerous. The question of wether a man should be punished for his crimes by another man, by death especially, is a moral one, which will be answered differently by everyone. Given in this case that his innocence is hardly in doubt, the only real dilemma is wether death is a suitable punishment.
I still do not support Saddam's execution, or murder, whatever term you want to use. He was a bad man, but aren't we for using his methods? The death penalty reeks of barbarianism, primitive emotions ruling the light of reason. The point of having principles like human rights is that they apply to all, not just the model citizen but the psychotic murderer too.
In fact it's the rights of the murderer that need protecting, not the common citizen. No one is going to trample the rights of John Doe.
So I've been at the beach for a few days over New Years, had a mint time catching up with all the boys on the piss. It was good to just relax, not worry about actually doing anything productive!
I was thinking about my bodywork plan as I was drinking beer and eat fish & chips, and as I always do I'm going to modify it a tad.
The basic principle behind my change is that I'm going to focus on two fitness ideas in a week, picking from speed/strength/power/endurance. That said: