In those days there were giants in the land...

I am grieved to report that Professor James Ross of the University of Pennsylvania passed away July 12. Readers of FCA will most likely know how much Ross's work has influenced and instructed me, in particular his work on the immateriality of the intellect and cognitive voluntarism (e.g., in this post, this post and this post, among others).

This is UPenn's notice about Ross's demise and this is an obituary for him in the Philadelphia Inquirer. It was not until reading his obituary that I realized how rich his personal life was. It is also interesting, but not terribly surprising, that Ross was training to enter the priesthood in his youth, but ended up being married over half a century to his wife. His love for home repair and sailing fits perfectly with his style as a writer though I would like to know more about his obvious love for and adroitness in music.

I was fortunate enough to receive an email response from Prof. Ross after having written to him a while ago about my online work on his argument for the immateriality of the intellect. I seem to have an uncanny ability to get in contact with intellectual mentors only to see them pass away a few months later. First it was my meeting Fr. Jaki in January 2009 before he passed away in April and now Ross has gone a few months after replying to me. And let's not forget the coincidence of my entering the Catholic Church only to see John Paul II pass away about a month later. If you have any old intellectuals you'd like to world to be rid of, pass along an email or land adrdress and I'll try to buddy up with them.

Gym regimen - July 2010

Before I begin I want to sort something out. I call each workout "A1, A2, A3, A4" because the "A regimen" is what I'm doing my first month, based on this webpage ((the numbers I use indicate which muscle group(s) I do for that workout). The only reason I call it the "A" regimen is because I know I will adopt a different regimen in a couple weeks––variation and experimentation are key in any training––and in order to keep these routines clear in my mind and in my notes, I knew I had to set up an organization matrix from the get-go. Next month I will adopt Arnold's 4-day routine in The Education of a Bodybuilder. At some point I am sure I will devise my own regimen based on exercises I like or 'believe in' from the A and B regimens. I also know I will occasionally shock my muscles by to switching to one of my old bodyweight routines (basically to get a low weight, high rep pump). So that gives me four projected regimens to keep track of.

I also think at some point I may need to exclude the bar/handle from the weight data. But I like knowing much I am lifting "objectively," not just in terms of what goes on the bar/handle.

The point of this preface is that I may have falsely labeled some of my records in the past couple weeks, so, just to be on the same page with myself:

A1: Quads and Biceps

A2: Chest and Calves

A3: Hamstrings and Back

A4: Shoulders, Triceps and Deltoids

As for last evening… 

+++
15 July 2010
87kg BMI 25
A2: Chest and Calves, 90+ mins

Warmup: Jumping jacks 60x, Jump rope 2 mins, calisthenics/stretching

Cable crossover fly: 12x, 10x, 8x, 6x @ 32.5kg–45kg

Supine barbell fly: 12x, 10x, 8x, 6x @ 12kg–17.5kg

Incline bench press: 12x, 10x, 8x, 6x @ 50kg–70kg

Supine bench press: 12x, 10x, 8x, 6x @ 50kg–75kg

Seated calf raise: 21x, 25x, 25x, 25x @ 40kg–50kg

Single leg calf raise (each leg): 15x, 15x, 15x, 15x @ 12.5kg

Cooldown: Cable crossover: 20x @ 27.5kg; Dumbbell flyes: 20–30x @ 12kg; Incline dumbbell press: 20x @ 15kg; Dumbbell pullovers 15x @ 12kg; Seated calf raise 30x @ 40kg; Underhand wrist curls: 20x, 15x, 12x @ 47.5kg (to failure); Dumbbell pullovers 12x @ 15kg

I had some trouble with the incline and supine bench press. I usually begin with just the supine bench press and then do the other exercises, so reversing the order had me tired by the time I got to it. Plus, I have usually done three sets but now I'm doing four sets. So, once again, I must accept slow but steady gains while focusing on good form along the way. I've never been a strong bencher. I did the pullovers to stretch my chest as a whole and build the beloved serratus anterior. The beat goes on.

I struck upon the idea of making this chronicle into a book, titled The Bodybuilding of an Educator. The angle would be my experience as a foreigner in Taiwan breaking into bodybuilding and the target audience would be readers interested in expatriot 'reportage' or philosophical musings on exercise and life, or just people who might like an 'inspirational' memoir. Might I become the Friedrich Engels of bodybuilding?

Stay tuned!

Gym regimen - July 2010

14 July 2010
87kg, BMI: 25
"A1" workout: Biceps and Quads, 90 mins

Warmup: High-knees, lunges, jump rope, calisthenics/stretching... lots of stretching

Abs: Jump rope 2 mins, between each set
[Still taking it easy on the abs. I'm allowing my core to strengthen from the exercises themselves and, of course, jump rope!]

Leg extension: 12x @ 30kg, 10x @ 35kg, 10x @ 40kg, 8x @ 50kg

Decline leg press: 12x, 10x, 10-drop-8x, 6x @ 130kg-170kg
[10-drop-8x means that I did two reps at a higher weight and then did the last 8x at a lower weight. A drop set.]

Squat: 12x @ 60kg, 10x @ 70kg, 8x @ 80kg, 6x @ 85kg
[I did my best to squat deep, keep good form, inhale on the way down and exhale on the way up. Squats are one of the core exercise for BB, if not the core exercise, in many BBers' opinion, so I am content with small weight gains per set and per workout. I can tell shooting for the moon with squats is a recipe for hernias and ligament strain. Not a dish I care to eat, thank you.]

Barbell curl: 12x, 10x, 8x, 6x @ 27.5kg-45kg

Incline dumbbell curl (per arm): 12x, 10x, 8x, 6x @ 12.5kg-27.5kg (?)

Hammer/Underhand curl (per arm): 12x, 10x, 8x, 6x @ 12.5kg-27.5kg (?)

Cooldown: Leg extension: 30x @ 30kg; Decline leg press: 25x @ 100kg; Squat: 15x @ 40kg; Stretching

+++
I've lost some weight but I know I've also put on muscle, so I'm clearly burning off fat. Probably because the humidity has been very high lately, and because I worked big muscle groups, I sweat like a pig for this workout (last night). On my last, cooldown set of squats, for example, my pants were so wet they air was getting trapped in them as I squatted, making my pants puff out like when air bubbles (...or farts?) are caught in your swimming trunks in a pool. It's not at all uncommon for me to have a sweaty lower back even while driving my scooter or for the back of my head to remain sweaty most of the day. I also occasionally have mildly sweaty palms and I don't know how many times I've woken up from a nap or a night of sleep with my shirt collar and chest moist with sweat. None of this bothers me--I certainly don't think I have hyperhidrosis or a hormone imbalance--since I've lived almost my entire life in subtropical climates. Sweating is just what the body does to stay cool and my body has been conditioned to sweat as soon as the temperature differential gets slightly too high.

I had an interesting epiphany last weekend, though, while chatting with someone at one of my birthday dinners. (I like to use "my birthday" as an excuse for any healthy social interaction to catch up with old friends and don't really think my birthday spans four days. :chuckle:) I mentioned to a young lady that I pretty much always sweat during the summer (unless I'm in a well air-conditioned room or store, of course), drink "copious amounts of water" (hat tip to Tim!), and require a good hour after a workout to stop sweating and finally be cool again. She promptly replied, "Oh, that means you have a good metabolism." I was struck: how true! I have always known my metabolism is fairly high but I have never made the link between that fact and my tendency to sweat.

Once, when I was about 14, I tried sneaking up on my mom while she was working at her computer. She didn't see or hear me slither into the room, but when I was encroaching as closely as I could, she suddenly sat up and turned around to spot me. She said, "I didn't hear you sneak up but then I felt heat radiating on my neck." Another time, two or three years later, I was waiting in my friend's minivan to drive another student to crew practice. It was a rainy day, quite muggy, so we had the windows closed and the AC on medium. As the minutes passed, he said, "Wanna turn it down there, Mr. Furnace?" I looked at him quizzically. "I can feel you all the way over here, man, and look at your window." My window, as well as my half of the windshield, was fogged up while his side was not at all. So I guess I have a pretty high basal temperature, which may explain why I love cold weather so much. (I know, I know, if I love the cold, why have I lived mostly in subtropical environments? :shrug:)

And then there is my once-notorious appetite. In high school, I was known to eat two or three pounds of spaghetti at dinner, an entire large pizza at lunch, half a box of half cream in one evening, up to four Snickers bars in a day, a whole gallon of orange juice in a day or two, and so on. One of my nicknames was "the trash compactor." None of this was very "healthy," of course, nor unique to me--my friends, most of whom were also athletic, and I occasionally had "eating contests"--but ti does show my history of an accelerated metabolism. When I came to Taiwan, I quickly gained a reputation As I have gotten older, my appetite has shrunk a great deal and I try to eat 4-6 smaller meals per day since these days I find "being over-full" to be on the most unpleasant and cranky-making feelings possible. I also have ethical objections to heavy eating, since I think it's not only globally perverse but also spiritually craven. By globally perverse I mean it is degrading to people in less materially advanced nations for places like the USA to have eating contests. If bloggish sermonizing isn't your cup of tea, watch the SNL parody, "Who Wants to Eat?" I remember one day in college my roommates were watching an eating contest, on FOX, I believe, and when I saw the sushi-wrap event (how much of a giant 6- or 10-foot sushi roll could they eat in one or two minutes?), the Scripture that immediately sprung to mind was from Philippians 3:

17 Join with others in following my example, brothers, and take note of those who live according to the pattern we gave you. 18 For, as I have often told you before and now say again even with tears, many live as enemies of the cross of Christ. 19 Their destiny is destruction, their god is their stomach, and their glory is in their shame. Their mind is on earthly things. 20 But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, 21 who, by the power that enables him to bring everything under his control, will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body.

Notice how making the stomach into a god, and shameful pig-like gluttony into one's glory, is making oneself an enemy of the Cross. Notice also the emphasis in the latter verses on the bodily submission to and redemption by Christ. Christ does not merely "save our souls," but actually transforms our bodies. I have written before about the proper inseparability of "body and soul" in authentic Christian anthropology (e.g., here1 and here2 and here3 and here4), so I will not go on about it here[5!].

I don't like to chit-chat in the gym, but I also like to have some camaraderie there when I can find it. So, after my four sets and before my cooldown, "failure" set I got to know another English teacher a little better. We ended up getting into a small disquisition on why people go on living--and why people come to the gym. I know of a blogger who frankly admitted he often doesn't know why he goes on eating. Why live? He's a witty, intelligent fellow, but clearly he's missing something profound about reality. Existence itself is a good and even in the very act of 'questioning' our enduring existence, we prolong it. The curiosity to know 'why' we should go on living is itself the transcendent "bait" which propels us past that existential angst. This is why all philosophies based on despair and victimhood--namely, reincarnationist ethics and atheism--are parasitic on deeper, healthier wisdom based on the sheer goodness and gratuity of finite being. I go further by noting that Christianity is the only worldview which unequivocally says the world is good. Pantheism sees the world as an illusion to be overcome, Buddhism sees the self-in-the-world as a delusion to be purged, naturalism sees the world as morally and aesthetically neutral (and therefore not good), and atheism sees the world as a grave evil and the best proof against "absolute Good itself."

In any case, I noted in our little chat that, in many ways, we moderns aren't much different from our biological ancestors: we still spend the greater portion of our daily lives avoiding getting crushed or mangled, poisoned, or infected, finding food and drink when we're hungry and thirsty, and finding a way to make babies. These days such "evolutionary roots" are taken as arguments against human dignity, but the point is that human dignity consists in finding meaning and order in the lowliness of life itself. Had our ancestors--indeed, all previous organisms--not had a transcendent intuition of the goodness of enduring existence, none of us--none of this--would be here. If you can't enjoy obtaining food, finding rest, and furthering the species, then I would say you can't enjoy anything. The only difference between humans and other animals is that humans grasp how to propagate life in more than material ways. To find nourishment in the Body of Christ even while starving, to finding peace in the numinous love of God even while in prison or war, to protect truth and beauty themselves for their own good by passing on truth and beauty to the young even while never spawning children of your won--these are quintessentially human acts. If our culture could regain the humble simplicity of "the art of living" I venture that the Gospel qua "the art of living forever" would not seem so strange after all. Yet it will always be a scandal to natural humans insofar as it perpetually calls for the subjugation of those daily exigencies to the eternal exigencies of knowing and loving the Good, despite what it may cost us in the "here and now."

Readers may recall that I recently wrote about how my fitness regimen is tied up with my ongoing efforts to deepen and revitalize my spiritual life (i.e., here1 and here2). It seems I am not the only Catholic who defends the spiritual utility of BB (bodybuilding) for the spiritual life. I am hoping to purchase Kevin Vost's Fit for Eternal Life and see how it can help in my quirky theosis.

But I digress.

To be brief, the sense I make of my sweating and my metabolism is this: When we exercise, we break down proteins, which releases amino acids (out of which proteins are built). In the process of "deamination" the amino group is released and the carboxyl group is used to make carbohydrates for fuel. Meanwhile, the nitrogen (in ammonia) in the amino groups gets sweated out. So I believe there is a direct link between metabolism and sweat, insofar as metabolism is effectively the breakdown of proteins, a breakdown which is accelerated during heavy exercise.


Since I didn't work my chest last week, I will do my "A2" workout tonight and move the "A3" Quads/Back workout to Saturday. Stay tuned.

Gym regimen - July 2010

11 July 2010
87kg, BMI 25
"A4" workout: Traps, Tris & Shoulders: 100 mins (?)

Warmup: 60 jumping jacks and calisthenics/stretching... lots of stretching

Barbell shoulder press: 12x, 10x, 8x, 6x @ 40kg-60kg

Dumbbell upright row (dumbbell weight per arm): 12x, 10x, 10x, 8x @ 15kg-24kg (?)

Prone reverse fly (weight for each arm): 12x, 10x, 8x, 6x @ 12.5kg-20kg (?)

Shrug: 12x, 10x, 8x, 6x @ 50kg-110kg
[A guy at the gym helped me a lot with shrugs. It seems I have been doing way too little weight, which explains why shrugs felt so... unimpressive, so unchallenging. He said big guys commonly do twice their bodyweight, which is why he had me use the hip-high bar rest: just grab with a wide grip and shrug high and hold.]

Behind the head triceps raise: 12x, 10x, 8x, 6x @ 15kg-24kg (?)

Lying triceps extension (EZ barbell): 12x, 10x, 8x, 6x @ 20kg-27.5kg (?)

Rope triceps extension: 12x @ 20kg, 10x @ 20kg, 8x @ 25kg, 6x @ 25kg

Cooldown: Underhand tri pulldown: to pump/failure; Rear delt cable flye: to pump/flye; High rope row ("Split face rope row"): to pump/failure
[These are new exercises my friend showed me to work more of the body of these muscles and I was just getting to know the form and feel of them. I like them, hope to incorporate them into future workouts.]

+++

My notes on this workout are hazy, since it was my birthday last Friday and I had a lot of social activity all weekend. Plus I took my Macbook to the shop for a new hard drive and OS, so I didn't have a chance to work on the computer much. I now run OS Leopard, the chief benefit of which is that I can now type Chinese at a normal, efficient rate!

You'll notice I've also switched to noting only the range of weights used over the sets, since it's too much of a hassle to remember each weight per set. I think I will make a primitive spreadsheet in a folder to use at the gym. Each sheet will be for a workout (e.g., Tris and traps, Quads and bis, etc.), and each column will name a type of exercise. The rows will be blank so I can in the date of the workout and in the lattice formed by the columns and rows I will write what the weight was for that workout. Each row must have at least four smaller rows within it for the sets. Enthralling, I'm sure.

I felt pretty good for this workout, but once again I see I must rein in my bad habit of wanting to go for just... a little... more... weight... at the expense of pristine form. The key with the tri raises is to keep the elbows parallel and very close to your head, always letting only the forearm move. I see my friend's point about behind-the-head raises not being very "ergogenic," which is why I will switch to the underhand cable pulldown.

Ut unum sint!

I've been perusing some fascinating reports from a recent conference at Fordham University, entitled "Orthodox Constructions of the West". I got the leads from Dr. Liccione, who, unfortunately, could not attend. Eirenikon is posting reports by Michaël de Verteuil and so far I've perused part 1 and part 2.

Verteuil's Report 1 deals with "Fr. Taft’s opening address," which, Verteuil notes, "proved hard to bear for some of the Orthodox attendees but, as one of them put at lunch to the agreement of his fellow Orthodox at the table, Fr. Taft has pretty well earned to right to say whatever he wants." In the following excerpt, I have bolded what I find most intriguing:

...Fr. Taft, introduced as the world’s foremost expert on the history of the Byzantine liturgy with over 800 publications to his credit, noted that the Catholic-Orthodox dialogue remained on track..., but offered two grounds for disillusion: the field remained the preserve of theologians and hierarchs and needed to be pursued more at the grassroots level, and the process continued to be plagued by failure to accept and confront respective responsibility for “a dolorous past.” ...

Orthodoxy needed to undertake its own examination of conscience and adopt a less polemic view of history. Fr. Taft noted, for example, that the Catholic apology for past sins against the unity of the Church was met largely with indifference, with Russian and Greek bishops even averring that Orthodoxy, for its part, had nothing to apologize for never having resorted to uniatism or used the secular arm to impose its will or oppress the conscience of others.... Orthodox forms of “uniatism” had been manifest with respect to an Assyrian “Orthodox” Church under Russian auspices in the interwar period and could be found even today in the existence of “Western rite Orthodoxy”. ...

Fairness required recognition that differences that were already in play in the first millennium should be accepted as valid, as the magisterium would otherwise be contradicting itself in having once accepted what to some was now unacceptable. Both the Western and Eastern fathers had to be incorporated in any review of our respective theologies. Misrepresentation had to be avoided, and he offered two examples. Orthodox critics still tended to treat scholastic theology as “the” rather than “a” Western theological framework. Similarly, Neo-Palamite efforts to treat existing differences as having been dogmatized should be resisted. ...

During the subsequent question period, Fr. Taft acknowledged that the autocratic model of Roman primacy had never been accepted in the East. He also noted, however, that there was no evidence the West had ever for its part recognized the Pentarchy and thus autocephally as the Church’s organizing principle. The way forward thus probably lay in a synthesis rather than in the imposition of one or the other model. Fr. Taft also stressed the primacy of saving souls over the strict application of abstract ecclesiological principles that were, in any case, not universally respected by either side.

In the last paragraph cited, Fr. Taft's claim that the pre-Schism West had not clearly, much less dogmatically, accepted the Pentarchy as the normative ecclesiology, is of the utmost importance in this dialogue. To oversimplify things to an obscene but hopefully forgivable level, on Orthodox premises, only that which is accepted at a valid ecumenical council by the whole Church in union, is in fact binding for the whole Church in union. The Pentarchy was the union of the five patriarchs in Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, and in contemporary Eastern Orthodoxy, the "remaining" four patriarchates are seen as the guiding 'magisterium' for the Church. Fr. Taft's point, however, is that, since the "Pentarchy ecclesiology" was not formally ratified by the Pentarchy itself (i.e. by Rome, at least), it has, in Orthodox terms, no binding power as an absolute refutation of Roman supremacy. Had the Pentarchy been dogmatically promulgated before the Schism, Rome would indeed be guilty of blatant heresy and schism for defying that ecclesiology and breaking union with the Church Pentarchical. As it stands, however, Orthodox appeals to the authority of pre-Schism pentarchical ecclesiology lack the probative force required to denounce Roman supremacy as heresy simpliciter.

Verteuil's Report 2 covers Dr. Kolbaba's lecture on the historical context and origins of "the Schism." Verteuil reports that Kolbaba

...set out to explain not so much why the schism occurred, but why it occurred when it did in the latter half of the 11th century. Specifically, she sought to answer this question in such a way as to avoid a deterministic view of history which treats critical events in retrospect as if they were somehow inevitable. What made the timing of the schism so difficult to explain, in her view, was that it followed on a long period of generally good relations between East and West. The 9th century dust-up between Rome on one hand, and Constantinople in the person of Photius on the other was widely seen in retrospect in the 10th century as an aberration. ...

All the factors that were later offered up to justify the schism (the papal claims, the filioque, as well as liturgical and disciplinary differences) were of long standing and were known in the 10th century, though they were not yet seen at the time as obstacles to communion. ...

Rome was still viewed positively in the 10th century for its earlier role in resisting iconoclasm, and the West was correspondingly not then perceived as a source of heresy. Despite the 9th century controversy over the filioque, Dr. Kolbaba noted that a comprehensive review of extant documents has yielded not a single Greek treatise against the interpolation that can be traced unambiguously to the 10th century, a lacuna all the more remarkable as one would in later times be expected (she observed half jokingly) to write at least two before being taken seriously as an Orthodox theologian [For a theological nerd, this is quite a knee-slapper!]. Furthermore, works condemning typically Western liturgical practices which would characterize Orthodox polemics in later centuries had yet to be written. So what changed in the 11th century? ...

The Gregorian reforms in the 11th century were to usher in a harder Western line on clerical celibacy and independence from secular authorities, as well as on the Papal claims; but Dr. Kolbaba argued that it was the East rather than the West that was ultimately to pick fault with the other, and that it was in the East that we should look for the key developments that would leading to a change in attitude that in turn would make the schism possible. Specifically and perhaps surprisingly she pointed to the substantial improvement in the Byzantine military situation along the empire’s eastern and southeastern frontier in the late 10th and early 11th centuries as the key underlying game changer.

Territorial contraction in earlier centuries and the struggle against iconoclasm had resulted in a more homogenous Greek-speaking and liturgically Byzantine empire. These features were to become, for courtly and religious elites based in Constantinople, the empire’s defining attributes any weakening of which could be seen as posing an existential threat to its survival.

In a nutshell, I take Dr. Kolbaba's "takeaway point" to be that schism is what you make it. The "reasons" for schism, like the reasons for divorce, are more often than not ex post facto rationalizations for what is already a refusal to let chairty overrule judgment and autonomy. That's good news, since if schism is what we make it, then reunion is also what we make it.

I will probably have more to report on this conference, as the reports emerge at Eirenikon, and once I peruse Dr. Peter Gilbert's reports on the conference as well. I have written before about Fr. Taft and Orthodox-Catholic relations, so feel free to search FCA's archives for more data.

Gym regimen - July 2010

[UPDATE, 9 July 2010:

http://orthopedics.about.com/cs/sprainsaastrains/a/abdominal.htm

Abdominal muscle strains are graded according to the severity of the injury:

Grade I (Mild): Mild discomfort, often no disability. Usually does not limit activity.

Grade II (Moderate): Moderate discomfort, can limit ability to perform activities such as crunches or twisting movements.

Grade III (Severe): Severe injury that can cause pain with normal activities. Often patients complain of muscle spasm and bruising.

What is the treatment for a pulled abdominal muscle?

Treatment of abdominal muscle injuries is difficult--there is no way to splint the abdomen and it is nearly impossible to fully rest these muscles. That said, the most important step after sustaining an abdominal muscle strain is to allow the muscle to cool down and allow the inflammation to subside. Avoiding exercise to allow the injured muscle to heal is important. Activities that cause pain or spasm of the abdominal muscles should be avoided.

Gentle stretching is helpful, but it should not be painful. Stretching excessively can be harmful, and slow the healing process. Apply ice to the injured area in the acute phase (first 48 hours after injury), and then after activities. Before activities, gentle heating can help to loosen the muscle.

So it looks like I've got a high Grade I strain in my lower rectus abdominis and my moratorium on all ab exercises seems spot-on. I wouldn't call it a Grade II strain, in this schema, at least, since I can still do crunches, though doing so would be phenomenally stupid––hence, I'm not doing them! I might ice my abs tonight after tutoring. I will also keep the weight light this Sunday for my shoulders, traps, and triceps workout. … As you were.]

8 July 2010
88kg, BMI 25
"A3" workout: Hamstrings and Back: 90 mins

Warmup: 60 jumping jacks, jump rope 3 mins, stretching/calisthenics

Abs: Incline curls 30x

Straight leg deadlift: 12x @ 50kg, 10x @ 55kg, 8x @ 60kg, 6x @ 70kg

Leg curl: 12x @ 25kg, 10x @ 30kg, 12x @ 25kg, 12x @ 25kg

Underhand barbell row: 12x @ 40kg, 10x @ 45kg, 8x @ 50kg, 6x @ 65kg [?]

Wide-grip lever lat pulldown: 12x @ 55kg, 10 x@ 60kg, 8x @ 65kg, 8x @ 70kg [?]

One-arm dumbbell row: 12x @ 12.5kg, 10x @ 18kg, 10x @ 22kg, 6x @ 27kg [?]

Wide-grip cable row & Lever bench row: [cable] 12x @ 72.5kg & [lever] 12x @ 55kg, [lever] 10x @ 55kg, [lever] 8x @ 60kg, 6x @ 70kg, [cable] 12x @ 120kg

Wide-grip lat pulldown: 8x @ 80kg [after last set of cable row]

Cooldown: Stretching, lots of stretching.

+++
Notice anything? A lot of "[?]" in these notes and, for the really keen, my weight not only did not pyramid very much but in fact dropped from last week. This may be partially due to the fact that I might have miscalculated the weights last week, but assuming I didn't, the real reason is that my regimen is catching up with me. I'm still completely in the foundation-laying phase, so I can't expect many quick or impressive gains right now––least of after just a couple weeks! So, today was a very humbling workout. I'm tired. I've got a long way to go. I need to eat the unleavened bread of patience and get plenty of rest.

Especially troubling during this workout was the mild hernia-like strain I felt in my low rectus abdominis. Good for me, it's not in my inguinal canal and there is no bulging, swelling or acute pain, so it doesn't count as a real hernia nor even a hernia-in-the-making. It's just some natural strain after more than a week of daily abdominal training. To be safe, I'm implementing a week-long moratorium on all direct ab exercises. Fortunately, I've got Friday as a rest day and will probably take Saturday off as well, for a few reasons. First, tomorrow (Friday) is my birthday and I will have a little dinner celebration with some friends on Saturday, so I might as well give my body a celebratory break too. Second, I'll swap my "A4" workout (triceps and shoulders), which I normally do on Saturday, to Sunday and just not do my A3 workout (chest and calves) till next Saturday. This will give my abs a chance to recover on Friday and Saturday, not get much strain on Sunday, and will also let my right pec rest. Monday and Tuesday are my off days, so I will probably only do jump rope and grip training. Above all, I must keep telling myself: SLOW AND STEADY. DON'T FOLD A STUPID INJURY INTO YOUR FOUNDATION. THIS IS NOT AN EGO TRIP (otherwise it be a an ego trip-and-fall).

It goes without saying that my "idle time", which I usually fill with reading and surfing the Net, is less now that I'm putting in 400–500 minutes a week into exercise. But I've noticed something interesting about my reading now that I have less "raw time" to "just read." I find myself reading more quickly and casually, not feeling that usual urge to mark a quotation or underline a key point. A sign of my ultimate intellectual degradation? Perhaps, but not likely. Rather, I take it as one step closer to the kind of learning I've tried to attain for years now, namely, to read for leisure and retain what actually sticks with you and then to invest serious note-taking and analytic scrutiny only to books or articles that tie in directly to my chief areas of scholarship: cognitive science, embodied cognition, the history of science, philosophy of mind, philosophical anthropology, and sacramental metaphysics. Sounds absurdly broad and abstruse, perhaps, but they actually all tie together fairly neatly in my head. I've been reading Leo Strauss's Natural Right and History for the past few weeks and, while I find it illuminating, clear, and very well researched, I also see little reason to take copious notes from it, since, if I engage it again in grad school, I will seriously engage it in grad school. Otherwise, it's just a good resource to supply me with good data about social philosophy and ethics in history. By just reading it, without getting caught up in note-taking, I can get a better, more fluid feel for the book as a whole, which actually makes its content "stick" better than meticulous annotations might do. (Might it have something to do with sports-based neurogenesis!) I guess the foregoing is just meant to say, Don't worry, I'm not giving up on learning or scholarship!