Goals for 2012

[f4thpathway]

I'd love to know how I could POSSIBLY misinterpret this statement.


Not to get all weird and biological, but you do have to ask yourself what were the primary goals humans evolved to attain. The answer is rather simple: survival and reproduction. Scientists theorize that big tits, hips, etc. are a sign of fertility and thus why "attractive" women are more sought after as mates. They represent a better chance of reproduction.

Now, on the other hand, in terms of what might make a female choose a mate, evolutionarily speaking, lower body fat percentage and "attractiveness" might be an indicator of overall health. The value of size and strength are quite obvious. That said, you have to examine the situation in the context of a tribe. The males with the most mates were always the most socially powerful males. Humans, particularly women, very likely heavily relied on their tribe for survival. Males that did maintain high status in their tribes represented a threat to survival because they may be ousted at any time.

When you look at the phenomenon of "famous" people, whether they be ugly, poor, stupid, or generally socially inept, they have a bunch of people around them supplicating their every demand and wish. Women pick up on this matrix of behavior and it instantly makes that male attractive.

Of course, this is just a very, very brief theoretical musing, but it is the crux of why I honestly believe that displaying the characteristics of an "alpha male" is more important than any set of aesthetic criteria. I'm also hesitant to accept that looks are a very large part of what makes a given male "alpha" in his social world.

You still miss the point. It was stated several times between Joose and I. And you lack a knowledge of where Joose and i might draw our definition of the point. In its entirety. You require a certain book to ascertain it.

It has nothing to do with what you're going on about.

[Jonathan Vechet]

In the homo genus, the alpha male of today looks very different than he did 10,000 years ago; in what can be considered first world countries.

While the needs are essentially the same, the means to attain them have changed. And that's why a new age alpha male can be 5'10 140lbs.

[joosejpr]

You require a certain book to ascertain it.

A way with words, you have.

[Tom Narvaez]

You still miss the point. It was stated several times between Joose and I. And you lack a knowledge of where Joose and i might draw our definition of the point. In its entirety. You require a certain book to ascertain it.

It has nothing to do with what you're going on about.

I wasn't even talking to you in that post.

Frankly, I understood what you were saying perfectly well because this isn't the first time you have posted about it. You're assuming that because I talked about a variety of things that they were all meant to directly contradict you, which simply isn't true. Most of what I posted was an attempt to explain myself rather than, I reiterate, contradict you.

Said previous post:

Who cares what anyone else lifts or considers strong? How does that impact what you think or do?

Why consider powerlifting records to be a benchmark unless you strive to beat them or get paid to lift?

Where does the road end when chasing world records? What do world records mean to daily life?

You don't need to be uberelite to be considered strong. Just like you don't need a 4.3 40 to be considered fast.

Strength training is a process. A personal process. You don't need to transform yourself into a walking cocktail weenie one step away from a coronary to be considered strong.

Becoming stronger is the goal. The comparison game never ends. Even the cream of the crop debate validity.

Stupid.

[Tom Narvaez]

In the homo genus, the alpha male of today looks very different than he did 10,000 years ago; in what can be considered first world countries.

While the needs are essentially the same, the means to attain them have changed. And that's why a new age alpha male can be 5'10 140lbs.

I completely agree, but ten thousand years is, of course, not enough to completely change the biological programming of our species.

[PaulBeech]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogWu...e_gdata_player

200#2. I need to work on that sticking point.

[sking1001]

Nice job! If it is really easy, sometime I will take an extra set or two (on singles week). Just keep going till you can't! :-)

Thanks, Les. I wanted to, but I had to beg the last 2 guys in the gym to stay an extra couple of minutes to hold the boards. I had a different guy holding the boards for 280 and 290, but he left. I guess I could have done more by stuffing the boards down my shirt, but I also hate overloading like that without a spotter. Of course I am pretty sure I can get the bar to the bottom pegs on a failure. I also could have done that 300 for more than 1 rep also, but I was sticking to singles...maybe I should have repped it, but those guys were in a hurry to leave too.

I guess it's time to move to Sheboygan, eh?

[joosejpr]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogWu...e_gdata_player

200#2. I need to work on that sticking point.

Nice. Good push. Hilarious Soundtrack. No dead air. The spotter was a close call there, though. HEHE. Nice work, Paul.

[PaulBeech]

If you listen close you can hear me telling her to get away haha. She just pulled 225#3.

[Jonathan Vechet]

I completely agree, but ten thousand years is, of course, not enough to completely change the biological programming of our species.

Technology changed everything.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogWu...e_gdata_player

200#2. I need to work on that sticking point.

Yeah you do. And what joose said.